Reading threads of people arguing back and for about their relationship dynamics, it struck me how much the argument was purely about how everybody perceives their relationship, the conversation was devoid of any examples of this dynamic in action.

Its seems the relationships of most posters who claim to have such a dynamic are entirely normal and this hierarchy exists entirely in their heads. Such men when questioned will often emphasize how pivotal their partner is in making decisions, how highly they regard their partner, etc. The role they claim to have is possessing veto or final decision rights, a privilege that is exercised rarely... if ever.

This school of thought seems more about cultivating a particular mentality in people, primarily making men feel important which is how they desperately want to feel and for women to feel attraction and respect they wouldn't feel if they based on real, tangible qualities if they didn't make special effort to modify their perceptions in this manner.

Likewise, it seems doubtful that posters who claim to have egalitarian relationships are employing some democratic process every time a decision is made, that work is being allocated fairly all the time, etc. Stating one's relationship is egalitarian seems to be more about maintaining the perception that everybody is being treated fairly and having their needs met, that every part is equally important.

It seems most people live in tight loops where few real decisions are made, and most arguments stem from miscommunication rather than the allocation executive power. Either way, I think its important for most posters to realize that most relationships that have lasted a certain period of time are imperfectly functional, and that red pill men who claim to have executive power are painting an appealing picture for themselves, and those who claim to have egalitarian relationships are doing the same. These relationships probably function the exact same way in real life.