I found this to be a very well-written article about a concept I wasn’t previously aware of. Here follow some interesting choice quotes - but I recommend reading the actual article:
When activist Jess Piper heard Alabama Republican senator Katie Britt deliver the GOP response to the State of the Union, she had a visceral reaction. The senator spoke in a breathy voice with a soft and sweet quality ― even as she described horrific acts of sexual violence and murder and painted a dystopian picture of the United States.
For Piper, there was no mistaking that sound, which permeated her childhood in the Bible Belt. Britt was using “fundie baby voice.”
Then more context - conveying submission to male authority:
“I would describe ‘fundie baby voice’ as a woman’s voice that is higher than average in both pitch and breathiness,” said Kathryn Cunningham, a vocologist and assistant professor of theatre and head of acting at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. “While the average woman’s voice is higher-pitched than the average man’s due to a combination of anatomical and social factors, some women who speak this way seem to be intentionally placing their voices higher than their natural pitch range in order to convey submission to male authority and childlike innocence.”
These changes in voice are deliberate:
Deliberate voice changes are very much a reality for women in fundamentalist Christian communities, noted Tia Levings, author of the upcoming memoir “A Well-Trained Wife: My Escape from Christian Patriarchy.”
“From a young age, we were taught over and over again to modulate our voices,” she said. “It was all about sounding sweet, soft, and childlike. There were very strict gender roles, and women were supposed to never sound angry but keep sweet, obey, dress modestly, speak softly, be very feminine.”
Interesting roots:
This sort of Christian vocal training has roots in Helen Andelin’s 1963 book “Fascinating Womanhood.”
“This book encourages fundamentalist Christian women to sound ‘childlike’ in order to convey submission to male figures,” Cunningham said, noting that there are “references to an idealized voice that a compliant, Christian woman should have.”
I found this quote referenced in the article very remarkable:
“It is important to emphasize in this discussion that women’s voices are always scrutinized and policed. The truth is that we can’t win, no matter how we speak.” - Kathryn Cunningham, vocologist and assistant professor
Of such women in power who use the fundie baby voice, the article goes on to quote the following:
“What they produce is a lot of abuse and subjugation,” Levings added. “And it always stings more when a woman is used as a tool of the patriarchy to promote it. They’re the Aunt Lydias and Serena Joys of the program ― brought in and given power when it suits men, but they will be discarded when it’s no longer useful to those men.”
Toward the end of the article, the very valid warning:
Piper urged those who are interested in the fundie baby voice phenomenon to educate themselves on the Christian nationalist movement in U.S. politics and the Project 2025 agenda. Directing ire toward those in power is more useful than tearing down everyday women for the way they were trained to speak.
That is hauntingly fascinating
Solid recommend at the end.
I do agree, but my experience with fundie women (Christian women who “know their role”) is that yes, there is point where they are victims of this system of belief, but they will NOT think twice about using their proximity to power to victimize/bully/subjugate others, whether it’s people of color, lgbtq or anyone not in their bubble.
Angela from The Office.
Exactly. One of the most complicating factors in feminism has always been that there have always been means for women to use proximity to men to gain power over others in accordance with the power of those men. For example in the era shortly following the abolition of slavery in the United States women had practically no rights that did not come from their husbands or fathers, but could still get a black man killed by claiming he hit on her.
Some women prefer it that way. In exchange for autonomy they receive a form of alternative authority and are able to abdicate responsibility for the power exerted in their names. If you already wanted what they demand of you, then you have little reason to question the morality involved here and they sell a life that for some is very nice. And it’s not like you’ll need an abortion to save your life or will find your husband getting violent or will have a queer kid. That happens to other people, less holy people, sinners. They’re the ones who are why your life is difficult.
And there’s also the hypocrites. The Phillis Schlafely types. They believe they belong in their place but don’t want to do it so they try to make it mandatory.
Then spend your time that way. I’m far more concerned with one guy, with heaps of allies, setting the terms across the country.
Others can make sure some women learn “their real place.”
I don’t see how anything you said after “but” was related to anything except to annihilate your first 3 words.
I’d heard that voice, but didn’t know it was actively taught. What the actual fuck‽ Also why the fuck do these people want their wives to sound childlike‽ Maybe it’s just the lesbian in me talking but as I get older (not even 30 yet) I increasingly want my women more womanly. Give me an opinionated 40 year old over an insecure 19 year old every time. Every time I learn about fundamentalists pushing unnatural youth onto women I’m reminded of how I’ve heard that child molestation is more often about power than desire. And they act as though it’s all just nature, but if it was what was natural they wouldn’t have to put so much effort into reinforcing these hierarchies and forcing dominant women into servile roles and punishing men who are insufficiently dominant.
Listening to Love Line back in the day and they could almost 100% predict who had been victimized as a child based on “little girl voice” which seems awfully similar to me.
fundie
victimized as a child
That venn diagram is a circle.
Ugh that’s deeply disturbing.
Drew’s goin for his wallet!
Yeah, and Drew claimed that he could ID “marijuana addicts” based upon how they laugh. The guy’s a nut job.
I grew up southern baptist and I’ve never heard of this. It’s kind of blowing my mind that people perceived as women would be told how to talk, but it rings true because I had similar things like no long hair or “walk like a man” and other things imposed on me.
In my experience as AFAB with a more monotone, less femme voice, I got ‘you sound bossy’ ‘you sound like a bitch’ or just ignored until I ‘asked nicely’ which meant ‘sound subservient’.
It has caused me so much trouble in sounding authoritative, because I always had to be high pitched to be heard, but deep pitched to actually be listened to.
In my experience as AFAB with a more monotone, less femme voice, I got ‘you sound bossy’ ‘you sound like a bitch’
What kind of inexcusably rude asshole has said that to you?
Even if I don’t care for someone’s voice (I’m in Indiana and the Hoosier twang can be highly irritating to me), I don’t say anything about it.
Framed as well meaning, oh-honey advice from older women, I’ve heard that or some shade of it at least 100 times since around 8yo, I don’t think it’s rare, unfortunately.
It went hand it hand with “the bellies that show are the first to swell”, which my store manager said to me at 17yo, the comments that other girls should keep their boyfriends (my friends) away from me, all the weird punishing ingrained misogyny bullshit women do to each other in US gender culture.
As soon as I got secondary sex characteristics, I started getting in trouble for just, like, existing
My daughter has a low-pitched somewhat monotonal voice even at 13. How wonderful to hear what she’s in for the rest of her life.
If I could go back and do it again, I would fucking embrace it.
She should use that voice to defend her autonomy, and to sound like herself. Seriously.
I work in hard science IT, and as I shed my feminine vocal habits, my job is easier. People listen to me more. My life is better, I’m not forcing my thoughts through a Play-Doh mold of intonation.
It can absolutely be a skill, because it will set her apart!
She is a unique person in many ways, so I’m not worried about that. It just sucks that people will give her shit for her voice.
The only problem with the monotone thing is she’s basically tone deaf, but she’s fine with that.
Ha me too. I’m bad with controlling my voice in general, tone and volume included, and it gets harder when I’m tired lol
Sorry for the YT Shorts link, but here’s a video of comparing Katie Britt’s previous speaking voice and whatever the hell was going on during the SotU response. It’s so bizarre.
Shor’s blood, the Thu’um!
Damn, that makes it sound even less likely that it really happened. How was this a good idea?
It wasn’t a good idea. She was over-coached to pieces. I’ve heard pundits on the right and left say it’s a shame what she did because by all rights she’s a smart and capable woman.
Edit: I didn’t say I agreed with her politics. Downvote if you want, but this kind of marginalization of a smart woman on either side of the conversation erodes the condition of all women.
Honestly the “after” sounds like some sort of surrealist comedy skit like out of Portlandia or something.
Any man who likes that voice wants to fuck a child.
no one:
Holy shit there a name for that now. I still use after years of being an exjw. Its so fucking cringe.
Reminds me of the “Mormon General Authority” voice. If you’ve ever had the displeasure of having to sit through 8 hours of Mormon general conference talks over two days, twice a year, you know exactly the voice I’m talking about. And if you’re an ex-Mormon, someone trying to use that voice on you will give you a visceral feeling.
I wasn’t raised fundie, so I didn’t recognize it when I heard clips of the speech. But I appreciate the anger from the people that were.
I am as anti-religion and anti-conservative as anyone, but this piece of writing is absurd.
To me this seems like another way to attack women for something they cannot help, their physiology. It’s not any different than saying “periods make women crazy”, and the people agreeing with such a take should be ashamed. Why? Because remember how much criticism the Theranos founder received for deliberately deepening her voice? So tell me, how do women who have naturally high-pitched voices because of their vocal physiology win?
Moreover, trans women develop the same kind of vocal characteristics on HRT, so saying that women are doing this as some of cultural phenomenon is judgmental and wrong.Higher pitched voices are a result of genes and physiology. Attack someone for their ideas, not their genes or characteristics related to their genes. I expect better from progressive discourse, but it seems there are many who make the same mistakes as the people they criticize.That said, I realize there are cultures where baby-like characteristics are common in women as part of some cultural niche, but automatically assuming that women are baby-fying themselves is just sexism.
Edit: I listened to Jess Piper in detail, her voice doesn’t sound any different to me than the voices of women she’s criticizing. What a weird dimension for women to attack other women on, and tbh that’s just a wrong approach to take!
If you cannot prove that someone does this on purpose, like catching them off guard using a different voice, then this is just women-on-women sexism. It’s not attacking someone on their wrong, abhorrent ideas, but attacking someone based on your assumptions of their personality using some physical characteristic. Does that sound good when written like that? You know who else does that? Conservatives.
Moreover, trans women develop the same kind of vocal characteristics on HRT, so saying that women are doing this as some of cultural phenomenon is judgmental and wrong.
Just correcting a common misconceptions, for trans women the voice doesn’t change on HRT, as the change in voice with testosterone is not reversible.
Getting similar voice/speech characteristics as cis women is pretty much cultural.
Thanks for the correction! Regardless, attacking women on their physiological traits just seems like such a misguided approach to attack someone for their ideas.
These characteristics exist in women who’ve never been exposed to such fundamental ideas! Policing women’s voices is just another way that conservatives are going to win allies.
Edit: what some transphobe might say based on Jess Pipers criticism—“apparently trans women cannot get soft voices on HRT, so these woke people want to police women’s voices out of existence.”
For the love all that is honest and good, I implore people to not attack others on aspects related to their genes and physiology. You’re no better than your ideological enemies then.
I am having a strong reaction to this post because everything about critiquing and policing something physiological about women just seems so misguided to me. Again, we can attack bad ideas without ad hominem attacks.
Oh yea, it’s stupid no matter if it’s purely philological or partly cultural.
So is having blond hair stupid as well because of people’s preconceived notions about blonds? Or should all blonds dye their hair?
I think you misread, I was agreeing with you haha
edit:
sorry, my bad I replied to the wrong post haha
“I would describe ‘fundie baby voice’ as a woman’s voice that is higher than average in both pitch and breathiness,” said Kathryn Cunningham, a vocologist and assistant professor of theatre and head of acting at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. “While the average woman’s voice is higher-pitched than the average man’s due to a combination of anatomical and social factors, some women who speak this way seem to be intentionally placing their voices higher than their natural pitch range in order to convey submission to male authority and childlike innocence.”
This assistant professor Kathryn Cunningham answers your question concerning women’s psychology I think.
I am not saying this phenomena doesn’t exist! I am saying that not all women who have higher pitched voices relative to average women’s voices are doing it for fundie reasons. I am saying these women naturally have that voice
Edit: I listened to Jess Piper in detail, her voice doesn’t sound any different to me than the voices of women she’s criticizing. What a weird dimension for women to attack other women on, and tbh that’s just a wrong approach to take!
This is something she addresses herself and says she learned as a trait growing up in the same environment as the women she’s criticizing. She’s still trying to unlearn it. You should listen to what she’s saying instead of just the cadence of her voice.
I hear you, but what I am saying is that there are women who have that voice naturally
Edit lol downvoting me doesn’t make this untrue
Yes, and the women listed in the article are not those women, and we have video proof. I posted this in the thread already but here’s a video of Katie Britt’s normal voice compared to her current media voice.
Thanks for sharing, I get the difference between “doing it on purpose” and naturally having a higher pitched voice. How will you tell though, for normal everyday women? Like what if some woman doesn’t get picked for a promotion at work because her female boss read this article? How can we ensure that we’re not creating a worse world for women in general?
It’s not just a higher pitch of voice (though there are studies on women being discriminated against in the workplace due to higher pitches by MEN more-so than other women).
If you read the article, it’s the fact that this combination of pitch, enunciation, and docility in their speech OVERWHELMINGLY shows up in right wing women in public spaces than anywhere else. If you google “fundie baby voice” + “reddit”, you’ll get a lot of anecdotal evidence that the women in these circles do not speak like this in private (for example when they’re disciplining their children).
You should be more mad at the right wing co-opting the natural cadence of these hypothetical women you are defending as a symbol of subservience than the “discrimination” against it in the workplace by other imaginary women.
My problem is that normal everyday women may be judged as fundie or conservative or “trying to be subservient to men” based on something they cannot control, or will have to police.
Secondly, why are my women “hypothetical”? Are you questioning my motivations by saying that? Please don’t make unnecessary assumptions.
Again, I realize these conservative women are doing this to their voices on purpose for a specific cultural reason. It’s gross and I am opposed to it. There are however women who have such voices naturally. How will you ever know who does it on purpose or not? Why do we need to attack women for their physiology anyways!?
How can someone who calls themselves progressive be okay with creating another physiology-based vector that anyone can use to attack common women?
Sorry, my “hypothetical women” thing came across as snarky.
I absolutely understand your point regarding the discrimination vector, but my point is that the root of the problem is still the conservatives who use a woman’s soft/high voice as a way to convey a political and social position. There wouldn’t BE a discriminatory vector if not for this issue.
You’re looking at the downstream effects of something that hasn’t been proven, instead of looking at the root issue directly being pointed out to you.
Did you listen to the video?
