Powell's argument basically parrots what the other Red Pills say: that complimentary gender relations are a recent innovation; while their cult is 'restoring' Male Supremacy. There never was in history Male Supremacist cultures---that is a Feminist herstory revisionist myth. Because the Feminists refer to historical epochs antecedent to their own as 'The Patriarchy'; the Red Pills ignorantly assume the same position and hold up anti-male Feminist stereotypes as some kind of Golden Age.
The Feminist ideology is based on Marxist philosophy. The Marxists believe that history is series of class struggles between the powerful and the powerless. When Feminists speak of 'empowerment' they actually mean that women en masse overthrowing the non-existing vast male conspiracy to hold power. The so-called ideological battles between the Red Pills and Feminists boil down to one group fighting to restore what never was against another fighting to replace what doesn't exist.
Thus Powell tells us, "Christian Complementarianism got started in 1987 with the Danvers Statement". It's actually been around a lot longer. Father Vincent Serpa of the Catholic Answers Ministry wrote in 2011: "The Catholic view is that men and women are equal in the sight of God. In marriage, each is to sacrifice himself or herself for the other. They are to build a family together through cooperation with each other and with mutual respect."
Father Serpa's answer is from the Catechism, which also reflects the opinion of the Scholastics. Aquinas wrote that "It was right for woman to be made from the rib of a man. First, to signify the social union of man and woman; for a woman should not dominate a man and thus she was not made from his head, nor is right for her to be subject to a man's contempt and be his slave and thus she was not nade from his feet." (Sum. Theol. xcii:3).
But going back to the Danvers Statement, Powell takes issue, naturally, with the phrase that women should engage in "intelligent, willful submission". This, to his mind, affords women far too much power. Now, in reality, women make an intelligent choice and submit to a man of her own free will. From the female perspective, that it what's called falling in love. The Red Pills, however, dislike the idea that women should have the slightest say-so in the choice of a husband. Powell writes:
"If a woman is not submitting to me, that means that my relationship with her is not safe, stable, or secure; that I had better find a way to establish my dominance over her again if I want my relationship with her to succeed and permanent."
No matter how they gloss over it, the Red Pill Cultists always default to this position. It comes down to: dominance=force. This is simply Feminism reversed; substituting the physical power of the man for the legal power of the state. The thing that neither side understands is that women submit to a man whom she loves and her love is dependent on how much she respects him. Contrary to what Powell and others of his cult believe, if a woman is not submitting, she has lost love or respect for the man; and he had better find a way to establish that before he starts thinking of sex.
Powell also asserts that Christian Complimentarianism is nothing but "female-controlled patriarchy" another of his soundbites that make no logical sense. The Red Pills, like the Feminists, are ignorant of the fact that female submission is female power. The ancient myths of the Amazons didn't have male armies because the ancients understood that men don't fight for dominant women. But the damsel in distress is a universal motif in every culture. Men---real men, not fake 'Alphas'---will always protect and provide for women who depend on them.
This happens because a strong relationship depends on each partner providing what the other lacks. That's complimentary; and that is the natural order of things. The Red Pill Cultists are the radical innovators here, not the Church.