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.
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
I agree, but doesn’t reacting in opposition to their ill-conceived use of women’s natural voices, and perverting those voices for an agenda, implicitly assume some kind of superiority in softer voices w.r.t women? To me, it seems like saying “these women are putting on this front because softer voices are better on women”.
I disagree that softer voices are inherently better or more attractive in women, so it doesn’t convey any social or political stance to me that someone does this on purpose to themselves. To me, their use of this type of voice seems like a misguided attempt to box out trans women from a definition of femininity or womanhood, but all they’re really doing is policing themselves for conservative men. I don’t care if they want to be this way for their men! Being that way is not inherently attractive or desirable, and attacking it this way just makes it worse for women who have this type of voice naturally.
I don’t understand why people let conservative women define any standard or definition of femininity or womanhood. They’re not the arbiters of anything.
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.
I agree, but doesn’t reacting in opposition to their ill-conceived use of women’s natural voices, and perverting those voices for an agenda, implicitly assume some kind of superiority in softer voices w.r.t women? To me, it seems like saying “these women are putting on this front because softer voices are better on women”.
I disagree that softer voices are inherently better or more attractive in women, so it doesn’t convey any social or political stance to me that someone does this on purpose to themselves. To me, their use of this type of voice seems like a misguided attempt to box out trans women from a definition of femininity or womanhood, but all they’re really doing is policing themselves for conservative men. I don’t care if they want to be this way for their men! Being that way is not inherently attractive or desirable, and attacking it this way just makes it worse for women who have this type of voice naturally.
I don’t understand why people let conservative women define any standard or definition of femininity or womanhood. They’re not the arbiters of anything.