In an era of male loneliness and confusing messages about manhood, Project Hail Mary models problem-solving, purpose, and fatherly strength without apology.
Dr. Peterson and Jonathan Pageau point to another way of vitality. It is free from the soul crushing radical individualism which drags all of us down to the depths of despair.
As is often the case, I had mixed feelings about Project Hail Mary, perhaps even more than most because it's a somewhat densely-packed storyline that's supposedly fairly true to the book (haven't read myself, but others say it's really good). The pacing is good and there's a lot of neat aspects to the story. Still, I was pretty disappointed in the way the protagonist was portrayed — as such a reluctant hero — though it's clear that a lot of the fight he had in him at the beginning has been beaten out, by the rough turns his academic career had taken.
Having a hopeful vision for the future is such a key trait for men, so I found it disappointing that the only vision portrayed in the film seems to be that of Eva Stratt (excellently portayed by Sandra Hüller). Though to be fair, Grace very likely had a vision for his life, too, before it was shattered.
But it must be said Dr. Ryland Grace did an outstanding job of rising to the occasion, meeting challenge after challenge, however reluctant he was early on. And this review does a fine job of detailing that, and pointing out what it tells us about masculinity, and male relationships.
Of course, this is Hollywood, so the technical details are wanting (though at least they didn't ask us to believe you could patch a Martian habitat with plastic sheeting, as in Andy Weir's earlier movie). And while it's my understanding that most of the book's main plot elements made it into the film, apparently the book gives far more extensive (and satisfying) technical explanations for the stuff glossed over on the screen.
Anyway, those are my thoughts, and thanks for a great review, which has helped me come to grips with this film.
Odd...all this talk about Tate and Fuentes. Farts in a windstorm.
On the subject of "toxic masculinity." The condition used to be referred to as immaturity--a universal condition we all understand that applies to men and women alike. This idea of a "positive masculinity" and "negative masculinity" is absurd, as if men have a unique negativity about them. They don't.. it's about maturity.
I see how the protagonist of Project Hail Marry is an example of positive masculinity. But he is fictional, Tate and Fuentes aren't. If you want men to believe they actually have an alternative you have to have a real world example. Even if you establish that as a viable path, you then need to explain why men should take it over the toxic route. How is the noble route better for the men, not just everyone else?
However, if you want examples of positive masculinity, how about guys like Tim Tebow, Nick Freitas, Charlie Kirk, or Marco Rubio?
And the other thing is, define "better." Is it all about "The tangibles," or is there an intangible element to it? Is it true that "Better is a dry morsel with quiet than a house full of feasting with strife"? (Proverbs 17:1) Is it better to live for yourself or live for others? There's a lot going on here.
Materialism isn't the point of life, but some of those tangibles are needed to survive and thrive. You said to be noble for self satisfaction and to earn the respect for those around you, so for the community. However if that community can't provide the things you need and desire, like a loving wife let's say, you're going to have a hard time convincing men to stay and continue to be noble. I would argue men should be noble because Jesus Christ will give them eternal life if only they accept it, but give the state of the American church that doesn't move many people I fear.
The thing is that going the Tate route doesn't give you what you need and desire either, at least if you're a functional human being and not a predator.
To use the example you provided, you might get a woman/women, but you will not get a wife, if that makes sense.
I don't really get the get a woman but not a wife, that's going over my head.
Edit: it clicked, and if men had a woman but not a wife but that's more than they had before I imagine most would say being toxic was worth it
I agree the Tate method isn't long-term viable, but as Jordan Peterson noted, better to be a monster than a wimp. If being good isn't getting you what you feel you need, it's hard to resist the the urge to be bad. Again, not long-term viable but as men linger on invisible it's not surprising some decide to burn out living in the moment rather than fade away. Maybe they'll be just as unsuccessful, but they'd probably get some satisfaction that they tried
Further more, let's say you convince some men to not be harmful. That isn't the same as convincing them to then be an asset to society is another hurdle. Hard to sacrifice so a society and community that doesn't care for you, better to just indulge in your legal pleasures. Not a noble life but perhaps as pain free as possible.
If you want men to do something there need to be incentive structures that reward that
Toys, children, assets, legacy, wealth both of the personal and intergenerational kind, respect from your woman, family and society at large, status in the community at laege. These are all the components of a fulfilled life that are increasingly denied to men based on obvious discrimination and barriers. All those are real as opposed to the fake nonsense peddled by those who advocate for the order and rules that hamper men. A fake character means nothing if tangible efforts aren't made to remove the roadblocks and weight against them. Helen andrews is right to get rid of the anchor in favor of women and against men.
Your utter refusal to realize that these assets are being denied to everyone, not just men, is duly noted.
Sorry, but this is not a matter of "men are being denied these things while women are granted them," it is a matter of "everyone is being denied these things."
Oh they are denied to men to a degree that their industries were dismantled and even during the 2008 financial crisis, the stimulus was funneled to industries favorable to women at the behest of feminist groups. That is one example of the systemic discrimination if males that has happened consistently for the last 30 to 50 years. The elite asron loves facilitated it and now are concerned? Why should men listen to people who dont have their concerns at heart? The manosphere actually spoke to men in a real manner as opposed to the fakeness from our so called betters.
Exactly. What is the point, what is the goal and what are the rewards? This author admits the bias and discrimination but offers nothing concrete. He cites propaganda hit piece nonsense from Netflix against men he may not like but actually advocate for men and the truth in a very real manner. What are the supposed elite men doing except trying to maintain this horrible gynocentric order without giving men true and real goals and rewards. Looking to a fake new Luke Skywalker who was destroyed by a boss babe wont cut it anymore.
Oh no, my masculinity has been questioned by an internet rando. I will now flee the field in terror.
Anyway, since we both know you wouldn't have said that if no name had said he thought Lenin and Mao were cool dudes who told it like it was and stood up for the working class, and I had called him out on it, cut the nonsense
Fuentes to the best of my knowledge doesn'tlie but says things that are probably true or are up for debate. Yes all historical events ehether they are are 10 years ago, 80 years ago or 5000 years ago are up for debate. Tate speaks the truth to the best of his knowledge even though most would ignore male female sexual dynamics as they exist and go straight to the false disney and courtly crap that was propagandized for years and centuries.
The manosphere and red pill was never just them anyways but the whole ecosystem is for male advocacy and truth no matter how unpleasant it is to simps and male feminists who like this gynocentric order that you so clearly love. The fact that you dont advocate for male interests and instead defend this female privileged order says all i need to know about you
Nothing arbitrary about it. The aaron renn advice of suck it up nothing will change and join with people who will not do anything about it except maybe let you feel better as a disadvantaged male is pretty awful. Look to this fictional hero who wont do anything except maybe inspire you to sacrifice for an order that hates you isn't anything to smile about either.
Citing that terrible low ball documentary from Netflix doesn't help your cause. First start advocating for men and male issues in all domains even if they are direct odds and than maybe you'll get some views. Citing another fictional movie and other fictional movies doesn't help anything. The only thing you acknowledged is the discrimination men have faced along with the lies told about women and society at large. Maybe your masculinity would be taken seriously if you advocated for men in a serious manner.
Dr. Peterson and Jonathan Pageau point to another way of vitality. It is free from the soul crushing radical individualism which drags all of us down to the depths of despair.
I don't know if this is accessible still but here was a very good examination of "Toxic masculinity"- and what it is not-- from a couple years ago:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/heroic-toxic-masculinity-boys/675172/
About the movie…
As is often the case, I had mixed feelings about Project Hail Mary, perhaps even more than most because it's a somewhat densely-packed storyline that's supposedly fairly true to the book (haven't read myself, but others say it's really good). The pacing is good and there's a lot of neat aspects to the story. Still, I was pretty disappointed in the way the protagonist was portrayed — as such a reluctant hero — though it's clear that a lot of the fight he had in him at the beginning has been beaten out, by the rough turns his academic career had taken.
Having a hopeful vision for the future is such a key trait for men, so I found it disappointing that the only vision portrayed in the film seems to be that of Eva Stratt (excellently portayed by Sandra Hüller). Though to be fair, Grace very likely had a vision for his life, too, before it was shattered.
But it must be said Dr. Ryland Grace did an outstanding job of rising to the occasion, meeting challenge after challenge, however reluctant he was early on. And this review does a fine job of detailing that, and pointing out what it tells us about masculinity, and male relationships.
Of course, this is Hollywood, so the technical details are wanting (though at least they didn't ask us to believe you could patch a Martian habitat with plastic sheeting, as in Andy Weir's earlier movie). And while it's my understanding that most of the book's main plot elements made it into the film, apparently the book gives far more extensive (and satisfying) technical explanations for the stuff glossed over on the screen.
Anyway, those are my thoughts, and thanks for a great review, which has helped me come to grips with this film.
Odd...all this talk about Tate and Fuentes. Farts in a windstorm.
On the subject of "toxic masculinity." The condition used to be referred to as immaturity--a universal condition we all understand that applies to men and women alike. This idea of a "positive masculinity" and "negative masculinity" is absurd, as if men have a unique negativity about them. They don't.. it's about maturity.
I see how the protagonist of Project Hail Marry is an example of positive masculinity. But he is fictional, Tate and Fuentes aren't. If you want men to believe they actually have an alternative you have to have a real world example. Even if you establish that as a viable path, you then need to explain why men should take it over the toxic route. How is the noble route better for the men, not just everyone else?
However, if you want examples of positive masculinity, how about guys like Tim Tebow, Nick Freitas, Charlie Kirk, or Marco Rubio?
And the other thing is, define "better." Is it all about "The tangibles," or is there an intangible element to it? Is it true that "Better is a dry morsel with quiet than a house full of feasting with strife"? (Proverbs 17:1) Is it better to live for yourself or live for others? There's a lot going on here.
Because, at minimum, you'll actually be able to look at yourself in the mirror, and you'll gain the respect of those around you.
And if those around you regard you as a sucker, then you've discovered that you need to find better people to be around.
That is terrible useless goal with no tangible results.
And by "tangible" you mean "he who dies with the most toys wins."
Grow up.
Materialism isn't the point of life, but some of those tangibles are needed to survive and thrive. You said to be noble for self satisfaction and to earn the respect for those around you, so for the community. However if that community can't provide the things you need and desire, like a loving wife let's say, you're going to have a hard time convincing men to stay and continue to be noble. I would argue men should be noble because Jesus Christ will give them eternal life if only they accept it, but give the state of the American church that doesn't move many people I fear.
The thing is that going the Tate route doesn't give you what you need and desire either, at least if you're a functional human being and not a predator.
To use the example you provided, you might get a woman/women, but you will not get a wife, if that makes sense.
I don't really get the get a woman but not a wife, that's going over my head.
Edit: it clicked, and if men had a woman but not a wife but that's more than they had before I imagine most would say being toxic was worth it
I agree the Tate method isn't long-term viable, but as Jordan Peterson noted, better to be a monster than a wimp. If being good isn't getting you what you feel you need, it's hard to resist the the urge to be bad. Again, not long-term viable but as men linger on invisible it's not surprising some decide to burn out living in the moment rather than fade away. Maybe they'll be just as unsuccessful, but they'd probably get some satisfaction that they tried
Further more, let's say you convince some men to not be harmful. That isn't the same as convincing them to then be an asset to society is another hurdle. Hard to sacrifice so a society and community that doesn't care for you, better to just indulge in your legal pleasures. Not a noble life but perhaps as pain free as possible.
If you want men to do something there need to be incentive structures that reward that
Toys, children, assets, legacy, wealth both of the personal and intergenerational kind, respect from your woman, family and society at large, status in the community at laege. These are all the components of a fulfilled life that are increasingly denied to men based on obvious discrimination and barriers. All those are real as opposed to the fake nonsense peddled by those who advocate for the order and rules that hamper men. A fake character means nothing if tangible efforts aren't made to remove the roadblocks and weight against them. Helen andrews is right to get rid of the anchor in favor of women and against men.
Your utter refusal to realize that these assets are being denied to everyone, not just men, is duly noted.
Sorry, but this is not a matter of "men are being denied these things while women are granted them," it is a matter of "everyone is being denied these things."
Oh they are denied to men to a degree that their industries were dismantled and even during the 2008 financial crisis, the stimulus was funneled to industries favorable to women at the behest of feminist groups. That is one example of the systemic discrimination if males that has happened consistently for the last 30 to 50 years. The elite asron loves facilitated it and now are concerned? Why should men listen to people who dont have their concerns at heart? The manosphere actually spoke to men in a real manner as opposed to the fakeness from our so called betters.
Exactly. What is the point, what is the goal and what are the rewards? This author admits the bias and discrimination but offers nothing concrete. He cites propaganda hit piece nonsense from Netflix against men he may not like but actually advocate for men and the truth in a very real manner. What are the supposed elite men doing except trying to maintain this horrible gynocentric order without giving men true and real goals and rewards. Looking to a fake new Luke Skywalker who was destroyed by a boss babe wont cut it anymore.
That you think guys like Nick Fuentes and Andrew Tate advocate for the truth tells me everything I need to know.
Fuentes is a lying twit, and Tate is a hedonistic twerp.
They are icky, so you are icky. That is a female mode of reasoning.
Oh no, my masculinity has been questioned by an internet rando. I will now flee the field in terror.
Anyway, since we both know you wouldn't have said that if no name had said he thought Lenin and Mao were cool dudes who told it like it was and stood up for the working class, and I had called him out on it, cut the nonsense
If you say so.
Oh, wait, you have already charged over the hill and disappeared.
Nope, still here, and still waiting for you to not be an NPC.
Fuentes to the best of my knowledge doesn'tlie but says things that are probably true or are up for debate. Yes all historical events ehether they are are 10 years ago, 80 years ago or 5000 years ago are up for debate. Tate speaks the truth to the best of his knowledge even though most would ignore male female sexual dynamics as they exist and go straight to the false disney and courtly crap that was propagandized for years and centuries.
The manosphere and red pill was never just them anyways but the whole ecosystem is for male advocacy and truth no matter how unpleasant it is to simps and male feminists who like this gynocentric order that you so clearly love. The fact that you dont advocate for male interests and instead defend this female privileged order says all i need to know about you
(Yawn) Your arbitrary skepticism and isolated demands for rigor say it all. I get it, man--misery loves company.
Nothing arbitrary about it. The aaron renn advice of suck it up nothing will change and join with people who will not do anything about it except maybe let you feel better as a disadvantaged male is pretty awful. Look to this fictional hero who wont do anything except maybe inspire you to sacrifice for an order that hates you isn't anything to smile about either.
No, it is. I doubt you've ever questioned a single thing that the manosphere has told you. Sure doesn't sound like it, anyway.
Citing that terrible low ball documentary from Netflix doesn't help your cause. First start advocating for men and male issues in all domains even if they are direct odds and than maybe you'll get some views. Citing another fictional movie and other fictional movies doesn't help anything. The only thing you acknowledged is the discrimination men have faced along with the lies told about women and society at large. Maybe your masculinity would be taken seriously if you advocated for men in a serious manner.