There really is no one narrative to be interpreted from the Ramayana. Regarding caste, each caste has a different story to tell. Regarding gender, men and women have different stories to tell.
Caste-wise, I found the Many Ramayanas chapters to be especially enlightening. This connects to the gendered ones, in particular. The mention that brahman women's stories are noticeably different from lower caste women is important to understanding that different intersections of caste, gender, ethnicity, and practice of Hinduism have bearing on the interpretations of the Ramayana.
In addition, another telling I found interesting is Yes to Sita, No to Ram. To the outsider, applying western knowledge, Rama is obviously the hero to be idolized. Instead, in another tradition, Sita is the more important character, a better embodiment of a dharmic person. Women in India, married or soon to be, often name Sita as something of an idol. Women feel anger towards Rama for even questioning Sita's loyalty. They say that Sita should have rebelled more. Men, too, are said to view Sita as an ideal. They see her as a figure of veneration, Sita Mata. Overall, I think that these two different interpretations of the Ramayana are very intriguing and lend to a more modern (perhaps postmodern in the first one's case) and well rounded take on the story than just applying the hero's journey to the story.