Grip test determines masculinity is on a decline

[Liam Trott]

Masculinity itself is a social construct. It's a collection of traditional values deemed to be manly by a society and varies based on what culture or time period you are in. Like all social constructs, along with the meaning of the language we use, it will change with time and the people who it is used to describe.

Some will view that as progressive, others regressive, but the change will happen with or without our approval. Personally, I am quite neutral on the matter, but I can understand why others feel strongly about it. 

[Chuck Hench]

Masculinity is simply an identification of traits men exhibit. Women will never have a phallus. Women on their own, without genetic deformity, will not produce more testosterone than estrogen. These are indisputable facts not social constructs. Now what does testosterone do? You get the hint. Now if you are talking men do work while women stay home etc. THAT is a social construct but it still generally falls in line with what genetic traits are most useful for a certain job. 

Do you think that Neanderthal had the intellect to determine society is what made males into hunters and females into nurturers? How about other animal kingdoms? You are downplaying the role of genetics here by a significant amount.

[Scott Styles]

The article is click bait to purposefully stir up traffic around a hot topic. It's a waste of your time and energy. Don't fall for it.

[bender]

It's interesting that now the phrase "masculinity is an identification of traits men exhibit" is replacing the previous stance of "masculinity is physical strength".  The paper cited is purely about physical strength, and in no way addressed identification of traits men exhibit.  I'd like to reference the paper again, stating that while it showed women are losing physical strength too, no extremist-author is making strong statements about how our women are being stripped of their masculinity.  

As our society progresses from an industrial-agrarian one to a purely techno-informational one, all of us will lose strength.  It has nothing to do about how masculine a person is.

On the other hand, our VALUES change.  If one values a male for physical strength, then strength and masculinity become interchangeable.  If one has little value for physical strength, then it has little correlation towards anybody's masculinity or femininity.     It's worth pointing out that our society's VALUES are changing, and there is less and less VALUE for the male-as-physically-strong ideal.  

I would like to also re-state my stance on physical strength, and summon a distant Socrates:  

“No man has the right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training. It is a shame for a man to grow old without seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable.”

Though I would like to adjust his sentiment too, adding no human has the right... its is a shame for a human...   for which their body...  

Human's are strong.  Apply a value to strength, and any human it is applied to will grow strong.  Make a social contract for a group to be strong, and they will be strong.

Personally I love being strong.  On our clinic's hand dynometer, I don't know what my grip strength is, because it only goes up to 200 pounds.  I love being strong, and I encourage others to be strong, it has exactly NOTHING to do with being male or masculine.  

As an example, my wife is stronger than a majority of men.  She has more physical strength than at least 50% of men.  She is not masculine.  She is physically strong.  The "folk" who would call her masculine are old.  Our societies understanding of life is made better one retirement at a time.  

 

Damn right about the "click bait".  But there is a significant under-represented or non-represented group in American that doesn't get to hear their values made clear in a public format.  There also needs to be intelligent conversation about this topic, or we'll end up with old ideals being forced onto kids growing up in a modern world.  

[Anton.Torrella]

Alot of deep and important points here above - social construct such as masculinity and gender are always live and fluid, but strength is undeniable, whether expressed physically or not - the view point of nature and nurture is often very hard to separate - great discussion!

[Chuck Hench]

It isn't just referring to strength. You're glossing over  the mention of  "protector, builder, and fixer." And physical confrontation as mentioned traits that have been on a decline. I am curious as to what you think masculinity is and how your definition differs from Merriam Webster's.

[Hubgeezer]

If you Google "Grip Strength Millennials", you will get over a dozen articles from major publications, each putting their spin on things on the study.

 

My favorite for amusement is from Gawker Magazine, which I believe went out of business today.

[Rob McMurren]

I was raised to have a strong handshake, One of the first things my dad taught me was that a firm handshake tells you a lot about the man.    I don't think it is emphasised anymore.  .  I hired two summer students this year, who when they first shook my hand, my first inclination was to turn them down because of how weak their handshake was, turns out, they're two of the best hires I have made, both are hard workers, always on time and strong.  

[Gingernaut25]

I think we're getting pretty caught up in a definition of a word vs is implied definition. There's a general idea of what masculinity is and individual idea of it.  

 

When I think about a masculinity I think of a few things.  Top of the list is my grandfather.  In his day he could run up a ladder with 3 bundles of shingles all day long.  He was a self taught carpenter.  Seemed he worked on half the houses in my home town.  Everyone knew him.  Taught me to fish.  Ride a bike.  Taught me my morals. Ask questions and then challenge the answers, until you understand. Think for yourself.  Stand up for yourself.  Stand up for those that can't defend themselves.  If you can help someone, offer.  He laid the ground work for the man I am today.  And the man hand a strong set of paws till the day he died.  

 

I also think about the way a man dresses,  works,  and treats people. 

Look at men in frank sinatras day. .. classy.  Today?  Swag. ...whatever that is. ..

Time was you judged a man by his handshake.  Now his coverletter. 

 

I know men my age that think baiting a hook is gross. ... and they have limp fish handshakes.  

 

I think we're getting caught up on literal definitions.  

As a whole men are less manly then the men of decades ago. But the world is also much different than it once was.  We don't really think much about products and merchandise these days but once upon a time literally everything you had was hand made by someone!  Farmers aren't as manly as their great great grand father's. Machinery and automation have changed their lives for the better.  Forestry workers aren't doing as much climbing.  They aren't swinging axes.  Moving logs is now doneby machinery.  

Fisherman aren't rowing out to sea and pulling100s of feet of rope with 150 lbs at the end by hand.  

 

These guys are all stronger and tougher than the avg fella and waaaay stronger than the star bucks totting bi-curious hipster barista dropping out of university because I JUST NEED TO FOCUS ON MY CRAFT DAAAAD wannabe dj..... 

Final 2 pennies,  of course grip strength isn't the only way to Guage the rise or fall of masculinity. ...

 

But

I've never met a masculine MF with a weak grip. ...

[GeneS]

7 hours ago, rjackson said:

 

The National Review is an archly conservative magazine with an agenda. Interestingly, the founder of the magazine, William F Buckley was pretty far from what many here would call masculine - I doubt that he lifted a weight in his lifetime....

Definitions, as they appear in dictionaries, are descriptive of usage. In some cases people misuse words because they don't understand how they are properly used. But in other cases, changing societal views can also properly be reflected in a word's usage, and ultimately be reflected in dictionary definitions.

Are women with strong grips, who are self sufficient, etc, and have some of the other properties described here, masculine? Are gay guys with feminine mannerisms, but who lift weights and are incredibly strong, masculine?

Some of the qualities described here are certainly good. Being self sufficient is a good thing. But it's a good thing for men and women - it's a good thing for an adult.

Similarly, it is a good thing for both women and men to be strong, rather than weak. Of course, it isn't a sign of moral deficiency to be weak. Some of the greatest people in the world have not been strong physically.

As far as a strong grip - it's not polite to squeeze someone's hand so hard that you hurt them. Most people have the strength to have a good handshake. That's an interesting question - why don't they shake hands firmly? I'd guess that they just don't buy into the notion that it's important. And to be sure, it isn't important compared to many other character traits. I'd seriously doubt that there would be a correlation between honesty and firmness of handshake, for instance.

I think that there are some rather antiquated notions, reflected in our vocabulary, that imply that someone's value depends on rather superficial aspects of their person.The National Review has an agenda, and rather than talking simply about how people aren't as strong in an earlier day, they charge the discussion by saying that they are less 'masculine', which fits in with their politics, and notions of family values, and moraiity, etc.

[patrickmeniru]

Thought I'd weigh in with my 2 cents, it seems to me that everyone here basically is in agreement that the average man today would be considered less 'manly' than his grandfathers if you judge masculinity to be based on what I'll loosely call 'traditional values' - i.e. your definition may vary but things like being physically strong, having practical skills (fishing, starting a fire, chopping wood, climbing a tree, fixing a car etc. etc.), not showing much emotion day to day, taking responsibility, not being overly concerned with clothes and personal grooming.

I think that's pretty much indisputable, there are probably many reasons for the change, including (as has been mentioned) the reduction in the number of people performing physically demanding jobs and the rise of sedentary lifestyles amongst children in particular.

However, as bender has been at pains to point out, the values of being a man (what society expects from men, and values in men) have begun to change quite significantly in recent decades. For example, as a generalisation I would say that men (in my experience, having been raised in the UK) are now much more concerned about physical appearance than in previous generations and it is no longer considered 'unmanly' to shave/trim body hair, more and more men are embracing what used to be almost exclusively women's activities like getting manicures etc and even wearing make-up.  Whilst the latter are probably still considered effeminate, I don't think it will be too long before that kind of thing becomes so widely accepted, that it is no longer considered 'unmanly'.

In my opinion physical strength is still seen my most people as a masculine trait, but that is slowly starting to change, much as personal grooming has become much more gender neutral in recent years, I think being strong is going the same way - and will eventually become a gender neutral value, much like intelligence or kindness - more and more exposure is being given to strong and athletic women and what is deemed attractive in women is gradually being redefined. Which I think is great, for me strength, movement and living healthily are things to be valued in everyone.

To wrap up, I won't try to define masculinity as it stands today (it's a moving target and given my narrow outlook based on my own experiences I doubtless couldn't capture a universal definition), but I will say that I think that the trend definitely seems to be a narrowing of the gap between masculinity and femininity, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that in my lifetime the distinction will cease to be a meaningful one, at least in the society in which I've grown up. Rather than strength, resiliency, leadership etc. being deemed 'masculine' and emotional intelligence, domestic skills and certain 'artsy' activities being deemed 'feminine', all of these things will be valued equally regardless of gender.

It's great to see this kind of discussion here, I think it says a lot about the community on the gripboard that so many have expressed varying views and that the dialogue hasn't descended into a childish shouting match - which is where this kind of thing so often ends up on the internet! 

 

[Squeezus]

3 hours ago, patrickmeniru said:

Thought I'd weigh in with my 2 cents, it seems to me that everyone here basically is in agreement that the average man today would be considered less 'manly' than his grandfathers if you judge masculinity to be based on what I'll loosely call 'traditional values' - i.e. your definition may vary but things like being physically strong, having practical skills (fishing, starting a fire, chopping wood, climbing a tree, fixing a car etc. etc.), not showing much emotion day to day, taking responsibility, not being overly concerned with clothes and personal grooming.

I think that's pretty much indisputable, there are probably many reasons for the change, including (as has been mentioned) the reduction in the number of people performing physically demanding jobs and the rise of sedentary lifestyles amongst children in particular.

However, as bender has been at pains to point out, the values of being a man (what society expects from men, and values in men) have begun to change quite significantly in recent decades. For example, as a generalisation I would say that men (in my experience, having been raised in the UK) are now much more concerned about physical appearance than in previous generations and it is no longer considered 'unmanly' to shave/trim body hair, more and more men are embracing what used to be almost exclusively women's activities like getting manicures etc and even wearing make-up.  Whilst the latter are probably still considered effeminate, I don't think it will be too long before that kind of thing becomes so widely accepted, that it is no longer considered 'unmanly'.

In my opinion physical strength is still seen my most people as a masculine trait, but that is slowly starting to change, much as personal grooming has become much more gender neutral in recent years, I think being strong is going the same way - and will eventually become a gender neutral value, much like intelligence or kindness - more and more exposure is being given to strong and athletic women and what is deemed attractive in women is gradually being redefined. Which I think is great, for me strength, movement and living healthily are things to be valued in everyone.

To wrap up, I won't try to define masculinity as it stands today (it's a moving target and given my narrow outlook based on my own experiences I doubtless couldn't capture a universal definition), but I will say that I think that the trend definitely seems to be a narrowing of the gap between masculinity and femininity, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that in my lifetime the distinction will cease to be a meaningful one, at least in the society in which I've grown up. Rather than strength, resiliency, leadership etc. being deemed 'masculine' and emotional intelligence, domestic skills and certain 'artsy' activities being deemed 'feminine', all of these things will be valued equally regardless of gender.

It's great to see this kind of discussion here, I think it says a lot about the community on the gripboard that so many have expressed varying views and that the dialogue hasn't descended into a childish shouting match - which is where this kind of thing so often ends up on the internet! 

 

Very well stated, Patrick. Helps put things into perspective.