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.
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.
It’s like if you change it up and let the kids who never get picked first be the team captains, the very first people they pick will be the people who never picked them. Everyone just wants to be winners.
In the loyalist worldview, there is nothing but hierarchy. That’s why these people are stereotypically awful to waitstaff: those employees are beneath them. Anything short of subservience is a personal attack.
I need folks to understand that people in this tribalist mindset do not evaluate information. They only accept or reject claims based on interpersonal loyalty. Reality itself is defined by whatever the people above them say, today. Their betters must be smarter and richer and more handsome, or else they wouldn’t be above them. ‘Where’s your Bugatti?’
Reasoned argument is a learned behavior. It’s visibly not what these people are using their brains for. They’re still just shuffling cards. So yes, many individuals above them are now wrong and ugly and poor, and condemning them will involve a lot of familiar terms that outgroup critics told them in vain. But they’re not fixed. They didn’t suddenly recognize the system. They just passed their excusable limit on bad things happening to them, personally.
And they’re still liable to waltz back in, even if it gets worse. All they need are better excuses to raise the limit.
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.
That is hauntingly fascinating
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.
Me too, I thought it was organic. Like they develop their own slang, why not their own accent?
It’s really disgusting how we still have these ridiculous “norms” to deal with. In opposition to the baby voice we have women who need to modulate their voice to be deeper if they want to be taken more seriously in “professional” settings. It’s all very stupid…
deleted by creator
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.
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.
Honestly the “after” sounds like some sort of surrealist comedy skit like out of Portlandia or something.
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.
I don’t know anything about her besides that one speech, and it’s not a good look
Agreed
deleted by creator
Shor’s blood, the Thu’um!
deleted by creator
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.
Have you tried intentionally lowering the pitch of your voice and speaking even louder? Serious question, seems like the only possible response
Oh that’s absolutely what I do now. I’m some shade of gender fluid/NB, and my phone voice goes so high pitched when I’m stressed that it makes me very uncomfortable. I’m rooting it out.
I’m amazed at how much differently people respond to me, depending on the gender mannerisms I use.
Any man who likes that voice wants to fuck a child.
I honestly couldn’t listen to the YouTube video comparison of her real and fake voice the whole way through. It was so hard to hear.
no one:
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.
You just brought back my memories of hearing the emotional wet lip smack
Holy shit there a name for that now. I still use after years of being an exjw. Its so fucking cringe.
Edit: I feel bad about starting this whole thread. Retracted
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.
“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 anatomy 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
That’s not the points being made in the this thread though. It’s that Katie is intentionally changing her voice for manipulative purposes to meet ends that most folks on this thread disagree with. So I think the criticism is completely valid. There are times when even progressives have double standards about things like body shaming those on the other side but 1 this isn’t that and 2 a lot of times that’s rooted in hitting those people in areas that will affect them.
I mean, I get that and don’t condone it.
But what happens when someone says that all women who talk like that have the same intentions as Britt?
A key point is that she changes her natural way of speaking, and it’s not just a higher pitch, but ‘breathy’ and softer. If someone is always talking like that naturally you wouldn’t assume they were being manipulative.
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
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.
Ok, but have you seen how people interact with small feminine women? It’s already been happening. And we absolutely do need to challenge that, but we also need to be aware that some women are pressured into looking and sounding smaller and more feminine in order to come off as more subservient to men. Both aspects of this need to be acknowledged in order to effectively deconstruct either.
We shouldn’t be judging people based on their voice. When we treat women with high pitched voices as potentially authoritative we take power away from the attempt to make it a sign of submission.
deleted by creator
I don’t care about attention or being downvoted, do what you want
Did you listen to the video?
deleted by creator
