I found #3 to be shocking. I don't think I've heard that argument. But I can see complementarians saying that.
Maybe not in those exact words, but I've heard the idea that if one of you doesn't have the right to make the decision, then too often if you disagree you'll be stuck at an impasse, that kind of thing.
It's like they have no idea that there are many ways to resolve disagreements, and many models for shared decision making, and we don't all have to default to some sort of quasi-military hierarchy in order to get things done.
I struggle with #2 myself. Maybe it's who I am as a person. I think women should stay home with their children and home school them. If I had children, I would do that too (if I was able to).
Everyone is different. If that's what one woman is gifted for, and feels called to, all power to her elbow. Other women have other gifts and callings. (Some children thrive being home schooled, for some children it's a disaster).
I cannot, for one second, find it convincing that it's genuinely egalitarian to deny the callings and gifts of women, to try to shove us all into the one domestic role. I might be able to buy it as an egalitarian argument, if it was put as, one
parent should stay home with their children (and the couple can decide which parent based on the strengths and needs of each etc). But somehow, it's never put that way.
It's false, and a cheap shot, but it's incredibly common. The idea that if we don't agree with a particular interpretation of Scripture, we must be wilfullly disobedient, rebellious, and ignoring Scripture, is something that gets thrown around all the time (and in fact is why this particular forum exists, because at one time wider CF was so overrun with that, we lobbied hard to have one space free of it!)