If this is the wrong sub for this, please let me know and I will take it over to RP proper or something. And while this discussion does pertain to my own situation, I'm not soliciting advice, so I'd rather speak theoretically.

As a woman, do you think it's possible to accept RP theory and accept that the unequal dynamic is both natural and necessary for stable male/female relationships, while simultaneously rejecting it in practice?

To put some perspective on this, I know RP is geared towards male/female relationships and the dichotomy of the male and female psyches, but I've always viewed masculine and feminine traits as existing on more of a spectrum. Beta males are a good example of this, I think, as I perceive them as wanting to fulfill that dominant role but not having enough masculine energy to do so. If you agree with me there, do you think there is an equivalent on the opposite side of the spectrum to a beta male? As in, a female who innately wants to submit to masculine energy, but might possess just a tad too much of it herself, and therefore be unable to settle into that role?

The above is honestly what I believe, and I don't think it comes down to just innate predisposition either. I think just as men are being socialized to be betas, females have been socialized to become more masculine in their thinking, and it causes problems.

I will break my own rule from above and get personal for a second. I believe in RP theory. Three years ago I might not have been able to tell you what "red pill" meant, but I have always known that there was something innately different in the way that men and women tend to approach the world, and each other, and that those differences actually made our relationships stronger and better. I have always somehow known that women are not quite "equal" to men, and that fighting this can be the source of alot of grief and repressed frustration for women.

But going back to my example of the "beta female" (and I'm using that to mean the female with some masculine psychological traits), even if RP is right, what good does it do her if she knows it's not the type of relationship she can be sustainably content with? What about the woman who's just a little too ambitious, too individualistic, and not in a "my husband supports my goal of continuing school and having my own successful career", but a woman who (on some levels) wants to be HoH and can't really settle for anything less?

My theory is that this is the reason so many successful powerful women never marry, or marry and divorce. I think (just about) all women innately want to follow, but I also think a subset of women also want to lead, due to a combination of pre-wiring and socialization, and that those two drives fight with each other and nobody wins. They'll never be totally happy in the male role, but they'll never be totally content in the female one.

As far as I see it, these kinds of women have three options: 1) Try to marry an "equal partner", which RP theory states will not result in harmony. 2) Marry someone who is more submissive. There are no shortage of beta males willing to be passengers on a more dominant woman's drive through life. But I don't think this ultimately serves anyone's best interests, because just as even a more masculine woman will feel a natural revulsion towards male weakness, I think almost all men at least have an innate desire to be dominant. 3) Be alone.

So to anyone who stuck that out, thanks for listening to me. My question now is, do you agree with my assessment? If not, I'd love to hear why not. And if you agree, what, if anything, is the solution?

Thanks for your time.