The Alphabet of Manliness: It’s very, very bad. Possibly even worse.
Posted by Richie on May 11, 2007
Maddox’s lack of bulging biceps may actually be a positive thing. Because having him become the symbol and policy-maker of all things alpha male just may be one of the most subversive byproducts of the Internet since file-sharing.
- Neil Strauss, author of The Game and some hilarious rape comedy.
You know those old SF movies where computers will catch fire and chant ‘DOES-NOT-COM-PUTE’ if you feed them illogical information? MADDOX IS SUBVERSIVE. See, it doesn’t work.
Fun fact of the day #1: Physical strength has precisely jack shit to do with who the alpha male human is, because humans have developed God knows how many different ways to bully people into submission that don’t involve hitting somebody, or even being in the same sodding hemisphere as them. Donald Trump is an alpha-male. George Bush is an alpha male. Saddam Hussein was an alpha male. Hugh Hefner is an alpha male. Stick them in a cage with the guy who works night shift at my local Ampol Shop-Stop, and I know who I’d wager money on. Manliness, and alpha maledom, is all about being on top of a hierarchal structure, and just because our ancestors got there by thwacking each other doesn’t mean that’s how we still do it, even if the actual attitude itself hasn’t improved. The indie RPG development community I used to belong to had alpha males defined by how long their code strings were. In high school I knew a lot of alpha male record geeks who proved their superiority by having the largest collection of Japan-only import discs with slightly different string arrangements. Christ, I’ve run into alpha male Doctor Who fans who establish dominance by quoting serial production codes at each other, and if two pastey middle-aged men in cardigans arguing about whether ‘The Ultimate Foe’ is serial 7C or 7C-2 isn’t the final word on this ridiculous behaviour, then what is?
Maddox, then, is the alpha male of internet comedy. Or, rather, a particular kind of internet comedy, which is the next step in the evolution of those ‘HEY DID YOU EVER NOTICE?’ emails that I used to get all the time before I changed my email address without telling anybody. And of course he’s popular, because, like those same wastes of my server space, his material is essentially reassuring. Most people do think women are nags, men are inherently violent, goths are boring, and Garfield is a bit shit. People want to be told these things. People also want to believe that they’re the centre of the universe, and the only person with the guts to call a spade a spade, so if you can dress the same material up as a way of sticking it to the man, it’s no surprise that your website will end up more popular than Pepsi’s. It’s just Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus‘ angsty younger brother who wears an ironic Godzilla t-shirt.
We have an alpha male who appeals to mass prejudice and expresses hostility toward anybody who doesn’t fit into his worldview. We have a domineering, self-important demagogue as the representative of masculinity. It doesn’t fucking matter that he’s a computer programmer who can name every single Castlevania game, or that his material is allegedly ‘satire’. The only thing being subverted here is the definition of ‘subversion’.
In a world where metrosexuals–stylish, well-groomed, and sharply dressed men–have taken the center stage in defining the new masculinity, small pockets of men are starting to emerge, rebelling against the status quo.
- Maddox, in his introduction to the book on Amazon.com
Fun fact of the day #2: Metrosexuality is, and has always been, a choice. Men’s right to be a slob is not under threat because of Queer Eye For The Straight Guy, and describing metrosexuality as ‘the status quo’ just because it’s visible is so ridiculous I don’t know where to begin. There’s no genuine social pressure on every man out there to spend / waste his money on wax, cosmetics and firming lotion, and if he chooses to do so, we call him a metrosexual to differentiate him from the majority. And you can take ‘metrosexual’ as a byword for ‘fag’ or ‘poof’ or ‘himbo’ if you want, but it plainly isn’t just a euphemism; it’s a positive word that implies metropolitan sophistication and sexual potency. There’s no equivalent word for a woman who rejects the look of the female majority. They’re all insults. This whole ‘Reclaim your manliness!’ bollocks would be cringeworthy even without the misogyny, homophobia and ape-pack mentality that always accompanies it.
Maybe you’re a woman and you’re reading this wondering ‘Is this book just for men?’. I would say that it is only for men in the same way that lesbian porn sites on the Internet are only for women.
- Maddox, in the foreword.
Ah, yes, the ’satire’ element. See, The Alphabet of Manliess isn’t really a bunch of immature, phallocentric crap, it’s a satire of immature, phallocentric crap. Right, let’s run with that for now. Were this a subversive satire of masculinity, one could reasonably expect that the target of said satire would come off looking, you know, bad. Or stupid. Or incompetent. You might also expect the vitriol to be directed at masculinity-obsessed men, rather than the groups that masculinity-obsessed men are oppressing and treating like shit.
Surprise! It fails hard.
What’s more awesome than a lumberjack punching Santa in the face? (A) Nothing, or (B) All the above. I gave this quiz to my friend’s wife, and she got the wrong answer. She kept asking questions like “what’s so cool about Santa being punched in the face? That’s not cool, that’s mean.”.Wrong answer, bitch. The reason she doesn’t “get it” is the same reason all women don’t get it: Men invented ass kicking along with chainsaws, beef jerky, and happiness.
Sometimes a woman will manipulate a man with her striking good looks and flirtatious demeanor. This type of woman can live her entire life without lifting a finger to earn a penny; instead, she opts to lead men on with a life that can best be described as one long cock-tease of an existence. Since it’s unbecoming of a man to hit a woman, sometimes a guy needs to find another method to keep her in line. Sometimes a man needs to head-butt a woman in the ovaries.
Popping a boner during this occasion: Seeing a naked woman who doesn’t shave.
Makes you: Gay
Hallways and narrow corridors are the perv’s best friends. The trick to utilizing a hallway is to find yourself in close proximity to your subject – close enough that accidentally bumping into her will seem like just a coincidence.
Quickly, name two famous women inventors. Too hard? Okay, name one. How about a famous invention made by a woman? Give up? That’s because there are none. Men invented everything.
Any time a man wants to kick back and start enjoying himself, he can be guaranteed that some cranky hag will come along and stink the place up with her foul bitching. Women love to nag.
If left unsupervised, you will find that most women will naturally find their way to the kitchen.
Upon bringing your woman home, house training should be one of your top priorities.
After sex, you need to plant the seeds of self-doubt in her mind by telling her she was “pretty good”.
LOL THIS ONE TIME CHUCK NORRIS
This is, I think it’s fair to say, not a barbed satirical attack on masculinity. It is, in fact, exactly the same thing that patriarchal society has been saying since ever, only with some cartoons of dinosaurs thrown in to make it look ironic. The venom here is solely directed toward women and ‘pussies’, not masculinity, either the tedious kind we all deal with on a daily basis or the ridiculous ‘Chuck Norris eats rocks and shits lightning bolts’ version. It’s true that he encourages violence toward men too, but only men who are either stupid or annoying; when he encourages violence toward women, it’s because all women are stupid and annoying. The worst thing that happens to men in this book is that they’re made to look like violent, emotionally-stunted cavemen, which is, again, a socially-approved concept that everybody reading this has been dealing with for their entire lives. If this is subversive material, then so is Everybody Loves Raymond.
There’s an entire chapter, ‘Obedience’, in which he equates women with pets that are owned by men and must be trained to behave in certain ways by punishing them. And that’s it. That’s the whole chapter. There’s no punch-line, no insight, no joke beyond saying that women should be treated like animals. If people didn’t treat women like animals, it would just be lazy, unfunny writing. But people do treat women like animals, so it’s lazy, unfunny writing that mocks and trivialises genuine suffering.
We already have the rest of the world telling us that fat women are ugly, that hairy women are freaks, that attractive women are cock-teases who bring assault on themselves, that only heterosexual men are real men, that men are smarter than women, that men are responsible for all human progress, that all feminists are shrieking harridans, that all women are nags, that breasts only exist to be groped, that men are the masters and women are the servants, that lesbians are only there as masturbatory aids, that men hate talking, that women are too emotional, that…
…Look, what’s the fucking point in this book existing?
It’s not satire, it’s not subversive, it’s not ironic, and most of all, it’s not funny. The ’Quickies’ section is strikingly similar to material in Mars And Venus In The Bedroom. I’m going to suggest that this isn’t just a coincidence.

Sen. Morosecow (R-Utah) said
As a United States Senator who also has a totally-ironic web page in which I discuss how hilarious it is to punch women in their most private of places when they do not “do the dishes” at a speed deemed satisfactory and relate proper techniques for burning down nunneries (because hey, what’s with all those broads living together and neither producing direct-to-DVD videos of their makeout sessions?), I can give this book my full endorsement and pledge that one dollar from each and every copy sold through a partnership program with Amazon Dot Com will go toward the Senator Morosecow (R-UT) Foundation, a non-profit organization set up in my name, devoted to sharing the joy of baby seal clubbing (like in Night at the Roxbury, right?) and making fun of men who dress like 18th century fops.
A++++++ SELLER WOULD DO BUSINESS AGAIN
(Was this comment helpful to you Yes/No)
Professor Fifi Trixibell said
Hugh and Larry will be sleeping even more soundly in the warm fuzzy cloak of reassurance that this book exists – they just love irony – hell, they probably had lot of influence on the asshole who wrote this.
It’s just misogyny and male-supremacy re-packaged and being re-sold back to men – another way of “spinning” it – anti-female propaganda dressed up as irony once again. Again, when being coerced, groped, assaulted, psychologically abused and raped, women are not going “gee, this feels hilariously ironic – oh yeah, I get it”.
Richie said
Because I’ve been wanting to link to it for a while, and this seems as good a time as any: Women may actually have been responsible for using the first tools.
MEN INVENTED EVERYTHING!!!!!!!
bob smith said
ok from my name you see i am a male, i have nothing against woman, absolutely nothing, but i must say who ever wrote this article is not very intelligent not because the content of the book isn’t somehow offensive i can see how it would be but…
1. i am a huge fan of madox he is hilarious because he is not to be taken seriously he is in a way a form of satire like south park cartmen is a Nazi but its funny because of how ridiculous his ideas are
2.i can not believe he is actually as sexist as he appears in the acknowledgments the first person he thanks is cherry his wife or girlfriend
Richie said
Actually, I tackled the “satire” element in the above article. It’s right up there.
If Maddox is satire, what is he satirising? If he’s satirising men, then why is all the venom directed at everything but men? If the rest of the world is already saying that women are gabby bitches who can’t control their emotions, and men are rational leaders who are responsible for all human progress, then saying the exact same thing but adding a drawing of a pirate doesn’t make it satire.
The South Park episode you’re talking about works because it makes Cartman, Hitler and Nazism into the butt of the joke. If the episode had made Nazism look good, and Stan had ended with a monologue about the positive aspects of racial segregation and death camps, then that wouldn’t have been funny. Maddox’s handling of gender politics is squarely in the latter category.
No, of course Maddox isn’t as sexist in real life as he is in the book. But I’m not reviewing his personal life, I’m reviewing his book. His book is a load of crap.
stormy said
As a qualified Industrial Designer (aka Product Designer), I have been meaning to refute the “men invented everything” BS. Men didn’t invent everything, but they sure are good at taking the credit for everything, and/or covering up anything that women do achieve. Rosalind Franklin is a perfect illustration.
Not forgetting that women were excluded from mainstream education up until the 20th century, women have made many inventions and discoveries since they were allowed into education (mainly in the fields of medicine and science), but also invented items prior to the 20th century.
Off the top of my head I have always been able to name Bette Nesmith Graham, mother of The Monkees’ Mike Nesmith, and inventor of liquid paper (mainly because I watched the show when I was a kid). I always admired the practical designs of Eileen Gray, a Modernist furniture designer and contemporary of Le Corbusier.
Women’s inventions and discoveries were not limited to ‘girlie’ things. Madam Curie, Sister Elizabeth Kenny, Margaret Knight, Hedy Lamar, the list goes on. Even car windscreen wipers were invented by a woman.
If one dark night Maddox gets attacked by an angry women brandishing windscreen wipers, don’t be too surprised.
Richie said
I’m feeling lazy, so I’ll just link here.
stormy said
I forgot to mention Kevlar.
Oh well – here is another list as well.
Update on Blog Site Progress « The Feminist Pit Bull Blog said
[...] http://crimitism.wordpress.com/2007/05/11/the-alphabet-of-manliness-its-very-very-bad-possibly-even-… [...]
Anonamous (not the internet hate machine, the other one) said
But satire doesn’t always need to explicitly denounce what it is attacking. Eg. Jonathan Swift’s A modest proposal. (For those who aren’t familiar with this classic piece of satire it can be found at http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html ). Jonathan never has to say that he doesn’t actually think that eating children is the obvious cure to famine in Ireland, but uses a parody of a proposal in which he claims that it would be in order to attack the English Upper Class, whom he saw as responsible. It is obviously satire because of the nature of the so called proposal is ludicrous. Similarly Maddox’s claim that women haven’t invented anything ever is equally ludicrous to anyone with even a hint of intelligence, but your average person would be unable to name one. It highlights the issue by claiming a ridiculous contrary.
The problem however is that many people see this, and think that it is serious from both sides of the debate. A similar thing happened with Ali G (aka. Sacha Cohen) where he became a cult figure to the ‘chav’ subculture he was satirising (whist at the same time attacking other values and issues) and was attacked by many for encouraging this same subculture inappropriately.
Richie said
I know it’s always going to be a matter of interpretation, but based on the attitude displayed by the rest of the book, I don’t think saying “women never invented anything” is going to highlight the issue. The line might have that effect in another context, but because all the material either side of it is also an over the top denigration of women / un-manly men, it just comes off as straight misogyny.
I don’t think this bears comparison with Swift because it’s not, at heart, actually satirical; it’s just taking something that a lot of people already believe and then presenting it in a humorous way. Swift came at things from a different angle, analysed the issue and wrote something which was deliberately confronting; he didn’t just point at the Irish and say “They’re starving to death, isn’t it hilarious?”.
Anonamous (not the internet hate machine, the other one) said
I can’t comment on the rest of the book, only on the slices I saw above, but the general attitude in the sections above tend to cause incredulity at the opinions within.
“Sometimes a man needs to head-butt a woman in the ovaries.” as an alternative to hitting a women, men inventing happiness, etc. They’re obviously statements not made to be made seriously.
Swift created a masterpiece of parody, if his work was the benchmark, we would have very little parody. Like it or not, being deliberately offensive to draw attention to parody is part of the package. If you don’t push the envelope with parody, it comes off as affectionate (which in ). Every major piece of satire has been offensive or shocking in some way to the audience at the time. You don’t criticise a behaviour by doing a polite characterisation of it. Instead one would use a version of them that focused on the negatives to their side of the argument, and emphasise the details you find distasteful. Like a political cartoon. The same is true of satiric parody. Except you are pretending to be the thing you’re criticising, so people get a lot more personal about it.