turbation, and other forms of “animalnlust.” True homosexuals reacted to thensetting “with disgust and loathing.”nMoreover, the fag system worked tonshape character, identify and affirmnnatural moral leaders, protect weakernstudents from bullies, and give Englishnboys a rite of passage into manhoodnthat created bonds of shared experiencenlasting their lifetimes. The transitionnfrom fag to senior taught a lesson:n”The pains and tribulations and oppressionsnsuflFered not long ago werensublimated now in retrospect into thendignity of honorable trial by ordeal,ncreditably endured.” The schools veneratednthe total experience as essentialnto the formation of that “noblest worknof God, an English gentleman.”nYet the early 19th century brought anhost of critics. Most of them, Chandosnshows, represented the new merchantnclass, persons jealous of the loyaltiesnbred among the public schoolers andnaspiring to position. David Morriceninvoked the Gospels to demand thenoutlawing of the “corrupt influence”nof “Latin and Greek authors, call themneither Pagan or Glassical” who weren”injurious to the youthful imaginationnand religious principle.” Morriceneventually succeeded in his protestnagainst the annual performance of Terence’snEunuchus at Westminster, withnthe play—“the most indecorous of allnhis comedies”—suspended in 1846.nWriting in the Edinburgh Review, anotherncritic labeled fagging as “the onlynregular institution of slave labor enforcednby brute force which exists innthese islands.” As these charges foundntheir way into the scandalmongeringnpress, great pressures fell onto the publicnschools. By mid-century, the radicalnsocial reformer and old RugbeiannT.H. Green lamented, “The spirit ofnthe age, raving against everything thatnsounds like oppression, seems likely tonestablish a worse tyranny in publicnschools, as everywhere else.”nThe reforms of the 1860’s did bringnmodern curricula and adult supervisionnto the lads. The boys’ freedom,nindependence, and natural male communityngave way to a new order, innwhich high-minded teachers regardedntheir charges as “human putty,” to benmolded as much alike as possible bynprofessionals.nIn the late 20th century, of course,nthe number of male preserves isnshrinking at a more rapid pace. Fornexample, if trends in baccalaureatenand masters degrees portend the future,naccounting, law, and the ministrynwill become female-dominatednprofessions by this century’s close.nMore broadly, technological innovationnand the decay of family bondsncontinue to undermine the separatenspheres that once defined manhoodnand womanhood.nMen, we are told, now need tonbecome caring, compassionate, childcentered,nand sensitive. They mustnforgo their proclivities for aggressionnand violence. They must become androgynousnwholes. Male liberators,nseeking to give the beleaguered gendernnew role models, have produced anvoluminous literature. In his popularnA Choice of Heroes, Marc Gerzonndescribes “emerging masculinities”:nmen as healers, mediators, companions,ncolleagues, and nurturers. JosephnPleck, labeled “a national treasure”nby others in “the movement,”nargues in his The Myth of Masculinitynthat psychology, not biology, constructsnmasculinity; hence, “maleness”ncan be redefined at will. In severalnvolumes, poet Robert Bly advocatesndevelopment of the new “wild man,” anvigorous and spontaneous person,ncontrasting well with the old-stylednsavage, brutal, or passive man.nStephen Shapiro’s Manhood: AnNew Definition falls into this reinterpretiveneffort. Like its brother volumes,nthe book is strong on psychosocialnconcepts, weak on prescription.nShapiro’s favorite device is to weavenold-fashioned “male” words and imagesninto a murky, vaguely progressivenagenda:nWe must recover somentraditional values: respect fornour forefathers, brotherhood,ncommitment to marital love,nresponsibility, sacrifice. And ifnit is to flourish and survive, ournrespect for these values cannotnbe based, as it was so often innthe past, on submissivenconformity to their falsenauthoritarian forms but onnrealizing the fullness of theirnmeaning for our personal moralndevelopment and for ourndemocratic community life.nSuch musings consume 240 pages. Innnnthe end, Shapiro says that men willnrecover their manhood by learning “tontolerate and then to love” alien faces,ndifferent-colored flesh, strange gods,nvulnerable children, the dying elderly,npower in women, and so on. Manhoodn”requires us to reduce injusticenso that we may repair the bonds ofntrust.” Alan Alda, call your office.nA more rigorous, equally politicalninvestigation of manhood is found innThe Redundant Male. In their earlierncollaboration. The Monkey Puzzle, authorsnJeremy Cherfas and John Gribbinnshowed some ability at translatingnrecent scientific discoveries into thenvernacular. Here, they labor over thenresults of genetic and sociobiologicalnresearch and conclude that “Men arenat best parasites on women, and atnworst totally redundant in the immediatenevolutionary scheme.” Their essentialnargument is that asexual reproductionnis best. They look withnadmiration at creatures such as thendandelion and the Amazon molly (anlittle fish) which have made the greatnleap to nonsexual reproduction, orncloning, and do surprisingly well.nCherfas and Gribbin state that inn”every case” where sexual reproductionnstill gives creatures an evolutionarynadvantage, this is due solely to “thenintense competition for resources betweennthe offspring of a singlenindividual” — e.g., among the oakntrees.nRelative to humans, they report thatnemerging cloning technologies makenmen unnecessary. “Sex no longernpays,” and women would do betternwithout having to bear male children.nThe authors do add that it might benwise to keep a small group of sexualnbreeders in reserve, a sort of livingngene bank, on the slight chance thatnbasic environmental conditions mightnchange beyond the coping ability ofnexisting technology. On a society-widenbasis, though, women will soon benable to do away with the “redundant”nmale.nYet their argument doesn’t hold. Innaffirming the superiority of asexualnreproduction, Cherfas and Gribbinnmust face the fact that the great majoritynof species more complex than thenbacterias are sexual species, clear winnersnin the evolutionary race. Withoutncomplex technologies to protect them,nmoreover, the novel asexual creaturesnJUNE 1986/25n