The problem here is that how you define complimentarian doctrine and how most churches are defining it are not the same. How it works out in practicality has been extremely harmful to both sexes.

I'll refer you to my response to Judith's question about a fine line for more on that.

It's interesting to me that you recognize the model fails in the presence of what you call sin, but the things you're referring to are human nature. Semantics aren't really important here; the point is whether you call it sin or you call it human nature those things cannot, will not, not exist. They're going to be present.

Therefore, if the model cannot work without the absence of sin/human nature and sin/human nature cannot be eliminated then the model is flawed and will fail one or both partners as well as both their relationships with God.

Which brings us back to: either you believe God set us up to fail or we have misinterpreted His intent/the theology was added by men and is not from God. Both sides of that equation cannot be true.