Especially when it is applied to women politicians or activists, we all know what it means, don't we. It feels instantly like sexist code: oh, she's likely irrational too; oh, she's rising to hysteria any moment; oh, she's likely to "break under pressure" (another of my favourites).

I think we're right to be bothered by the sexist code, obviously. Many (most?) women's voices are pitched higher than most men's, and that's the way it is, folks.

I wonder, though, about voice training for women in public life. There are lots of women who are now radio and TV commentators or anchors, and they have obviously been taught how to slow down a bit as they talk, which helps to lower the voice, and then maybe other tricks as well. I can also think of a single male politician -- Preston Manning -- who was mocked for his squeaky voice and then willingly submitted to a bit of retraining, probably to his benefit.

So what do we think? Does it matter? Why are some women's voices still such a flash-point, such a cheap target? Should we all be working on deeper tones?

I've just assumed their partner is inattentive and they were using a tone that would reflect a question thinking that would mean he would listen more sharply.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
I think it's a way of avoiding the possibility of being challenged on what you're saying.

---

However, a certain kind of comparative competitiveness might make it hard for some to, ah, pipe up, had they not grown up bass baritones or even contraltos, if you see what I mean.

For example, it was Manning's opponents who criticized his voice, especially how it sounded in French (although I admit the Manning really couldn't master a decent French accent). Most of the people who criticize, say, Sheila Copps for being "shrill" really just don't like what she's saying or don't like hearing tough talk from a woman.

I've noticed a number of times that British will refer to North Americans as "nasal". When I ask what they mean by that, they'll say that we don't prolong our vowels. My understanding is that the British thing of long vowels started out as a primarily upper-class affectation and that the North American way is how most lower-class Britons used to sound a couple hundred years ago. So I think there's a connotation with nasally voices as: low-class, less rational, less legitimate. Gender naturally maps onto this class distinction quite easily. Sheila Copps' nasally (feminine) voice is classed as illegitimate in a coded way. Manning's nasally (western, hick, low-class) voice is also classed as illegitimate in a coded way.

I want to emphasize that I'm *not* psycho-analyzing or personally attacking/accusing people of sexism, especially other babblers. I've been accused of this when analyzing discourses or coded words before when I don't specify this explicitly. I'm talking about cultural courants in an abstract way. Sometimes people repeat those courants without thinking, but I'm not implying they are actively promoting sexism or classism.

[ 19 June 2005: Message edited by: kurichina ]

quote:

---

I'm talking about cultural courants in an abstract way. Sometimes people repeat those courants without thinking, but I'm not implying they are actively promoting sexism or classism.

---

That is so well put. I must memorize that, kurichina.

I would admit that I am affected by some of those (often now partly effaced) assumptions. And you're right, kurichina: I hear the "shrill," eg, more if it's coming from someone I disagree with (Anne McLellan, eg) than from someone I more or less admire (stretching a point for Copps).

It may still be true that many women's voices show the effects of insecurity and uncertainty. I have a low voice too, but it is usually low in both senses, and the second sense, the softness, is pretty obviously a result of fear.

I have never noticed myself ending sentances like a question. Perhaps I should keep an ear out for that, b'coz I'm sure I do that? Just kidding, but I think that, especially talking to men, we want to assure ourselves that we are being heard, and we want a confirming reply to what we have said. Not sure. Very strange though.

men, because of their deeper voices, can sound scary and intimidating when they yell. (like contrarian, perhaps? ) perhaps, it's because there is a feeling that anger and angry voices can lead to violence and a man's physical wrath is more dangerous than a woman's. so, the feeling that a loud man is more assertive than a loud woman prevails. this reasoning of mine doesn't justify why a woman should be mocked when she raises her voice though, and obviously, i can't justify it cause i don't think it's fair. i think it's just as silly to pass judgements on a woman (she's hysterical, irrational, etc.) based on her voice as it is to form opinions based on her looks. there are many good looking women who are smart, and there are women with higher-pitched voices than most who are also smart.

also, often times, in public forums, males dominate. so, when there are 1 or 2 women involved in a debate with 6 other men, and everybody's starting to get loud, it is easier for the men's voice to be heard over the women's. so, for the woman to manage to have her voice heard, she needs to be louder, and naturally, shriller because women have higher pitched voices. it has a very different 'feel' (for lack of better words) to it because it's different from the majority. and though, it is louder, it may be perceived as weaker because of the higher pitch. and weaknesses are always pounced upon and made fun of. am i making any sense here, or am i just rambling nonsense as i think this through?? maybe i should come back tommorrow when i'm sober.

[ 19 June 2005: Message edited by: ephemeral ]

Should women in politics make their voices more like men's in order to be taken seriously?
Absolutely not!
We have our own natural voices, bodies, minds, and they're different from men's. We're 51% of the population - get used to it!

And i'm heartily sick of people in public life being mocked for their voice, their accent, their hairstyle and fashion sense. There has got to be something more relevant to pick on.

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

But shrill does make me think of the kind of feminine stereotype that I Love Lucy showcased for us post-boomers, so that we could understand the sea change that went on when we were babies, and totally transformed society so that if someone had been asleep from 1960 to 1975, she wouldn't have believed the speed of change. I think if a guy calls a woman shrill today, he should be put in the stocks and be forced to watch Lucy reruns for a day or so.

[ 20 June 2005: Message edited by: brebis noire ]

Its a good description of the voices of some men and women when they shout. Why take a perfectly good word out of the language? The problem is when its used to describe voices that aren't really shrill (for instance Geddy Lee is sometimes shrill when he shouts (sings), Copps isn't), and some folks apply it automatically to any woman who raises her voice.