scrubbedexpat099

Gender is irrelevant to me, the reasons I do not like her is not connected to her gender.

Rete

I have an advantage in that I can't hear her or a male candidate without having the volume on the TV up so loud the neighbors would complain. I rely solely on closed caption so the quality of her voice is lost on me. My choice not to vote for her is not based on her vocal chords.

Leslie

Clinton's voice is not normally 'shrill' ... she has a perfectly normal speaking voice. The sound bites and video clips that are used against her are the few times when she's trying to raise the decibel level during the climactic spots of her speeches.

BEVS

However the thread title is actually about womens voices so focusing away from Clinton a bit then so it doesn't turn into a ' I hate/love Clinton thing' , how do or have you perceived other ladies on the world platform such as Merkel, Thatcher, May for instance and for me. Helen Clark.

Why do these ladies have to resort to altering the pitch of their voices and dressing smartly but often quite dowdy in a way to be heard or taken seriously.

It's almost as if a female needs to act , sound and look like a battle axe in order to be seen as having leadership qualities.

Leslie

Thanks, BEVS. That is exactly right. The election thread is for hatin' on Clinton.

This thread actually has nothing to do with Clinton, other than she is the most contemporary example that we have here in the US. It is about how women are penalized for attributes that have absolutely nothing to do with their ability to lead.

I also wanted to hear from the Brits about how they view May in general.

Nutmegger

Exactly--as the NYT article stated, it's 2016, do we have to apply old stereotypes to today's female leaders and expect them to present themselves in a certain way.

But the physical voice thing is a conundrum, as life on the stump must be incredibly taxing and I can see why someone with a pleasant speaking voice ends up being pilloried as a harridan for the way they start to sound--playing into the centuries old put down.

scrubbedexpat099

This sort of thing?

dc koop

Angela Merkel wears pants all the time. Does a very good job as German leader as well

Pulaski

Same for me, regarding why I liked Mrs Thatcher. Gender was entirely irrelevant.

Leslie

That's very nice of you but her opponents and the media weren't quite as enlightened. Of course, you were five years old at the time.

I didn't start the thread as an accusation against men. Women are often worse in their treatment of other women.

Pulaski

That's very nice of you, but I was six! .... Or seven, or, ....

BEVS

I actually have no idea what that means in terms of this discussion about women in authority and their voices. The apparent need to lower the pitch down to a butch type gruff.

I was actually a working adult during those Thatcher years but that isn't relevant to this & have very strong opinions about the politics of that time. However this thread isn't about that. This is about perceptions.

The idea isn't to state whether or not you 'like' based on gender. It is about asking why the need to alter voice tone or appearance to be seen as serious or authoritative, especially in this so-called modern enlightened world of ours.

If Thatcher/May?Clark/Merkel had the voice of Sandra Dickinson[/url] & her aim , had she the mind to , was to become seriously involved in politics or a role of a similar ilk, would she have made the world stage as they have . If Sandra Dickinson delivered an Angela Merkel speech about the EU would it have the same impact .

If not. Why not? It would be the same words, intent, meaning.

Sandra Dickinson and husband.

Gordon Barlow

There are a whole lot more famed female politicians than the few being recognised on this thread. Here is a link to a selection of them, and their photos. And, regrettably, my personal hero Eleanor Roosevelt isn't among them.
Google (I Googled "female politicians")

And I hope it will not be held against me if I deplore - in advance - any smartass comment at all on the surname of the pretty young German politician Julia Bonk.

RoadWarriorFromLP

The qualities that one typically associates with leadership are stereotypically male.

In many respects, our modern video/internet age serves to entrench these stereotypes since we now have plenty of opportunities to see and hear our politicians. The fact that a president is essentially an elected monarch and not just the head of a political party makes it that much more difficult.

Men can also be harmed by these stereotypes. One has to wonder whether FDR could have been elected today, as the modern media would not have concealed his polio. Audience perception of those who watched the Kennedy-Nixon debates differed from those who listened to it, presumably due to JFK being more telegenic; Kennedy benefited from the modern media, Nixon did not. From what we know about Lincoln, he may have flopped with modern audiences: his voice was reportedly shrill and his accent was off.

yellowroom

No.

Someone said upthread (sorry, posting on a tablet and difficult to scroll back) that good leadership qualities are those often associated with male-ness, which turn into a negative when women show the same behaviours. Another one is "he is a good leader / she is bossy".

A good leader in many people's minds (including mine) has a clear, strong, deep voice. May has that so, consciously or unconsciously, people respond to it and accept her as a leader.

It's not just a women thing though - how many people were shocked when they heard David Beckham speak for the first time 20 years ago? He's got a very soft, high voice for a man, although time and maybe voice coaching has changed that a bit. I seem to remember quite a bit of piss-taking at the time, especially as football is such a testosterone fuelled environment. He had to battle to let his performance on the field over take his off-field reputation.

Someone also asked what the Brits thought of May. My first impressions of her as PM are quite positive, despite me not being a Tory voter. She has struck the right tone of being professional in her presentation and demeanour, and doesn't have a history of cock-ups and scandals. Whereas Andrea Leadsom presented herself in a less subtle manner, and that put me off (eg the hair and makeup). That was uncomfortable for me to realise until I heard her policies - plus she cocked up almost immediately, so I could dislike her for more objective reasons.