I think you'll find that's a pretty 1950s-throwback, stereotypical view of "what women want," which is not a set, definable thing, as I think should be readily apparent. People are different and complex. I'm a little bit surprised that this is how narrow your view of women is in this day and age, but maybe hanging out here, where there is considerable diversity, will help expand your understanding a bit. (Welcome—I don't know if you've been lurking before now, but your account is one day old so I'm assuming you aren't super familiar with all of the shared contexts of what gets talked about here yet. What you're essentially saying, as I interpret it, is that you assume that there's only one way for women to be, and the thing is, on this sub, we acknowledge that one can be "gender non-conforming" (and not trapped inside silly old stereotypes) without declaring one is another gender—without declaring any gender identity at all—without dysphoria, without denying one's biological sex, and without wanting to alter one's body. This means we have to accept that people are as they are without any of those additives. This means we have to have a much broader view than the one above. Otherwise this much more closely matches a TRA stance on women: They are the ones trying to drag us all back to a past in which this sort of assumption was also an enforced expectation. (Else you're trans.)