• When not extolling the virtues of manliness, Professor Mansfield enjoys needling his liberal academic colleaugues. A conservative voice in the wildnerness, he rose at a recent faculty meeting to ask Harvard President Neil Rudenstine to address the disruption of an earlier meeting by students participating in the April 9 "Rally for Justice." Read the text of his remarks.

Those who object to Mansfield's approach label him an "essentialist" and argue that differences between the sexes are the result of historical social arrangements. Those in this "social construction" camp see little value, then, in stereotypical ideas about what makes a man, a man and what makes a woman, a woman. Mansfield recognizes the limitations of stereotypes. "They are often presented as universals, when they're true only generally." Nonetheless, Mansfield believes "there is more truth in stereotypes than in ideologically driven ëstudies,' and that our age needs to reduce the reputation of social science and restore that of common sense." Social science has convinced too many, he claims, that it is possible to live without stereotypes, an idea he sees as absurd. 

What is a "manly man," according to Mansfield? Manliness has two components, which are constantly in tension: confidence and command. Confidence is the willingness to take risks, to step up and take charge when others will not, and to be courageous. This manly trait, however, has a dark side. Often it leads to disdain for others who fail to be confident and thus leads to the desire to be independent. This anti-social pressure exists in tension with the other manly trait, command. A manly man must be commanding, possessing authority. He must be available to others when things are difficult. 

The difficulty for men, Mansfield argues, has always been to reconcile this conflict. Traditionally, women have been of some assistance. Women often have the ability to domesticate men and in so doing help make manliness into something more admirable and responsible. When men become fathers, they are no longer independent and must fulfill certain obligations to those requiring protection. 

Feminism, however, is an assault on manliness. In this liberal age, Mansfield says, choice is emphasized to an unhealthy extreme. Women now want to be able to choose to be manly. To Mansfield, such a choice is impossible. He argues that when one sex tries to adopt the style of the other, the result is undesirable. Men, when trying to become feminine, become indecisive; women, in trying to be manly, become shrill. 

But in addition to the problem of practicality, Mans-field questions even the desirability of crossing-over between the styles of men and women. "Women cry too much and men boast too much," he says. Manly men and womanly women compliment the other's style and both sexes are better off. Today's emphasis on choice has led to women attempting to be men, but in addition it has led to men choosing not to provide benefits to women. Mansfield believes that feminists never considered the effect that feminism would have on men - or if they did, they didn't understand it. Noting the numbers of absent fathers and sexual crimes, Mansfield thinks manliness has "run wild" because women, in trying to be men, no longer act like women. 

Traditionally, Mansfield notes, it was appropriate for men to treat women like ladies, to compliment women and to encourage them. Today, such "sexist" attitudes are frowned upon and women have been left without something they once had and still need. Mansfield speculates this may explain the rise of eating  disorders among women and the proliferation of "support groups." 

What about the idea of androgyny? What if we could encourage men and women to cultivate masculine and feminine traits and get them to act manly, when appropriate, and womanly, when appropriate. Mansfield is somewhat sympathetic to the idea, but doesn't believe this approach would work. He argues that men need to know what their role is and women need to know what their role is; the idea is to specialize in certain tasks, according to nature. "Everyone wants to transcend their sex; it's good for men to be sensitive; it's just not fully possible. We must each recognize that our sex lacks something." 

Women in the workforce present a problem, then. While Mansfield recognizes that, in a free society, once women demand the right to vote and seek paid employment they cannot be justly refused, he questions whether these choices were wise "for society or for women themselves." In addition to furthering the attack on manliness, women often lose out. "In the competition to be manly, men are going to excel and women aren't," he says. 

And women lose out in the bedroom as well as in the boardroom. With everyone trying to be manly, promiscuity remains unchecked and women are often taken advantage of. Respect for women has declined, Mansfield says, now that sexual freedom and independence are so highly valued. Finding commitment is hard for women in a culture full of men now able to focus solely on pleasing themselves. 

Obviously it is impossible to return to the 1950s. Even if we agreed it would be better to restore the traditional ways, women are not going to return to the home nor are they about to give up their political rights. Nonetheless, Mansfield's arguments need to be taken seriously. Even if we ultimately disagree in part or in whole with his analysis of feminism and the social effects of the liberal assault on manliness, feminists have advanced their "social constructionism" without challenge long enough. 

Mansfield is justified in pointing out the inherent difficulties of a society that tries to base itself on nothing more than choice. He is right to question an ideology committed to denying the evident differences between the sexes.  And he is correct to suggest that before we congratulate ourselves on successfully fighting the injustice of the "patriarchy," we take note of just what we have gained - and what we have lost.