Leslie

The idea for this thread started with an offline conversation between myself and Nutmegger. And, while I would never re-post anything private on the forums, we were in complete agreement that some of the things being discussed might make a really interesting thread.

In a literal sense, Hillary Clinton has been criticized for her "shrill" voice. Nutmegger found a historical context for this particular smear being used against powerful women. She will be joining the thread and hopefully she'll post the links for that specific topic, for those that might be interested.

Figuratively, I'd like to know the thoughts of the BE brain-trust on the reemergence of women in the global geopolitical sense. Angela Merkel has been slogging it out in Germany for over a decade and, now, Theresa May has taken over as PM in Britain. We will know before long if Hillary Clinton is to be president but she's already made history as the first Democratic nominee in US history. Obviously, I say reemergence because there was a period of time during the 70s and 80s where there were three powerful and historical women Prime Ministers with Thatcher, Ghandi, and Meir. Even Banzir Bhutto in the 90s. However this is the first time in my adult life that we may be seeing such a strong presence of women, in the most powerful positions, on the world stage.

Nutmegger

As Leslie says, I was fascinated to read about historical context for the criticism of women's speaking voices when they are addressing large gatherings. I picked up a copy of Antonia Fraser's 1989 book "Warrior Queens" at a book sale and sat up straight when she started talking about Boadicea and how contemporary accounts (by men, of course!) said that she had a noticeably harsh voice. Not surprising if you are standing in the back of a chariot addressing the horde!

Fraser comments, "This has an additional interest in the study of the Warrior Queen at various periods, since again and again the question of the voice will arise. Condemnation of a female leader very often throws in the fact that her voice is harsh or strident." (My emphasis) Thatcher is cited as an example.

In an interview with Fraser regarding the book, she talks about sitting in the Commons when her then husband was an MP and hearing Barbara Castle speak: "I thought her voice was unbearably shrill," she said. "Then when I was writing my book, I thought, What is a woman to do against the bellowing of a male? If women speak normally, they can't be heard, so they speak in a voice that can become shrill or strident. Both words are regarded as pejorative."

Here is a link to that article: Antonia Fraser's Book of Warriors - NYTimes.com

Obviously this all hit home because of the comments re Hillary's voice -- I just can't conceive of doing all that talking and continuing to maintain an everyday tone of voice.

Re the emergence of strong women leaders, here is a great article from today's New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/17/opinion/sunday/theresa-may-the-women-who-are-cleaning-up-brexit.htm

I loved the line: As though it was still surprising in 2016 that a woman might be resolute and clever.

Leslie

Thanks for the second article, I hadn't read that one yet and it absolutely addresses some of the notions that I think make this an interesting discussion. BUT ... OMG .... what in the actual ****????

One Old Etonian told a tabloid newspaper that on the occasions women were admitted to club events — only for drinks, not formal dinners — they were treated “like fillies.” And not prized as thoroughbreds, he said: “We would make them get down on all fours like a horse, whinny, and bring out hunting horns and whips.”

sir_eccles

Is it similar to how the press concentrates on what shoes a female politician wears? They listen to what a male politician says despite his gray suit ( ha just remembered ken Clarke was once ribbed for his brown shoes). They just seem to ignore what they say and comment on hair shoes dress and voice.

Nutmegger

Ah yes, the fabled ruling class at play .... they know how to show the fairer sex a good time ...

Leslie

The notion of the "shrill" voice is actually dog-whistle for, emotional, hysterical, and out of control of her mental faculties. If she can't control her emotions, how can she run the world? It's also not unusual to hear remarks about how women will get us into wars because of menstruation and/or menopause.

Generally speaking, women have smaller vocal folds. When they raise the volume of their voices it is unlikely that they can stay in the lower frequencies as men are able to do. This is not a reflection of their mental state but rather a biological reality. Men also have more upper body strength, that doesn't necessarily make them better political leaders either.

One thing Hillary does that I don't like, and I think she's trying to do better, is that when the crowd gets louder, she gets louder. It may work for Obama but she needs a different approach. I also think it's more difficult for a women to speak all day, every day, day after day, without getting vocal fatigue.

robin1234

Theresa May's husband objectified by the press -

Theresa May's hubby steals the show in a sexy navy suit as he begins life as First Man | Metro News

Leslie

steveq

One thing that gets me about womens voices, particularly young women is the new fashion to croak.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...g-female-voice

Pulaski

I don't recall Mrs Thatcher ever being criticized for her clothes or style, at least not since she was education secretary in the early 70's and dared to wear a skirt above her knees. Like everyone else in a position of power, successful women will be measured against what they do. More fool them if they allow themselves to be sidetracked over questions of fashion.

I was a big fan of Mrs Thatcher, she got a lot of things done that needed to be done. She was also "more of a man" than most other politicians around at the time.

RoadWarriorFromLP

I find Hillary Clinton's public speaking voice to be grating, and I'm going to vote for her. The difference is that I am able to separate my visceral response to her voice from her ability to serve as president.

I suspect that her voice does have something to do with her lack of popularity. But the primary factor here is that the GOP is essentially a party of whiners, and they're going to whinge about everyone and everything that doesn't accommodate whatever absurdities that they are touting at any given moment. Republicans talk a big game about personal responsibility while they blame everyone but themselves for whatever it is that they dislike (which seems to be just about anything that doesn't involve their version of Jesus.)

Asg123

I think it's a question of using the right devices- microphones/devices should be used which automatically adjust so people don't need to raise their voices.

Leslie

How does a microphone know which points she wants to emphasize? Or are you talking about a microphone that turns the speaker's voice up when the crowd gets louder?

BEVS

Thatcher artificially lowered the tone of her voice. To my ear it sounded dreadful. Forced and gruff. She also slowed her speech.

I feel that Helen Clark does the same thing.

Why this is felt to be needed is something I will cogitate on as although I had marked the voices of Clark , Thatcher & May as sounding 'butch' , Clinton's voice hadn't seemed to me to be 'shrill' .

Leslie

There were many references made to her gender, the common joke in the US was that she and Reagan were sexually involved. Let's face it, that wouldn't have happened to a man.

You make a good point though, she was criticized for the length of her skirts and she lengthened said skirts in order to be taken more seriously. Also, as women get older there becomes less temptation to focus entirely on their looks and wardrobe. Each year that goes by, Hillary gets less of this treatment but it was at ridiculous levels when she was in the White House as First Lady.