Complementarian vs. Egalitarian

At my age, I've seen a lot and am somewhat jaded about a lot of the rhetoric about male-female relationships (read: submission of wives to husbands) in the church. The complementarian vs. egalitarian debate absorbs a lot of time and bandwidth; I don't think it ends the discussion.  

According to https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/complementarianism-for-dummies/

"a complementarian is a person who believes that God created male and female to reflect complementary truths about Jesus. That’s the bottom-line meaning of the word. Complementarians believe that males were designed to shine the spotlight on Christ’s relationship to the church (and the LORD God’s relationship to Christ) in a way that females cannot, and that females were designed to shine the spotlight on the church’s relationship to Christ (and Christ’s relationship to the LORD God) in a way that males cannot."

The writer goes on to clarify this view has nothing to do the innate intelligence or talents or value of either sex. And this definition overlooks Ephesians 4 and other passages that imply or teach directly a subordinate role for women. Complementarians would have a hard time with ordaining women, in short.

Now, egalitarians. No, I'm not going to defend them, because I think egalitarianism may be impossible. Christianity.com defines it "egalitarianism goes (than complementarianism) further to state that men and women are considered equal in role capabilities as well; there are no gender restrictions on what roles men and women can fulfill in the church, home, and society. This view holds that the teachings and attitudes of Jesus and the New Testament abolished gender-specific roles as well as roles related to class and race."

Again, how could this be logistically possible? Yet, is ordination of women forbidden by the gospel? As Tish Warren, a female Episcopal priest has written, ordained females are trying to  serve the church, not make a point (well, some are, but most of them are too busy trying to minister). 

I guess I bend toward complementarianism, but reluctantly, very reluctantly. Again, at my age, I'm a little tired of being "pastored" by a green, less educated 26-year-old. I guess I'm supposed to be humble, but why am I expected to be and a man my age is not? 

Addendum: It seems to me that both these positions are abstractions rather than practically possible. We girls in the 1970s always fussed that a woman on the mission field could "pastor" men because they weren't white or American, but she couldn't in the States. That was because more women were willing to go to the mission field than men were. That's still true in conservative circles, and highly hypocritical. Complementarianism falls apart if the husband refuses to fulfill his roles, or is unable to. Egalitarianism fall apart because .... the term "no gender restrictions" seems more ideological than biological. Men still can't give birth or breastfeed, and more to the point, Jesus didn't abolish gender-specific roles. You'd be hard pressed to find that in the gospels. 

I think it's a negotiation individual bodies and couples have to make, but I would caution a young woman to understand what she's getting into. She should accept some gender-specific roles but should have a clear-eyed view of how adamant, strict, or ideological her future husband is going to be about them, and what his reaction will be when she questions them.