printCaptain Chesley B. ‘Sully’ Sullenberger, III, to Ground Control: “Unable: We’re Going To Be In the Hudson.”
Those were the laconic, spare words of ‘Sully,’ as he calmly prepared to land Cactus 1549, an engineless passenger plane, in the Hudson.
This former ace F-4 fighter pilot is so obviously of the right stuff. This is what it means to be a man—in the traditional sense. Silent, steely, short-on-words and ego, big on humility, ability, and reliability. The kind of guy who’s the best at what he does and almost always comes through for you.
There is a deep lesson here about the value of an endangered virtue: manliness. You see it in older men like Sully. They have that deep voice, the slight swagger no amount of politically correct taming can subdue, and they do their jobs to perfection.
Then there is the New Man. I described him here:
“I was stocking up on groceries at Fred Meyer when I heard this fretful falsetto. ‘Honey, look at these ingredients. Oh my God. Check the percentage of trans fats. It’s outrageous!’ The fussing, believe it or not, was coming from a man. He was hopping up and down on spindly legs, beckoning his wife excitedly. I quickly moved on, thanking my lucky stars that the spouse had gravitated automatically to the hardware section of the store, and was itching to move on to Home Depot.”
“Whenever I venture out, I encounter this not-so-new breed of man. Typically, he’ll have a few spoilt, cranky kids in tow, and a papoose strapped to a sunken chest. He’ll be laboring to make the outing to Trader Joe’s a ‘learning experience’ for the brats—one that every other store patron is forced to endure. This generic guy oozes psychological correctness and zero manliness. He’s not necessarily effeminate, mind you. Rather, he’s safely androgynous, and most certainly not guy-like in the traditional sense. As personalities go, he and the wife are indistinguishable.”
It’s rather alarming: everywhere around me—and on television—the prototypical father, in his early 50s, late 40s, is often more Sully-like than his son. The latter is the New Man: high voice, pudgy face, sensitive mannerism. Unattractive.
Ladies (“mature” ones, at least), who would you rather date, Chris Cillizza of the trendy eye-wear and affectatious mannerism, or Tom Brokaw? (Old-style gentlemen also seem to stick with their sweethearts until death do them apart.)
All the above is why I, personally, find men in the writing profession (with exceptions, naturally), especially bloggers, particularly off-putting. (And a man who blogs shoulder-to-shoulder with his wife is like a man who bakes with her. You just know he’s puny in spirit and petty.)
And not solely because we writers are often ego-bound, self-centered, and unable to get beyond ourselves–vices that are particularly ugly in a man. Rather, I like men who can do what I can’t do. I like that my husband manipulates for a living concepts I cannot fathom.
Don’t get me wrong; I did well at math, but I had to work at it (hard working is another manly trait). And I loved post-graduate level statistics, which I aced. But there is no comparison between the level of math required for the soft subjects—business, economics, statistics—and the hard and applied sciences. The latter is beyond me. Physics, astrophysics, and electrical engineering—manipulating the laws of nature for a living—which is what goes into a thorough understanding of physics and electrical and aerospace engineering: that awes me, because it is beyond me. (The old boy won’t even read this blog unless forced to; or if we’re arguing and he wants to check up on what I’ve been up to. GRIN)
Since I’ve already meandered from the topic, and the Main Man: In his fascinating book, America’s Half-Blood Prince: Barack Obama’s Story of Race and Inheritance, Steve Sailer comments on the intelligence of Obama versus that of his Ivy-League, physicist half-brother. Unless I misunderstood the IQ Ace, he believed these values would be comparable.
I disagree. Granted, I assert this based on gut, not numbers. But since Steve, I believe, did not provide a citation for that particular snippet, I’m willing to bet that Obama is unable to master the level of abstraction required by a, presumably, top physicist such as his half-brother. I can do law; I can’t do physics, astrophysics–or design, calculate, and calibrate the stuff that goes into a cell phone. I don’t buy the theory of differing, but equal, intelligence. Such intelligence egalitarianism in just a PC way of elevating more common, attainable abilities. There are many more lawyers than physicists.
In any event, the steel that is Sully is worth protecting (as opposed to protectionism for American steel and steel workers).
Amen to this. Reminds me of why I chose the man I did, although the reasons weren’t quite as clear in my mind.
I think you’re being too kind, Ilana. Masculinity – real masculinity – necessarily involves a fierce independence, a trait sorely lacking in modern society. What isn’t medicated away during formative years is suppressed by a cancerous feminist ideology drilled into “men” during adulthood.
Exhibit A: the welfare state. No real man relies on the forced wealth transfer from others to himself for his own survival and sustenance, let alone that of his family. The mere thought of waiting for a welfare check is anathema. For him, there is no safety net; it’s sink or swim, baby.
One need only look at the outrageous Big 3 auto bailouts to comprehend the depth of the disease. All these supposedly tough blue collar union workers that pride themselves on being the salt of the earth, are in reality a bunch of girlie-men. Their dues bribe corrupt politicians to steal the property of others, erect trade barriers, and subsidize failure. Where is the honor?
Real men don’t steal or cheat (or have others do the stealing for them). They take life as it comes, and don’t complain when things don’t go their way.
It’s time for manliness to make a comeback. God knows, we need it, and it can’t be legislated into existence.
I’m glad you respect those who manipulate the laws of nature for a living, Ilana. As an engineer with 25 years’ experience, I’ve found that the idealistic conception many associate with becoming an engineer or scientist does not typically correlate with the reality of working in those professions. I speak not of tenured academics, but of professionals applying their skills in the corporate world, where there is no equivalent of “tenure,” no position like “partner” (as in a law firm), and no objective standards relating quality of work to (relative) job security. Technologists can, and have been, laid off in droves due to changes in national priorities (such as the massive layoffs in aerospace that followed the end of the Cold War); when their jobs are shipped overseas to be done more cheaply; and when cheaper foreign technologists are imported en masse here. Experienced corporate technologists are not protected from the onslaught of new engineering graduates (based on the “engineering shortage” myth); and the salary paid to one older professional can be easily divided between two new grads, both eager to work the 60-80 hours per week many engineering jobs require for a salary based on 40 hours’ pay.
These and other issues receive ample documentation here: http://www.aea.org
[Not only are you a woman, but your field–fiber optics, is it?—is especially challenging.]
I agree with almost everything of what Barbara wrote about engineering, since I have suffered as the result of my poor choice of profession: too many intelligent engineers chasing the too few most desirable Engineering jobs; however, one disagreement, I once worked for a large consulting engineering company, at that time with many hundreds of Engineers employed, that was formed legally as a “Partnership”, and the “Partners” owned the company. Unfortunately, the “Partners” were more interested in billable hours and profits than in engineering quality and ethics.
Is it okay to read the nutrition labels if you don’t hop up and down on spindly legs?
Hey, let’s not be too hard on the statisticians. There’s a difference between elementary statistics (normal distributions, hypothesis testing) and the more advanced work which I’m nerdy enough to admit I find interesting. Try cranking through the linear algebra behind generalized linear models and then tell me that stats are soft.
With that said…yes, the math behind physics is harder. [I can do the simple stuff, not what you do.]
Sully is really really cool. There’s a lesson in grace under pressure.
As an engineer, pilot, and (I like to think) real man, I thank you, Ilana.
Not all pilots or engineers are top-notch, though. In any profession, I find that only a few percent have the intellectual itch to know as much as they can about things, including their own profession, and strive to be masters at it. [Sure; in every sphere there are the mediocre and the elites. In my “profession,” the worse you are, the better you fare.]
Sully was a glider pilot and expert on emergency procedures preparedness. Two things that really counted that day. Even in my puddle-jumper, I try to always know where I’m going to land when the engine quits. I’m careful about complete pre-flight and anything else that might surprise me. Other pilots, even some instructors, have made it clear that they think I’m paranoid about safety.
I get the same attitude from engineers, too. But only from those I supervise, not from my customers.
Only a few percent of people care, anyway. But that’s why I appreciate what you do, Ilana. I know a two-percenter when I find one!
Wow! I’m glad you appreciate the effort required to be an engineer, Ilana!
My chosen major is Electronic Engineering – and I would like to go to a Master’s course as well as possibly double major in math – and perhaps minor in philosophy. I think that either way, I will end up being in school for the rest of my life; it’s too enjoyable to give up completely – especially the math and theory.
I find that I have more fun with ideas in pure math than ‘regular’ math. Engineers are interested, of course, in practical math – applied mathematics, because of its usefulness.
But pure math, math for it’s own sake, is extremely fascinating to me. I always get a chuckle out of people who make base statements about philosophy and math, such as ‘well philosophy is just a matter of opinion; math is concrete’. Actually, math is a section of philosophy, and it’s based on some assumptions – axioms – which are true by their nature.
This correlates, interestingly, with Austrian economics, which itself is based on axiomatic thinking. It’s bizarre to watch otherwise interesting economists make such stupid methodological errors by constructing models that attempt to prove economic axioms wrong – and then complain that Austrians rely on ‘poor methodology’! Funny stuff – relying on axiomatic deductive reasoning – mathematics – to prove that axiomatic deductive reasoning in economics is incorrect, and can’t be applied to it. (Does this make sense? No.)
Another interesting thing is the assumptions themselves of math. Why does 1+1=2? You cannot break this down any further by propositions; you just know that this is true by the logic of the argument, regardless of whether or not you see this relation in the real world.
This ability to know truth, mathematically (and some would say, ethically as well) is intuitionism. Philosopher Michael Huemer talks about these things more thoroughly in his articles and books on epistemology, but it’s fascinating to see how math’s most basic assumptions – axioms – rely on intuitionism; something that has an initial intellectual appearance that we know to be true, intuitively.
Sorry for the long post, Ilana. I am studying for an exam on the 10th, and my mind is wandering.
I’ll reply to the other half of the post on manliness later.
~Alex
About the manliness theme from this article…
If we are being pragmatic, we should see, plainly, that there is no future for manliness (at least in the traditional sense). Not only that, but I think it does a disservice to young men by confusing them as to how to treat women, and puts them at a disadvantage to be exploited, either politically or socially.
Men like Sully are very few, and our culture is not putting out many more of them. In addition to this, we have women who are demonstrating these qualities of leadership, and, well, masculinity.
Men can’t be traditional gentleman by our cultural climate; we live in a world were women pummel each other in a cage on Ultimate Fighting Championship, where they are routinely blown up in Iraq and Afghanistan, and where they are earning more college degrees than men.
‘Gentle’ men don’t have a place in this world treating women as anything other than total equals. By treating them kinder than their male counterparts – which, if we were being honest, is what a good part of chivalry is – they open themselves up to be manipulated and exploited by women who do not care, culturally or politically, who ride roughshod over these ‘gentle’ men.
Women are inside corporate, military, and government as never before, and are directly competing with men. Why would I treat someone who wants to compete, possibly take my job, any better than my male co-workers? Because she is a woman?
This isn’t fair to men – and anyone who has worked in or around the corporate world has seen examples of women using gentlemen to further their own careers.
If men are competing with women in virtually all fields (and they are), and women enjoy and want this (and they do), then they should not be treated any differently than men.
Traditional masculinity is unfair to men, helps women exploit men, and is outdated. It confuses young men as to how to treat women, and annoys and frustrates women.
We should just let it die already.
Ilana, it is always nice to find women like you and my late wife who see something in us nerdy physicists. The DOWNSIDE of physics is that decent jobs are scarce and often physicists wind up in other professions such as inventing derivatives (financial WMD) or patent law or tech-salesmen like half-brother Mark Ndesandjo (a mulatto working in China who has NO interest in racial politics unlike the professional huckster-Sharptons). If one does get a job in physics, it is often dependent directly or indirectly on government funding to make a (parasite) living. The UPSIDE is the joy of understanding relativity, quantum mechanics, transistors, lasers… – a mental equivalent of climbing Everest. It is exhilarating to study if you can hack it. However, in my case, any real work justification evaporated with the death of the Soviets. I did enjoy giving a talk last year at a symposium on why basic physics principles such as entropy inherently favor insurgencies in such things as Improvised Explosive Devices. That did not per se endear me to some of my fellow parasites that like to pretend (for funding purposes) that they can beat off Afghan cave men with some magical high-tech hoodoo.
Alex–
Don’t read Ayn Rand until after you take your philosophy courses. She’ll ruin them for you, and your professors will all hate you. They might anyway, if you insist on relying upon and building from axioms. You’re just not ‘enlightened’ enough. Heh.
Or, read her work and then see if the courses are still worth it to you.
–John–
Alex –
On your second point about manliness —
I wouldn’t worry too much about all that. Hormones will take care of most of it, and real men and real women are two-percenters anyway. Young people are wired to ignore guidance and waste their youth. It’s always been that way. Fashionable idiocy has always been the rage. Once you step away from the mob, it can be quite lonely.
It’s an IQ and character test. Guys like Sully just do what they want to do, what they are driven to do, even though others can’t understand. They are only recognized rarely, as in this incredibly improbable event. And even when they are recognized, you’ll notice most people laud him for all the wrong reasons. They call him a hero, and he’s thinking, “All I did was show what I’m made of, and every pilot should be able to do that.” Heck, half of the people are calling his glider landing a miracle, even! (An insult.)
It will always be thus.
–John–
[Brilliant analysis of the common reaction to Sully’s doing what he does for a living with no fuss.]
Isn’t the man you describe, also described in the Bible and the Talmud?
Myron’s comments encapsulate a situation that I have seen, as well: technologists in industry struggling to justify their salaries through “make work” endeavors after the Cold War. From what I remember hearing at the time, technologists (many very good) in the old Soviet Union were reduced to street-sweepers (or perhaps became immigrants to Iran.)
In America (and more to the subject of Ilana’s post) most of the technologists affected were men (and silent types, at that!) who did not take credit for their part in the U.S.S.R.’s demise, and did not make a fuss as their career possibilities dwindled.
[In my new book, if ever it comes out, I speak to this phenomenon: how WASP men, especially, go into the night without a murmur.–IM]
“One need only look at the outrageous Big 3 auto bailouts to comprehend the depth of the disease. All these supposedly tough blue collar union workers that pride themselves on being the salt of the earth, are in reality a bunch of girlie-men. Their dues bribe corrupt politicians to steal the property of others, erect trade barriers, and subsidize failure. Where is the honor?”…Steve Hogan (Comment #2)
Maybe I’m missing something, but exactly what trade barriers are we enacting on behalf of our auto industry, or for any other domestic industry or job for that matter…? We import gazillions of Japanese, European, and now Korean automobiles without insisting that these countries allow imports of our products on an equal basis. We’re not protecting anything but the economies of foreign countries, nor anyone but foreign workers.