NIH-funded study: "Being a Beta Male"

" But a new study shows that the highest-ranked (alpha) males have greater stress levels than the second-ranking (beta) males. The finding suggests that life at the very top can be more costly than previously thought."

This helps to explain why women don't hold the top positions and it has nothing to do with institutional discrimination.

Some feminists may still want to argue that a subtle form of discrimination is at play, ie that women are avoiding the high stress jobs because they were engendered to. But that only amounts to undermining women's intelligent choice to not enter high stress jobs! Those feminists argue as if women don't have any agency and can't affect their outcomes, even when they do a good job at it...

And the next time someone tries to generalize the condition of the top men to all men, just let them know that the men at the top experience a great deal of stress and they are typically the ones who face the most blame when something goes wrong.

I think this also shows how the male heirarchy, probably shaped by women, hurts men via competition at the top and at the bottom. I think one of our goals should be to make competition amongst men less harmful to each other.

As Paul Elam advocates, be a Zeta, not a Beta. Zeta males reduce their stress still further, by not participating in the male competition, gender roles, and other enslaving structures that society dictates. Go your own way, and define your own life. That's the way to be free. This is a very interesting academic study, and thank you Minuteman for posting it. For those who want more info on Zeta Males, see the following link:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens-issues/so-what-the-fuck-is-a-zeta-male-anyway/

"...the male heirarchy, probably shaped by women..."

Actually it is shaped by both. It starts with the male sex drive. Nature provided men with a higher sex drive compared to females, therefor men have to compete for females. Since females need their children to be cared for, they look for the top or alpha males that can prove they can support and care for children

This is a perfect system if people didn't mess it up with artificial policies and procedures. The male hierarchy system which causes males to compete along with the hypergammy nature of females all play an important part in the formation of families and society.

I believe male competition (to get laid ) is responsible for almost all progress, work and invention (and probably a lot of music).

Examples:

> My 16 year old neighbor has offered to do yard word. he says he needs money to buy a car. What he really wants is sex. (Work to get money >> Buy car>>> able to date>>>dating leads to sex).

> Along the remote areas of the Alaska coast, the first roads ever made in that area were to brothels.

> When watching the "Adventures of Mark and Ollie" about a current indigenous tribe living in New Guinea; the tribe decided they needed to build a bridge across a deep fast-moving river to reach a neighboring tribe (this was a foot bridge made from vines - very dangerous). The teenage boys of the tribe volunteered and worked the hardest as they were motivated by the prospects of finding wives (therefor sex) on the other side.

> I know some guys that have chosen careers just to attract females.

I'm all for male competition that does not harm or kill others, but healthy male competition is a good thing, and I would not want to live without it. I am not just saying that cuz I'm female. I think our military would fall apart and invention and progress would slow down. If men between the ages of 15 and 35 did not have to work for sex, most would not be motivated to do much.

There's an article I read a few years back about how the cheapness of sex is causing male motivation (competitiveness) to go down, which is providing society with a generation of "slackers". (wish I could find the article)

Also, I believe women do not seek top level jobs because they just don't "have it in them" the way males do. They don't like risk, they don't feel the need to compete, etc. Plus many would rather take care of children, need time off for pregnancy, etc.(I am mentioning this in response to fondueguy's comment above.)

I really suspected you would chime in with the "men want sex more, derp".

But first off did you ever hear me say I would eliminate male competition entirely... No! I was saying we can improve male bonding and reduce excess competition.

As for the idea that men's sex drive is so much stronger I seem to remember that nearly all sex exclusive endeavors involve men. Throughout history it was men who willingly went on single sex expeditions, wars, hunts, long fishing trips, monasteries, and hermit communities. It seems men were able to overcome their "incredible"sex drive but I can't think of many times when women were willingly deprived of men.

There's also studies that suggest women have as strong, or possibly a stronger, sex drive. I won't get into that.

"This is a perfect system if people didn't mess it up with artificial policies and procedures. The male hierarchy system which causes males to compete along with the hypergammy nature of females all play an important part in the formation of families and society."

Actually you are arguing for concubines and AGAINST fatherhood. Fatherhood is when men are intimately involved in the raising of their children and this cannot happen if women are only choosing the top males, ie polygamy. Countless studies have shown how poorly children do without a father around, regardless of the economic situation. And children's time with their fathers seems to be as crucial as time with their mother's. Ergo the father is not replacible, and when certain women choose to take a monthly check over having the father present they are damaging their children in order to satisfy their desire to be supported. A true parent, females included, must learn to sacrifice their own desires, such as more money, in order to raise healthy children. Along the same lines women must be willing to give up their hyoergamous desire and "settle" for the non alpha in order to have an involved father and a stable family.

It wasnt hypergamy that fueled human civilization. It was fatherhood and the limiting of hypergamy that allowed for the huge potential of males involvement to be tapped. Humanity now has men designed for fatherhood and children designed to need a father. Fatherhood is the key to men's productiveness, love, teachings, and legacy.

The point that "Along the remote areas of the Alaska coast, the first roads ever made in that area were to brothels" made me chuckle a bit. I could just imagine a state highway crew building a road to a "little house" on a hill overlooking the sea. Maybe they called it "Hooker St."?

Just to clarify, my comments about male competition and hieracrchy are my general opinions, the only part that was in response to your post was your indication that the male hierarchy is "shaped by females" and I say it is "both".

As far as females in high positions I did not intend to disagree with you - just offering a different perspective. You mention women avoid top jobs based on logic to avoid stress and I mention it is based on biology. This is the classic "nature vs. nurture" argument. I lean more towards nature, but I realize this is impossible to measure.

You can refute all you want about men want/need sex more than women but historically and throughout the animal kingdom, it shows males take more risk and "pay" more to get sex. There may be some studies and some situations that show the opposite in humans, but then again, that is only due to the introduction of modern day "artificial" policies and procedures such as birth control and abortion and the rise of single women in their 40's. Women in their teens and twenties, generally don't pay or put out much effort to get sex. Not sure why you are so defensive about this. I see no shame and like the way biology works.

Also not sure why you think I am anti-father or why you think alpha males don't make good fathers. I have a problem with people that assume money or the pursuit of wealth is terrible, shallow and is somehow morally corrupt. It takes money to raise healthy children. Alpha males tend to have money because they have characteristics such as confidence, competitiveness and discipline. All of these characteristics usually lead to wealth and they are good qualities for fatherhood. Although all of this can also be abused, if a woman looks only at money or if a man buys a woman's affection, this would likely lead to a short relationship and not healthy for producing children..

There is too much involved to discuss the whole realm of fatherlessness, but it starts by the introduction of artificial policies and procedures used mainly by women.. Men and women's behaviors tend to rebound or effect one another. Bad or negative behavior in women leads to bad or negative behavior in men. Right now I see too many women having sex and babies with men who are complete slackers (gammas). If we stuck to strictly natural and biological outcomes this would not occur.. For example if we took away birth control, abortion and welfare handouts, women would refrain from casual sex and seek out good partners (alphas and betas, but rarely gammas). This would emphasize the need for the male hierarchy system that seems to be diminishing.

"Fatherhood is the key to men's productiveness, love, teachings, and legacy."

That I totaly agree with.

In a nutshell modern female promiscuity is the downfall of society. But the male hierarchy system and female hypergammy are not (infact they are useful, and they go hand-in-hand)...... at least that's my opinion.

" Women in their teens and twenties, generally don't pay or put out much effort to get sex."

Unless you consider how much money women spend on looking good to attract a mate... There was also a dutch study showing that women with wealth and power were just as likely to use it for romance as the men were. I fully believe men have the potential to resist hypergamy by expecting women to bring more money to the table.

" Not sure why you are so defensive about this. I see no shame and like the way biology works"

That has nothing to do with it, and I know you enjoy the idea of women being able to use men through sex. You actually try to use biology to say "oh, there's nothing you can do about it" or argue how great hypergamy is for society. Its all just your justification for privilege. (And considering how you respond everytime a male questions the idea of working hard for sex, it seems you have some insecurities about whether this can be changed).

And if you want to argue numbers and evolution I wonder how you would feel if we collectively ignored and dismissed older, non reproductive women? Would if, instead of sacrificing the men on the titanic we sacrificed the older women because evolution/biology had deemed them less valuable? Not only were the men sexually viable, unlike the women over 40, but they also drive the highest amount of production as inventors or CEOs.

Non reproductive women are a point you conveniently overlook when talking about which gender has more inherent value and which sex needs to earn more. You forget that women loose looks and reproductive viability as they age, yet I don't see you saying its okey dokey for men to up and leave their wives. The point is that men are settling every time they marry a woman because they are limiting themselves to one aging woman. That's what happens in marriage, men sacrifice many young women and women sacrifice the alpha male, so it is DAMN REASONABLE for men to expect women bring money to the table.

Also, you really don't know history if you think men haven't regularly gone for wealthy women (that's actually what many marriages were about) or that men didn't need women to be economically productive.

Only in more recent times has women's social mobility, via marriage, been so ridiculous and profitable.

The Cinderella stroy is a common theme today but few people know that prior to the Disney version, Cinderella actually came from royalty but through misfortune ended up poor. So in the original story Cinderella was actually restoring her proper place when she wed, not really moving up the latter. And this was the thinking throughout most of history. Wealthy men would usually marry wealthy women in order to keep or expand their wealth.

" Zeta male is the preferred option"

A lot of the ways in which men are used has to do with identity, not sex drive...

I say we let go of an identity that makes us disposable.

"... I know you enjoy the idea of women being able to use men through sex." - fondueguy

When applied properly and as nature intended, this is not a bad system. I have a slight objection to the word "use" as I don't believe men or women should ever "use" one another. Really during child bearing/ family forming years men and women should need each other equally.

Women who trade sex for protection and support have very happy and intact families. Women who give sex away freely have dysfunctional and un-intact families. Look around and see for yourself.

I don't believe casual sex is good for women to participate in. And in case you missed it, I will say again that female promiscuity is to blame for much of the downfall of families and society.

"Women who trade sex for protection and support have very happy and intact families. Women who give sex away freely have dysfunctional and un-intact families."

That is one of the most disgusting statements I have ever heard. It even parallels prostitution.

Referring to women's sexual desires as promiscuous while at the time venerating men's sexual desires as good and ordered only seeks to disadvantage boys and men. Another issue I have is that it seems to commoditize the relationship between men and women.

Men want women to desire them, similar to the way men desire women. Men don't want women to desire their wallets. It is deeply offensive to not be valued for your god given attributes and prioritizing a man's wealth means that he is replacible.

We are seeing some of the impacts of this today as hypergamous women will choose divorce, child support, and/or alimony over the man. The problem is that they valued the money and support but not the man himself. This has resulted in thousands of single mother homes where children grow up without a father and are far more likely to be abused and neglected. It goes to show that women's tendencies aren't necessarily pro family and things like hypergamy can be very destructive to men and children.

It's horribly sad for men to be left because of a money incentive is there and/or out if repulsion for the beta. Even worse, though, is that the man could run into trouble himself, since men are vulnerable too, and become unable to "support and protect" his wife. I remember reading a story about a man in Africa who was raped. When his wife found out what happened she decided to up and leave him. She was quoted saying something to the effect of "if he can't protect himself how can he protect me?". As horrendous as that is, she is coming from the perspective that a man is there to protect and support (serve) her. In his vulnerability he revealed himself to be useless and their "trade" was no longer any good. She never intended on protecting him because protection was his job. When women marry men for protection and support it says nothing of love and does say something about men being a utility...

When I read you say that women should trade sex for protection and support in the context of a family I wonder if you realize how wrong and degrading that is towards men. Your essentially holding women as the central impetus for creating families whereby men want sex from women and women want pro family aspects from men. MEN WANT FAMILIES, they don't need to be encouraged. Men will have families for the sake of having families and not to get sex.

" Really during child bearing/ family forming years men and women should need each other equally."

And women should also be supporting the family, including financially.

Kris, I don't think you realize all the ways men become neglected and used.

Like it or not a relationship is a "trade" and I have no problem referring to it as such. Each couple should define what they value and reciprocate equally. Of course couples need to have compatible personalities and goals in order to live together, but really a relationship can only form if the other person has something that you value. Platonic friendships are like this as well. Why else would you have a relationship with anyone if you did not get something out of it?

I'll concede that my point about women should trade sex for protection and support was too narrow. But it was based on what I typically see women in happy marriages trade for. To be less specific, men and women should trade for whatever they agree upon. My point is that women that give sex away too freely have dysfunctional families - they are most likely to be single parents and all that goes along with that. Since I have pointed out that I don't believe in casual sex and that female promiscuity is a bad thing, I assume it is understood that I believe couples should be in love and sex should be an expression of that love - but I will mention it incase it is unclear to anyone

And FYI, female promiscuity has nothing to do with female desire. It is a woman who has sex easily and with no regard to consequences or outcome.

Apparently we disagree about alot of things. I could make a rebuttal to each of your comments, but really it is redundant and tiring. There are even a few rants of yours that you aim towards me that have nothing to do with what I have written or how I feel. However, I can see you are very passionate and I respect that.

If you feel strongly that women should contribute financially to the marriage or dating then you should definitely stick to that requirement. But not all couples value that. Not all parents value daycares and want strangers raising their kids, which typically is a requirement for dual income families. . Couples should do what works for them based on their own personal values

You have not convinced me that anything I have written is untrue or in need of changing. So I stand by what I wrote.

" I'll concede that my point about women should trade sex for protection and support was too narrow. But it was based on what I typically see women in happy marriages trade for."

Your not getting it. Expecting men to pay for sex is bad in and of itself. It's taking something that should be intimate and reciprocal and turning it into a trading commodity. How would you like it if a friend of yours made you pay for their friendship. Or would if your man made you pay for any intimacy?!? It's absurd that you describe sex intimate expressions when the Japanese men didn't care much for sex but when you think men want it more it becomes a commodity to trade, and then you call it good for the family... Wtf!

And men arent your cannon fodder and made for your "protection and support".

Saying women should trade sex for protection and support insults family men and any man who sticks with a woman. Obviously they aren't having a family or in a marriage just for sex, and you are not respecting that. I told you the sacrifice any married man makes, ie being reduced to one aging woman. It's laughable that youd even think to control men via sex, when sex outside marriage is available and you expect men to stay with an aging woman. You said its not ok to just leave an aging woman, well, its not ok to use a man for money or make him pay for sex if he wanted it more.

Everytime a men have the advantage you say they should treat the woman fairly, "don't up and leave her in old age" and "Japanese men who don't care for sex should change that for their relationship". But when women have an advantage... You think they should take advantage of it and "make trades".

I'm not sure that you care to help men for the sake of men.

Fondueguy,

You have me all mixed up based on your false assumptions. At times your criticism come out of left field, sometimes you argue, but seem to say the same thing I'm saying, and sometimes you attribute false attitudes, opinions and even quotes to me that are not even close to how I think, feel or what I said.

Do you not like that I use the word "trade" when discussing values men and women trade in romantic relationships? You seem to miss the point that we are both speaking of "reciprocation". No one is getting taken advantage of or treated badly. Wether you use the word "trade" "buy" or "pay" if it is reciprocated, then it is all the same. Nothing is "free" if you are expected to reciprocate and no one is getting taken advantge of if you recieve something of equal value in return.

You ask how I would feel if my husband made me pay for his intamacy. The answer is yes, he does make me "pay", if I did not do all his laundry and cook his meals, clean all the fish and animals that he hunts and fishes and take care of the kids, he would leave me for another woman.

You see him and I have an agreement, We each have expectations. It is not apples for apples. It is apples for oranges (you know that concept I have mentioned before "equal reciprocal value"). In general, if people are not getting equal value out of a relationship - they leave (as they should).

I have a problem with you insinuating that your values (which I assume is 50/50 on all expenses, housework, and everything like that) should be the same values for all couples. You completely disregard that people value different things.

I see many examples of good marriages. My parents have been happily married for almost 40 years. My mom rarely worked outside the home after kids arrived (she is co-owner of their business. My dad prefers she stay at home). Each of my sets of grandparents also had long successful marriages and same with most my extended family. There are very few divorces. Very few of the wives contribute 50% financially into the household, some are full time moms, some have jobs, but take time off for pregnancy and child rearing, and a hand full have high paying careers and have never taken more than 6 weeks off for maternity). The key to successful marriages is to marry someone with similar values and treat each other with respect. It might be worth noting that in my family people tend to marry young (like their high school sweetheart and have very few (if any) other sexual partners before marriage.) I think studies have shown having few past sexual partners plays a part in having a successful marriage.

I have no idea why you feel that I would advocate treating someone badly or that I don't care about men or everything else you falsely accuse me of.

"It's laughable that youd even think to control* men via sex, when sex outside marriage is available and you expect men to stay" -fondueguy

Your exactly right, see even when you support what I am saying, you are so hell-bent on arguing and criticizing me that you don't even realize it.

This supports exactly what I am saying that promiscuous women break up families and society. If a woman faced consequences for casual sex, she would not be sleeping with a married man.

In the olden days a women would have more bargaining power to get a man to settle down because he would not have so many other sexual options to turn to, and it was necessary to get a man to settle down if she had a sexual relationship with him and wanted children to be cared for. Now that has all gone out the window mainly due to the use of artificial policies and procedures such as birth control and abortion.

* I refer to it as "bargaining" or "trading" which implies it is reciprocal. "Control" is your choice of words, not mine.

You ask how I would feel if my husband made me pay for his intamacy. The answer is yes, he does make me "pay", if I did not do all his laundry and cook his meals, clean all the fish and animals that he hunts and fishes and take care of the kids, he would leave me for another woman.

Ahhhh, so I'm talking to super-mom. (Sorry, couldn't help myself)

Look, there's a world of difference between two people working productively to support each other as a team and a relationship where one person works/produces and the other one leeches. And in the former case neither person is trading sex for the other persons productivity (sex is just part of the relationship, and is on even terms), which is something you said women should do previously.

And FYI, hypergamy is about marrying a person who you expect will be more productive than you so that they can transfer that extra wealth to you. The women who leave men to collect cs and/or alimony are behaving exactly in a hypergamous manner, that is, marrying someone to get their money. Some women are also leaving their husbands because he is not wealthy and powerful enough and this too is hypergamy. Saying things like women should trade sex for men's productivity and that hypergamy is a perfect system is dubious to say the least. We should never encourage women to trade non productive relationship-essential things, such as sex, for a man's productively. We would then be encouraging men to work and women to leech and more importantly we'd be encouraging women to value a man's money over the man himself, as she would see him as a means to get money. A persons ambition for money should happen outside a relationship, not inside an ultimately fake one.

We should be encouraging women to work for the sake of a productive society. It doesn't do much good if we only expect one gender to compete and work and the other to just sit on their wealth giving sex... Most importantly we should encourage women to be productive team members who don't see men as a means for productivity. As for the impact of women being independent: I would much rather have a woman leave me because she no longer wanted me than have a woman stay with me because she needed my income. And that's not even considering the case that she leaves me for my money!

And to question the "perfect" system of hypergamy consider that hypergamy usually results in one person working longer hours outside the home, similar to the sole provider model. The more time someone works outside the home the less time they have for the kids. But recent research has shown that Fathers' Presence Linked to Enhanced Intellect, Well-Being Among Children .

Fathers who actively engage in raising their children can help make their offspring smarter and better behaved, according to new research from Concordia University.

And most pertinent

"Compared with other children with absentee dads, kids whose fathers were active parents in early and middle childhood had fewer behaviour problems and higher intellectual abilities as they grew older -- even among socio-economically at-risk families."

There it is, even nature values time with fathers over a fathers ability to earn!!! A fathers greatest asset is himself, not his money. We need to value fatherhood a lot more and see time with fathers as being just as valueble as time with the mothers. We need to be encouraging a more balanced system where men have more time with their kids and aren't working much longer hours ousude the home (there are some exceptions were a sole provider is necessary). I think the realization of this would actually make women happier too. Women would be getting more help around the home and they'd be getting more healthy well behaved kids too! In that sense the man's earnings is somewhat of a delusion for what he can give and if the man were around more she'd be getting a lot more bank for her buck.

"Women who trade sex for protection and support have very happy and intact families...

In the olden days a women would have more bargaining power to get a man to settle down because he would not have so many other sexual options to turn to

Kris, you need to get your head out if your ass. Women are initiating the vast majority of divorces. We don't need women to get men to settle down.

You keep belaboring under the idea that women want family and relationships while men want sex.

Your wrong and your not helping anyone by thinking this. Men are chosing to stay with aging women and have kids because that's what they want, a family. You should recognizes men for what they are, and all that they are.

"Kris...We don't need women to get men to settle down." -fondueguy

You are ignoring the context of how I said it was "In the "olden days..." as it was very important to get men to marry as pregnancy and therefore children were an unavoidable result of sexual relations. Today, I don't see many men or women that want to settle down.

In the olden days alpha and beta men were preferred because they could support children (which was a likely result). This does not sound unreasonable to me.

You keep mentioning that men want families, but on their own time. I respect that, but even today there is no way a woman can guarantee a pregnancy free sexual relationship. Birth control does fail, sometimes difficult situations arise (forgot to pack birth control pills for a weekend getaway, forgot to renew prescription, condom breaks, even vasectomies have been known to fail) It is a small percentage, but still a risk a woman has to consider, especially if she is pro-life.

That relates to my attitude because not only do I believe that a woman should never have a sexual relationship with a man who would be unwilling to do his share in the event of an accidental pregnancy, but she should not have a sexual relationship with a man who CAN"T AFFORD to do his share. It is not fair to the man or the child as it usually results in unpleasant consequences. I don't see anything immoral about considering a man's financial situation when considering sexual relationships. That is how I see hypergammy being productive and how I believe nature intended it to work.

Today there are many ways hypergammy can be abused by women or used to a man's benefit (buying sex), but either way, it is not the way nature intended.

You and I are using different applications of hypergammy to prove our points.

Your examples involve putting wealth above any other characteristics and transferring the wealth to the female with selfish intents.

My examples involve a woman choosing men with character traits that will lead to financial success (or perhaps he has already achieved success) as a consideration of how she wants her children to be cared for. These traits also tend to make good fathers - so it is not all about the money. (and women who are concerned about whom the father of their children will be, also tend to make good mothers compared to women who procreate with just anyone).

You either fail to recognize that I am speaking about a different application of hypergammy. or you don't believe hypergammy can ever be beneficial no matter how it is applied.

If you are going to mention a woman pursuing wealth on her own career merits, I will remind you that for pregnancy and child rearing, a woman often leaves her career - so financial support usually naturally falls more onto the male's role. We have discussed many times at this site that pregnant or postpartum mothers do not make good employees outside the home. This has nothing to do with mothers being lazy or selfish, it is just a fact of pregnancy, childbirth and needs of the baby.

Most men do not require their wives to work overtime and save up so they can cover the financial expense of their own maternity leave for an upcoming birth. Usually it is thought of as a "trade". The mother will give birth and the father will pick up the financial slack needed so she can have the time off. You see nature did not make everything "equal" when it comes to sex and childbirth and sometimes genders trade one thing for another.

You have stated that you disagree with my thoughts on couples "trading". I, on the otherhand, believe every choice humans make, especially ones that involve risk (which includes sex), is a trade wether they realize it or not and have no problem admitting so. We obviously have different values, perspectives, and different comprehension of situations I have described. So I will just leave it alone.

Go ahead and respond if you must, but I am hoping you and I can put this to rest. I already said I respected your passion for your opinions and I can't imagine we are going to change each other's minds or say anything that hasn't been said before.

Rebuttal to your comment:

"We should be encouraging women to work for the sake of a productive society."

You keep heavily insinuating that only working outside the home is productive for society and you insinuate stay at home moms are lazy and leeching. What about a mom who works at a daycare taking care of other people's kids, or a mom who works as a cook or a maid?. Is she more productive then a stay at home mom who cooks, cleans and cares for her own family?

What about husbands who prefer their wives stay home at take care of the children and homefront so they can focus on their careers and have more family time. Do you believe like feminist that they are somehow "controlling" and keeping their wives from gaining independence?

I think putting family first and keeping all needs of the children coming from within the family unit (forgive me but here comes a homeschooling plug) is very beneficial to society. It takes power away form the government and teaches self sufficiency and family unity, as the basic role of parents should be to teach their own children everything from academics to ethics. This cannot be done if children spend 9 to 10 hours a day in daycare or government programs. Protection is another basic parenting role. How can you protect your children if they are not even with you during the day? (I'm not speaking about protecting them from the elusive/fictional 'boogie man', I am speaking about bullies, indoctrination, etc.)

I am aware that good parents can have different perspectives on this. I don't expect everyone to value staying home with children as much as I do, but please respect our choice (it's my husband's choice as well).

Most dual career families have less quality family time because much of their after-work hours are spent commuting to daycares, doing housework and they have more stress as each career parent works around the other's schedule (have you ever priced daycare for non-traditional business hours? And aware that you need to commit to set hours and often pay for hours you don't even use?)

Most families that can afford a stay at home mom do so because it increases quality family time for the father. Now I know you are going to suggest they "share" time working and time off, but you are forgetting that they must be able to afford a stay at home parent and usually that means one must have a full time career, not just both having part time jobs. Besides only a few hours of the day are "quality family time". the rest of the day is tedious tasks like cleaning, discipline, driving and stuff like that - many men want quality family time, but are not willing to give up high paying careers to spend their time housecleaning. If they have a stay at home wife, they can have their children available anytime they have time off as they do not have to spend anytime sharing in housework or stuff like that.

PS- I don't understand your reason for apologizing for calling me "supermom". The only way the term could be perceived as an insult is if one does not value motherhood. I'm sure your apology was insincere anyway.

PSS- I am taking a break from this to enjoy my weekend and likely wont respond to much