​

I consider myself an equal to my husband. I've always been kind, caring and nice to him, because I'm glad to see him happy and he responds in kind. This began more than 20 years ago, when I didn't know about the red pill. It was well into my relationship that I learned my husband was an alpha.

You don't need to be submissive as long as you are kind, caring and reasonable. I think many people have been raised with such ballistic ideas or in such a toxic, fighting "my way or the highway" environment that they need to go to the other extreme to get in touch with their nurturing and caring feminine side.

You can skip the submission. My husband and I talk things out, and I listen to him when he's right. Because that's the reasonable thing to do. If you cannot admit when you are wrong, don't listen to advice or good reason because it pisses you off, and only realize the error of your ways after the anger has subsided, then going submissive for a few months may help you with that. But if you're already the reasonable kind of person that listens to advice or good reason, there's no need to submit, just be nice, kind and caring. It's super easy to make a man happy, and an honest man that's happy home stays there and gives back as much as he can.

I see it as he is the CEO. I'm the managing director ???? I decide what needs to be done and do all the leg work, he gives me a yes or no. *usually a yes.

One thing that doesn't get enough attention in RP is the balancing of responsibility and authority. Modern society is borked in how it balances these; it tries to give women all the authority and men all the responsibility, and it frustrates everybody because this isn't healthy or functional.

RPW encourages a submissive behavior on the woman's part, but what it really does is refocus women on balancing out the responsibility and authority in a relationship. Example: let him be responsible for finances - and have authority over them, too (no backseat driving).

I'm having a hard time understanding how the RP perspective fits in a relationship with equal power dynamics

You're using BP framing, and that's part of your trouble. Power ISN'T equal between men and women. It can't be. Each person will specialize in certain areas. Now, this does NOT automatically mean that man = office, woman = kitchen/babies, though many women do prefer this dynamic. But it does mean that you must balance out who does what, and make who is RESPONSIBLE for what be equal.

Common example: don't bitch at him at how he loads the dishwasher. If it's his responsibility to do it, then he has authority to do it. If you don't like it, you do it - but you can't resent him for it if you take it on. You either have BOTH the authority AND the responsibility for a task in the relationship, or you have NEITHER.

When this is unbalanced, you have relationship strife.

My relationship is equal even though I am submissive. I trust my SO to make decisions and lead me and my opinions and thoughts on the matter are always considered. Submissive isn't a bad word, we talk about our finances and our budget but hes the one who takes control of it, paying bills and rent on time etc Its not necessary for me and him to both do the same thing, with him worrying about money it allows me to worry about other things.

> I'm having a hard time understanding how the RP perspective fits in a relationship with equal power dynamics because so much of the advice is framed around submission.

I think one of the primary points of the Red Pill is that there can't truly be "equal power dynamics." The idea of the captain/first mate structure is that you can't have two captains. When push comes to shove, someone is going to get the final say. I would say that literally every single relationship I've seen, in which the woman insists there is an "equal power dynamic," she 100% wears the pants... because somebody has to or you're always fighting for dominance and you're both exhausted and frustrated. The reason RP places so much emphasis on submission is because most women don't want all of the decision-making responsibility. You see it all over Facebook, in posts about how a husband is just another child. Often, women want a family leader and they aren't interested in the job. Personally, I think the only other available structure is one where the woman is in charge, because I don't think it's realistic to trade off. Someone's going to get their way when things come to a head.

There is no such thing as an "equal power dynamics" relationship. It's not sustainable in the long-term. The closest I can see is post-divorce when I'm drafting shared parenting plans for my clients and we say, "Dad gets to have final decision-making authority over these 3 areas, and Mom gets final decision-making authority over those 3 areas." At that point, they feel like they have equal authority over their children, but (1) this only actually works in divorce, and (2) it's not actually equal authority - it's 100% authority, but divided by category. Plus, each person weighs each category differently, so you can't really compare them that way in the first place.

The fact that you want "equal power" says a lot about your frame of reference. You still hold onto a fantasy that another model can work on a large scale. It can't. That's why as soon as egalitarianism was introduced into modern marriages the divorce rate skyrocketed. There are a few exceptions, but it's usually because they have something else going for them beyond their power structure. That is, the power structure isn't why these exceptions are successful - they're successful despite their power structure.

I'm also fairly new to this, but I'm pretty sure submission is central to RP philosophy. An alternative just wouldn't be RP. If you're really bothered by the concept it just might be that you're still looking at it through a leftist/feminist lens. There is nothing inherently less valuable in being the "first mate" in the relationship. Your contributions are equally valid, the dynamic is just better suited to our strengths as women. Men are their best selves when they are able to lead and protect, and I personally feel that I am happiest and most secure when I am in a more supportive role. There's heaps of evolutionary biology behind this concept. Denigrating traditional femininity/submission and regarding it as weak and dispensable is a feminist take, and ironically a rather sexist one I feel.

If you haven't read The Surrendered Single or Surrendered Wife, I would absolutely recommend both as an intro to the power and worth of submission in a relationship context.

You can be co-captains, idk if that's a thing, but you should still respect your husband's decisions. What makes women nagging shrews is not respecting their husbands opinion or abilities which translates to a man as you not trusting him. So, if he makes a decision you trust him completely and if you make a decision he trusts you completely.

So for example your department would be everything finance, from paying bills to taxes. He will trust you completely in that and it will be your thing.

Maybe he will arrange all the family vacations and you will trust him with that and don't "advice" on what hotel you should go to or whatever.

That could be a great relationship which is not necessary a 100% red pill but you won't be a nagging and horrible wife.

Submission mean he has more power because he make the decisions.

Submission mean she has more power because she make him handle responsabilities and the mental load.

Captain/FM is the most commonly suggested model because it's the one that fits in best with current culture. Calling yourself "first mate" still gives you lots of agency, and is almost equivalent to captain at some times (eg Commander Riker could have had his own ship but preferred to be with Captain Picard ;) </trekkie>)

Other models would have a much higher imbalance of power. Think of a 50s housewife, who would wear what her husband wanted and cook what he wanted and do things how he wanted. Or, even more significantly imbalanced, think of women in Saudi Arabia who, up until recently, weren't able to drive on their own. On a contemporary level, there are absolutely couples in 24/7 Master/Slave relationships, which, if the Master is male, would fit in with RP philosophy (despite ostensibly being sexual in nature).

The main thing that makes these structures RP is that a) power is not spread exactly equally, and b) the man is in the position of higher power. How that's expressed will depend on the couple and the culture.