Longtime VP reader here who has just started reading AG. You and Roissy are both cruelty artists, but there's a distinct difference. Much like Libertarian vs Christian Libertarian.Not Alpha, per se, but merely an appropriate indication of functioning male-female relations. While there is certainly room to accommodate practical considerations such as military deployments and professional credentials, in general, it is a bad idea for men to put themselves in a position of receiving an allowance from their wives. This is particularly true in light of the female tendency to view household finances in this way: "his income is ours, my income is mine".
What's your take on household banking duties? It's a strong tell in my circle of married friends. The guys who are in charge of the household finances are notably more satisfied than those who aren't. And their wives are much more pleasant to be around. Can that correctly be considered a defining Alpha characteristic? I can't imagine an Alpha behaving any other way.
That being said, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the woman handling the finances if she happens to be the more responsible or the more suitable spouse. For example, it would be absurd for a painter married to a CPA to think that he should be responsible for the banking duties. That being said, the fact that many women openly resent the very idea that a man would be in control of his household's finances is a strong signal that it is, for more than a few women, a matter of socio-sexual significance that needs to be addressed accordingly.
The basic problem is that women tend to assume that power is meant to be used actively. They don't really grasp the male concept of passive power used only in emergencies, so if they have it, they're usually going to use it and use it more heavily than a man would. And using money to get one's way in a relationship seldom works out well for anyone, male or female, in the long run. That's why it usually works out best for both parties if the husband is responsible.