I am sick of some of the stuff that the feminist view proposes with no logic behind them (which actually nearly brainwashed me). So here are my rebuttal to two common ones that I saw.

(1) Career focused women often say: "love should not be about sacrificing. It should be about both parties benefiting from each other and growing in career together. A woman should be free to do whatever she wants, not constrained by a man's desire to make her focus more on the family."

  • Love is about sacrifices. Actually doing anything is about sacrifices. Think about if you start a business - you are sacrificing a lot of money, time and a risk-free life. You simply cannot expect to spend lazy weekends with a family, if your career priority is something like this.
  • Most men do not care that much about a woman's career progression, as long as she does not sit on her bum all day. Actually from a man's point of view, a feminine wife who is family centered is often more beneficial. So whoever says "mutually beneficial" is really only consider their own benefits, and is entirely ignoring the benefits of most men - hamster wheel much?
  • You are free to do whatever you want to do, but be prepared for the consequences, which brings me to the next point.

(2) Often someone who believes firmly in (1) will find it difficult to date someone they want, so they will utter the following bullshit to shift the blame: "It is rare to find a man that is man enough to appreciate us intelligent, hardworking and career-focused woman".

  • This makes it sound like if a man is man enough, he should find such a woman. But the truth is men do not date a woman like this not because he is not man enough, but because he has no need for someone like this. Why not find a feminine woman who complements my life better? This is like saying to someone: "If you are truly rich, you should buy a Porsche." But why would a rich person just go buy a Porsche, if he has no need for it? He has a well-functioning car that does not require high maintenance, and he could spend that money on nice holidays or pursuing something he really enjoys.

  • There are actually plenty of beta males, and losers, who will appreciate a woman like this. After all, one does not need to by very manly to appreciate a woman, not a prerequisite at all. Of course this is ignored by a feminist. What they are really saying is why wouldn't an alpha male who is very successful, funny, charming and handsome, appreciate someone like me?

  • There are those who will appreciate and date woman like this, and we see examples of them. But most of them are in a comfortable place so that they can sort of cruise through life at that point. They probably worked their asses off to get there and kudos to them. But not everyone is in that place. If you are not cruising (which I think is a waste of your talent and resources), like if you are trying to build a business, or make the next big jump, or transform your industry with some new idea, you will find it hard to date someone like this.

As an additional thought experiment, my theory on why a strong man + strong woman combination is not very stable and ideal is this: we evolved by natural selection, and if such a combination really works well, as many feminists believe, then they will out-rank other combinations by far (alpha male + beta female and beta male + alpha female). So they would dominate the gene pool pretty quickly and all the beta male or female will die out in generations. But this is clearly not true, so perhaps there is a reason for the status quo?