I saw over at PZ’s that it is “What about the menz?” Day. [pha]

What is particularly sad is that the US is far from the worst example of patriarchy. I’ve spent time in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. Over at Siggy’s [knot] he opposes virtuous masculinity, harmless masculinity, and toxic masculinity. It’s an interesting thought, but I finally had to jump into the fray because I don’t think virtue and masculinity are at all related. There is a philosophical spike-strip that we need to avoid, regarding the question of whether “virtue” is inherently masculine (per the Romans, who invented the word and would have translated it as “manliness”) and then we need to argue about how to measure the qualities of goodness in a post-Nietzschean age. We can easily bog ourselves down in the philosophic steppe-lands of Asia with the question “what is good?” and I would rather not go there, anymore. But since the word “virtue” has been played from the deck, I think we can use it with the tacit understanding that we don’t really know what virtues are, pace Philippa Foot. Perhaps some of you remember when Richard Carrier was a thing, and went on his big rampage about that objective morals were a possibility and it all came from virtue ethics, which was Foot’s thing. The idea is that virtues are the good behaviors we can recognize in others, and can therefore speak objectively about a person’s virtues because, uh, any fool can see that they are virtuous. I wasted several days on Foot’s beautifully written book, until I got to the part where she wrote something to the effect of “of course this does not answer the Nietzschean nihilist challenge, but those guys are poopoo heads.”

As one of those poopoo heads, I remain unconvinced by Foot’s argument, and never felt I was able to get through to Carrier’s Manly Shield of Obtuseness +4, beyond that it is an objective fact that people have opinions about virtues, but that does not make the virtues objective facts; it just makes the whole problem worse. If anyone cares to straighten me out on this point, I’m game but I warn you that my responses are essentially pyrhhonian not Nietzschean. [Remember, Nietzsche was all about actualizing one’s belief as meaningful because one believes it and all that glorious sturm gerschutz]

Siggy really hits the crux right on the spot here:

If masculinity is conceived as a set of virtues, where does that leave someone like me, who prefers to reject masculinity? If I reject masculinity, would I therefore be a villain?

My answer to that is simple, that the conjunction of masculinity as a virtue or a collection of virtues, is a category error. One can be virtuous (whatever that is) without being masculine or anything else. But when I unpack the American ideas of virtues, it becomes a disgusting collection of really nasty, slimy, stuff. The first examples I can think of, of American manly virtues, is violent revenge. Generally pointless violent revenge. I nearly threw up in my mouth (because too much vodka in my lemonade) thinking about this, because far too often in American culture a man’s honorable tendency to keep his word is when his word is “I am going to kill you.” I grew up in the era of Charles Bronson and Clint Eastwood movies, in which a tough guy metes out phenomenally over-the-top vengeance for real or imagined slights. Mentally reviewing the canon of Dirty Harry movies we realize quickly that Callahan’s entire raison d’etre is to hinge tremendous violence on any really flimsy excuse. For example, the whole reason Callahan is a “hero” is because his way of dealing with a store robbery is to make a minimal attempt to talk the ‘bad guys’ into surrendering, then shooting them with a massively overpowered tool of violence. Bruce Lee in Enter The Dragon is a massively overpowered tool of violence, and Charles Bronson summons a demon of violence on demand. All these characters have the virtue of consistency and ethical behavior, so long as their ethics have absolutely nothing to do with making the world a better place. In fact, the carbon footprint of a corpse is higher than that of a living human being (so long as they are living a ‘green’ lifestyle), so killing is objectively bad for the environment. We see these media tropes often, and wonder why Bernie Goetz thinks the appropriate response to someone asking for money is to paralyze them with a bullet. We watch The Wild Bunch and think that when we’re up against the wall, the poetic response is a great big sloppy gun battle. How many mass shooters are re-enacting that final scene in their minds?

Or Cross of Iron. Or, or, or. Actually let me say a thing about Cross of Iron: that was a potentially brilliant and thoughtful film about the German military experience on the Russian front, but Peckinpah had to turn it into a movie about utterly pointless, nihilistic revenge. The final scene, in which Steiner metaphorically emasculates Stransky, while laughing, is, um, the end of a American movie.

The horror of the situation, to me, is that American media images of toxic masculinity are so pervasive worldwide that we have to fight against them, before we can even have a conversation about masculinity and what it is. We have so thoroughly muddied the field that we can’t find the flowers under our feet because it’s all been mashed to ick. I think there is nothing wrong with masculinity (whatever that is!) so long as it is not forced to carry all this horrible baggage.

Naturally, I am thinking of many other cultures, which did not have our problem until we (and the British) exported it to them. We cannot walk past the truly massive numbers that the British killed in real-world revenge: ask a Zulu how many they lost because of “Winning” at Isandlwana and, as Ceteswayo said, “all of them.” The British were appallingly effective at punitively massacring ‘backwards’ people for having the temerity to kill a redcoat or two. Or, sadistically massacring people by lashing them across the barrel of a cannon for the crime of having killed a British woman. We wonder where everyone gets this stuff; we wonder where Bollywood and Hollywood get it. In my childhood I spent a lot of time studying feudal Japanese culture, which was beautiful and fascinating and not about revenge-killing as a manly virtue. The Japanese had a concept called “the pen and the sword in accord” which specifically pointed toward the idea that someone who was just a good killer had something wrong with them; you had to be a decent poet, or painter, or philosopher, or flower arranger and those were as important as one’s skills with a sword. (Even Miyamoto Musashi was a fair painter) There are subthemes in the Japanese martial legends which promote the flute-player who died in battle as being a greater loss than the musketeer that ended his final performance. (Kagemusha) One of the most interesting pieces of film regarding concepts of revenge and manliness has to be Kobayashi’s epic Harakiri in which the great Tatsuya Nakadai conveys a sophisticated and thoughtful samurai who is trying to explore the essence of virtue, at the expense of some assholes. But at least the bad guys aren’t just pop-up characters; they are individuals with inner lives. Well, until the hero kills them.

My claim, then, is that virtue and masculinity cannot be connected. I might expansively argue that if we connect them, we do so only in order to disparage masculinity. As Siggy says “If I reject masculinity, would I therefore be a villain?” No, you can operate in parallel or at right angles to masculinity, and be either a villain or a hero. Or, you can make a futile last stand like The Wild Bunch. To wit:

I love his expression in the thumbnail. He knows he is not going to succeed. But the entire planet is at stake so he’s going to try as hard as he can. I submit to you that this is a quintessential example of virtue (whatever that is) He knew that he was speaking to a selected group of America’s worst, but his truth did not change in the slightest. Nor, was he dismissive or discourteous. He taught the facts as they were understood and said his bit as clearly as he could. One cannot compare Joe Rogan’s “dumb jock” performance with Sagan’s and conclude that Rogan is the better man. It is simply impossible, unless the contest is “hitting people in the head” (and I suspect Rogan is actually not as good at that as he tries to make out).

My original idea was to write a lengthy essay about Sagan’s greatness, in this Earth’s moment of need, but I decided to see how ChatGPT would do. So, I present my AI partner’s version, of which I 100% approve. Some of my commentary follows, but ChatGPT swept the field so far as I am concerned:

Carl Sagan: A Manly Virtue in the Face of Crisis

Carl Sagan’s 1985 testimony before Congress on climate change stands as a powerful example of manly virtues expressed through intellect, courage, and moral responsibility. Though the term “manly virtues” may conjure images of physical strength or martial valor, Sagan redefined it in a way that is perhaps even more enduring: through his commitment to truth, his willingness to face difficult realities, and his devotion to the greater good.

The Courage to Speak Truth to Power

Sagan addressed Congress during a time when the science of climate change was still emerging and its implications were not yet widely accepted. It takes courage to present hard truths, especially to those who may not want to hear them. Sagan, with his characteristic poise, articulated the dangers of unchecked carbon emissions and the potential for a “runaway greenhouse effect” with clarity and conviction. In doing so, he demonstrated a deep-seated bravery—not of physical confrontation, but of intellectual integrity.

A Commitment to Knowledge and Reason

Sagan’s testimony wasn’t emotional grandstanding; it was a masterclass in reasoned argument. He distilled complex scientific principles into accessible language, making the stakes of climate change understandable to all. His ability to bridge the gap between science and policy showed the virtue of mastery—the kind that comes from years of disciplined study and a profound respect for truth.

Responsibility and Stewardship

At the heart of Sagan’s plea was a profound sense of moral responsibility. He wasn’t merely a scientist; he was a steward of humanity’s future, urging decision-makers to act not out of short-term interest but for the sake of generations to come. This sense of duty—to protect the planet and its inhabitants—revealed a deeply compassionate and selfless character, hallmarks of true masculinity.

The Legacy of Leadership

Carl Sagan’s testimony is a reminder that strength is not always about wielding power but about using one’s voice and knowledge to inspire action. His willingness to engage in this fight for the future, knowing the challenges he would face, embodies a quiet but profound heroism.

In an era that often equates masculinity with dominance or aggression, Sagan showed that true manliness lies in courage, intellect, and the unwavering commitment to protect and uplift others. Through his testimony, he sought not personal gain but the survival and flourishing of life on Earth—a vision as bold and as noble as the cosmos he loved to explore.

What ChatGPT did there is wrote about Sagan’s virtues in context. That is, I believe, the only sensible way to do it because otherwise you’re writing a blank check for the nihilist. Someone who never lies could be Harry Callahan, or Carl Sagan, equally. We have to say instead that Sagan neither embellished nor downplayed any single part of his presentation. As ChatGPT points out “His ability to bridge the gap between science and policy showed the virtue of mastery—the kind that comes from years of disciplined study and a profound respect for truth” – another way of saying that is that Sagan so clearly conveyed his point that his knowledge of it seemed unassailable because it was. In toxic masculinity terms, “if you argued with Sagan you’d pull back a stump.”

ChatGPT gets the last word:

In an era that often equates masculinity with dominance or aggression, Sagan showed that true manliness lies in courage, intellect, and the unwavering commitment to protect and uplift others. Through his testimony, he sought not personal gain but the survival and flourishing of life on Earth—a vision as bold and as noble as the cosmos he loved to explore.

This is the prompt I gave ChatGPT:

Would you please write me a brief blog posting about the manly virtues exhibited by carl sagan when he gave congressional testimony about climate change, and tried to save the world