Female politician gets speech training to sound less "shrill"

52 posts / 0 new
Last post
Michelle
Female politician gets speech training to sound less "shrill"

There are a few aspects to this story, but I thought that since one aspect is the idea that women's voices need to be "fixed" to sound less "shrill" if they're public speakers, I'd put it here in the feminism forum, although I have no problem with people talking about the other major aspect of the case (whether she should have charged taxpayers for the lessons).

Here's the article.

My feelings on the spending part is that if councillors are allowed to use their annual budget for professional development expenses as well as office expenses, then there's no reason why she shouldn't have charged this training to the city.  Public speaking is an essential part of the job.  I notice that the article mentions another (male) politician spending close to that amount on French lessons from his budget, but he's not getting front page headlines because of it, making a big deal about whether the funds were misappropriated.  And likely other city politicians have professional development expenses as well.  I think that the fact that hers was highlighted among all the others might have to do with sexism.

Now, about whether women SHOULD change their voices if they get involved in politics - this is problematic.  She said that she got feedback from her constituents that she speaks too fast and sounds "shrill" when she brings their issues forward.  Personally, I wish women would stop buying into that "shrill" thing.  Our voices are higher than men's.  And on an individual level, people have varying degrees of tone/timber to their voices, so some of us have more "velvety" tones, and others of us have more ... I don't know what the word would be that doesn't have a negative connotation to it - shrill, harsh, whatever.  I have a problem with the prejudice against women's public voices.

However, vocal coaching isn't just about "shrill".  It's also about speaking slowly, clearly, pausing in the right places for emphasis, sounding "natural", squashing "uptalk" (where you make every statement sound like a question), etc.  (It is also controversial to criticize "uptalk" since that's a very pervasive "young woman" dialect.)

Anyhow, just wondering what people's thoughts are on this.

rural - Francesca rural - Francesca's picture

I'm with you on most of your points.

If they are budgeted professional development then yes, it should be covered, and it shouldn't be an issue.

I know when I speak publically, I tend to speak too fast, and want to head to Toastmasters at some point to work on that aspect.

As for the shrill thing, exactly, get over it already, a persons voice is a person's voice.  I have met women with "child-like" voices and do find that a bit distracting, but I'd never make judgement calls about the person because of it.

Slumberjack

The main focus of the story appears to be the public expenses incurred, and they tossed in a couple of examples of where males racked up costs for various activities, in order to 'balance' out the attack piece.

Wanting to learn different techniques for effective public speaking is not necessarily a bad thing, but in the context of this article and the way it was framed, it appeared to be more of a criticism of the female voice than an issue with her delivery style, which isn't that far removed from criticism of different accents in the public arena.  Apparently, The Star has a preference for the uniformity of pre-dominant voices.

lagatta

Shrill voices are very annoying, and can harm a person's credibility. And the first example that comes to mind is not a female but a male politician: Preston Manning.

Not all high-pitched voices are shrill; there the most obvious example is fraught with class connotations: da Queen. Shrill voices grate.

My first question would be why on earth she would use a US-based consultant - does she want to sound like a Merkin of all things?

Elocution training is very common here, as there is a type of speech common in parts of Québec "manger, ou mâcher ses mots" which sounds dreadful in public - no, the point is not to make the speaker sound Parisian.

The sexism of "shrill" refers to putting women down for allegedly being shrill, or for higher-pitched voices which can be a sex-based characteristic. But baby voices are often learnt, and a way women internalise infantalisation and oppression. I've often heard them among Québécoise women of a certain age and condition of oppression, and find them very sad.

Star Spangled C...

Didn't Preston Manning also get some sort of speech therapy to be less "squeaky" or whatever? I don't think it's a matter of it being a woman's issue. Lots of politicians get speech coaching, get laser eye surgery to lose the glasses, wardrobe consultants, the whole nine yards.

Maysie Maysie's picture

The Star clearly has a bias against her, since she is anti-Miller. Which is funny, because I don't recall The Star being particularly pro-Miller. Royston James? Hello! But she's centre-right and therefore an easy target.

The problem with the coherence of the argument is that it butts against an issue that the Star takes a wishy-washy line on: women and sexism in politics. But clearly, the Star's watery leftist leanings couldn't resist an attack on a right-leaning councillor. So away they went.

Why they didn't pick on Rob Ford or some other right-wing fucker I don't know. 

While I may not agree with her politics, this is a non-issue, created by The Star's editors the day the budget figures were released on a slow news day.

In terms of Michelle's questions, however, I find this an example of the clash between the "reform" school and the "radical revisioning" school of political change. For a woman with a "high pitched" voice, can she be successful in a field (municipal politics) in which it's a white-male-dominated environment by simply being who she is? The answer is clearly no, she can't. That's the sexism. So for her to remain, and to effect the change or policies that she represents (however much I may disagree with them) she needs to play the game. That's "reform". 

oldgoat

Of course if a woman politician loses the 'shrill', and becomes too effective a speaker, she risks being 'strident'.

Michelle

Exactly, oldgoat.  Or "butchy" or "bitchy" if she sounds too much like a man.  It's hard to "win".

As for Preston Manning, he's the first politician that comes to mind when I think of "shrill" too.  But I think some of the derision aimed at him is also sexist, and not so-called "reverse-sexism" either.  I think an argument can be made that his voice was mocked because the high pitch sounded "wimpy" and "girlie".  Mocking a guy for a nerdy or whiny voice often takes on a gendered aspect - the guy isn't "manly" enough or "strong" enough if he has a high-pitched, nasal tone the way Manning did.

Refuge Refuge's picture

As a person who has a self proclaimed "shrill" voice (and it is way way worse than hers!) when I get excited I think also that a woman herself  should have the ability to choose to "enhance" her public speaking ability if the tone is noticable I don't think that is a problem.  If it is part of her job, it should be written off as an expense.  I have met men who have the opposite problem, they speak very low but don't project their voices so it ends up being very quiet.

Alot of public speaking is body language and tone of voice falls under body language.  In my job I deal a lot with the public and am always concious of my tone because it can hamper my point getting across.  I also watch other areas of my body language, such as eye contact, posture and body movements but don't have a problem keeping that under control like my voice.  A friend of mine, on the otherhand has problems with eye contact so when he is talking with people he very conciously tries to look at people.

I think that she is trying to improve her voice to improve her presentation is not sexist, for me what is sexist is the star pointing out she is improving her "shrill" voice rather than saying she is improving her speed, and clarity and presentation skills.

Snert Snert's picture

I would quarrel with the very idea that city politicians need a discretionary budget for professional development.

If (and it's a big "if") Adam Giambrone needs to learn French then I would have expected that to be a condition of hiring, and I would have expected him to pay for that himself.  Why should the city ratepayer underwrite his investment in his own human capital?  Same with Stintz.  And in her case I really have to ask:  do you REALLY need PROFESSIONAL INTERVENTION in order to speak slower???  I mean, at least French is a language Giambrone doesn't know.  He can't just slow down, and suddenly be speaking French.  But now we all need the services of a high-priced American consultant to slow down??  Wow.  How do those of us without bloated taxpayer budgets manage??

This sounds like "Here, take $4500 and just treat yourself to some classes you've always wanted to take!" 

martin dufresne

hat I want to know is how come De Baeremaeker gets a pass on hiring "Silver Elvis"?

"(...) Expenses from other councillors last year included about $3,875 in French lessons for Adam Giambrone and $750 to rent the services of "Silver Elvis," a spray-painted human statue, brought in for a picnic thrown by Glenn De Baeremaeker.(...)" (from that story)

Did the Colonel get a cut?

Michelle

These very small, discretionary budgets are what city councillors get in order to help them serve the public more effectively, whether it's printing up newsletters, hiring someone to answer their constituency office phone, or, yes, professional development to help them do their jobs better.

These are elected officials.  They aren't "hired", they're elected.  Most people who get elected to office aren't experts at all the skills they need to do their jobs effectively - they're members of the community that others in the community have elected to represent them.  It's penny-pinching nonsense to refuse to allow them to improve themselves so they can do their jobs better.

Snert, don't you find it interesting that they chose to focus on the female politician who spends professional development money on relatively gendered professional training, as opposed to on Giambrone, who just gets a passing mention for French lessons?

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:

These very small, discretionary budgets are what city councillors get in order to help them serve the public more effectively, whether it's printing up newsletters, hiring someone to answer their constituency office phone, or, yes, professional development to help them do their jobs better.

OK.  But it's not entirely clear to me how hiring a guy who paints himself silver and pretends to be Elvis helps anyone do their job better.

And really, same with private French lessons or speaking lessons.  Presumably Stintz can speak, having managed to get herself elected and all.  Is her ability to communicate with others really holding her back, and disadvantaging her constituents?  Would they have voted for her if she couldn't communicate effectively with them?  Would Giambrone be unable to lead the TTC in Toronto without being able to speak French?

I'm down with the newsletters and the phone answering... those make clear sense.  But the rest seems to provide value to the individual much moreso than to the constituents.

Quote:
It's penny-pinching nonsense to refuse to allow them to improve themselves so they can do their jobs better.

Silver Elvis??

Quote:
Snert, don't you find it interesting that they chose to focus on the female politician who spends professional development money on relatively gendered professional training, as opposed to on Giambrone, who just gets a passing mention for French lessons?

Sure, though I don't know that it's all sexism.  Provisionally, I would suggest that it's part sexism, and part the fact that at least Giambrone is choosing to learn to speak a new language, as opposed to Stintz choosing to learn to speak the language she was raised with. 

 

 

Michelle

Stintz wasn't learning to "speak the language she was raised with".  She was learning how to do effective PUBLIC speaking, something that none of us were "raised with" unless you count your two minute speech in front of the class once a year in elementary school.  And effective public speaking is a job requirement.

There are all sorts of on-the-job training that employers offer their employees.  Professional development is nothing new, and it's also nothing new for the development to benefit the person receiving it as much as, and even moreso than the employer.  Do you not get any professional development funding from your employer?  I do.

As for Silver Elvis, it was entertainment for a public constituency picnic.  You'd be surprised what kind of expenses are incurred for events.  As an event planner myself (that's one of the main things I do in my day job), I know there are all sorts of expenses that go into planning an event that people want to attend, including food, entertainment, and publicity. 

Also, welcome back. :p

remind remind's picture

Discretionary budgets are just that, up to the discretion of those whose budget it is. IMV it is sexist of the Star to single said woman out.

johnpauljones

THis entire story is bull shit. When a male gets fashion advice or public speaking training or a voice coach it is no big deal. suddenly a women gets the same thing and it is a huge deal.

 

Politicians regularly get training from different companies on speaking, presentation, and proper clothing. 

This has nothing to do with whether or not Karen needed the training, wanted the training and how it was paid for.

 

This is only a cheap shot on a female politician.

oldgoat

Silver Elvis?  Good lord, I've seen this dude. He performed for a bit for donations at Word on the Street until the organizers threw him out.  I mean he's a bit amusing for a short time, but $750.00?  He must have really punched up his routine.

Noise

Michelle:

Quote:
Do you not get any professional development funding from your employer?  I do.

Pretty close to every professional job I've seen comes with room for a training budget, usually seperate from the discretionary funds too.  Why the Star thinks this is news worthy is beyond me...maybe the line "The vocal opponent of Toronto Mayor David Miller" gives it away.  JPJ seems right in calling it a cheapshot on a female politician, being able to label her as 'shrill' and all.

 Bleh, the star has a poll on their site at 82% saying it wasn't reasonable for Stintz to use those funds for her training.  No training funds is how you get inept govt's incapable of tracking the billions in bailout funds they're handing out.

Quote:
Now, about whether women SHOULD change their voices if they get involved in politics - this is problematic. 

Fine line...if you're nervous on stage, you will speak quicker which makes you speak at a higher pitch and risk sounding 'shrill'.  Taking public speaking classes can help someone slow down and become 'less shrill', but thats more a change in how your voice presents itself.  Thats significantly different than actually changing ones voice...is there preassure for women in public speaking roles to actually change their voice like that?

Snert:

Quote:
Presumably Stintz can speak, having managed to get herself elected and all.  Is her ability to communicate with others really holding her back, and disadvantaging her constituents?

ummm, read the article:

Quote:
Residents had told Stintz her message was often getting lost because she spoke too quickly, and "my voice at council could be shrill."

I'd say yes if the residents she's representing told her that her message was being lost...assuming you want your public leaders to effectivley make their point.

Michelle

Heck, my job isn't even a "professional job" - I'm an admin assistant - and I get professional development expenses covered. 

Hey, johnpauljones and I completely agree on this thread.  Anyone got a calendar?  ;)

Noise

Admin assistant is considered 'professional' I beleive ;)  I was doing admin assitant work and got them to pay for the training I needed to get the job I have today...with a diffrerent company too.

KeyStone

Can't she just smoke a lot of pot. That should deepen her voice.

We can argue that she shouldn't have to change her voice, and if it were an employer making her do it, then I would be outraged.

However, we're talking about a politician trying to be more appealing to voters. Re-educating all the voters not to bias their vote based on the timbre of a person's voice is a daunting task unfortunately. 

People decide who to vote for based on fickle reasons and if a politician wants to get elected, they have to jump through some hoops in order to be trusted and liked. It may not be fair, but that's how the game is played. 

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
People decide who to vote for based on fickle reasons and if a politician wants to get elected, they have to jump through some hoops in order to be trusted and liked. It may not be fair, but that's how the game is played. 

All of that may be true, but aren't politicians expected to invest in their own political careers out of their own pockets?  Is making a politican more electable for some superficial reason really a good use of tax money?

If so, I expect that more than a few politicians would like some free hair implants.  Shall we pay for those, for the same reason that it would be just too difficult to train voters not to be biased against bald men??

I guess it's just my thinking that a representative's job is to serve their constituents, not make themselves more superficially appealing to them in order to get re-elected.  

Michelle

Are you expected to pay for all your job-related training out of your own pocket? Or does your employer pick up the tab for some of it?  Also, there's a difference between a skill and a cosmetic enhancement.  Voice training and public speaking is a skill, not a characteristic.

My employer pays for job related training for me. Maybe I'm just lucky.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
Are you expected to pay for all your job-related training out of your own pocket? Or does your employer pick up the tab for some of it? 

Within some limits, my employer might pay for professional development if it strictly pertains to me doing my job, now.  My employer certainly isn't going to solely help me be more lucrative in future employment.

When KeyStone said "we're talking about a politician trying to be more appealing to voters" I took that to refer to, presumably, future elections.  Presumably, having already won an election to get this job, this councillor doesn't need speech training in order to do THIS job.  She was judged adequate by her electorate.

Quote:
Voice training and public speaking is a skill, not a characteristic.

Public speaking, sure.  Changing the timbre of your voice??

But again, if her voice is such that she needs expensive, American professional help in order to function or be electable, how did she get elected?

And what, specifically, will this training do for her constituents NOW, today?  Should they have some kind of interest in seeing her be more electable in future?  And if so, couldn't they just elect her regardless?
 

 

 

Michelle

She said she got the training because her constituents didn't think she was speaking effectively at council.  They felt her communication skills needed improvement.  That was the feedback she got.  So she got some training to help with that skill. 

Speculation about whether she did it "to be electable" is entirely here in this thread - it was not the reason she gave for getting the training. 

Snert Snert's picture

Very well, though I'd feel a bit better hearing the actual constituents say so somehow.  I mean, she's clearly on the hot seat to provide a legitimate rationale for this, and what better than "my constituents wanted this, not me"?

I'm also fascinated to see constituents taking municipal politics so seriously.  Not that municipal politics isn't important, but you don't exactly need to be Barack Obama to get a few potholes fixed.

Michelle

Would that make you feel better?

Caissa

Legitimate expense. As to vocal timbre, we all have ranges. I'll intentionally change my timbre depending on the situation.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:

Would that make you feel better?

 Some.  Mind you, I might also ask them whether it was also their idea to not support a local, or at least Canadian, speech therapist.  ;)

Quote:
I'll intentionally change my timbre depending on the situation.

How much did professional training to do that cost you? 

 

 

Caissa

I learned it in the political school of hard knocks, Snert. I can't fathom what you see as so egregious in a politician spending money to learn how to speak better.

Doug

I think that this sort of expense ought to be covered by a councillor's campaign organization and not the city, but it is unfair to single Karen Stinz out when other councillors are doing the same thing.

Daedalus Daedalus's picture

Michelle wrote:

Now, about whether women SHOULD change their voices if they get involved in politics - this is problematic.  She said that she got feedback from her constituents that she speaks too fast and sounds "shrill" when she brings their issues forward.  Personally, I wish women would stop buying into that "shrill" thing.  Our voices are higher than men's.  And on an individual level, people have varying degrees of tone/timber to their voices, so some of us have more "velvety" tones, and others of us have more ... I don't know what the word would be that doesn't have a negative connotation to it - shrill, harsh, whatever.  I have a problem with the prejudice against women's public voices.

I don't think any prejudice was expressed about women's voices in general by the article. It was clearly about that particular individual. The only cause for shrillness that was even mentioned was "physical tension" which was stated to be a problem of "people", not just women: "When people get passionate about something, they often start lifting themselves up physically, and their breath comes up and their voice comes up and they can sound shrill."

Now, I do think that men and women have different voices with different qualities. Women's voices, for instance, often tend to carry better over a distance or against background noise, and be clearer, sometimes evoke soothing feelings. Men's voices tend to be deeper and sometimes evoke warmer feelings.

Because they tend to have different voices, I think the sexes have evolved such that when they wish to use their voices to create negative feelings, they do so using different techniques. Men roar and shout, using the voice as an almost physical display to threaten and intimidate. Women turn the volume up too, but they don't generally roar and shout in the same way, many use tone and pitch to cause discomfort by sound (like nails on a blackboard). They're different techniques, and though I'm associated them by gender here, it certainly isn't always the case - there are many women who roar and shout, and many men who are shrill (for instance, Rush Limbaugh has often been described as shrill, though I'm not entirely sure it has anything to do with his voice).

I'm not sure there's any prejudice in noting that women tend to favour shrill tones to being imposing and threatening, I think that's just a factor related to the different voice qualities of the genders. The underlying phenomena is same, it only manifests differently. Whether one is more grating or intimidating or uncomfortable than the other is probably in the eye of the beholder; personally I know I would much rather endure a real nails-on-the-blackboard shrillness for half an hour, than a really aggressive roaring display for the same length of time. One just crawls up my spine and gets behind the eyes and causes a little craziness, the other provokes actual fight or flight response and causes feelings of fear for physical safety.

Personally I don't think people should habitually use either tone of voice - there are times and places where it's appropriate, and imo they are very few and far between. Its not exactly violence, but it is somehow a form of assault on the senses/sensations of others and calculated to cause what might be described as pain or at least something that must be endured with gritted teeth. I would say it's a semi-violent behaviour and I don't really trust those who habitually use it - I think it says something about their character. There are some - both men and women - who approach every disagreement seeking to use tactics like voice tone to bewilder, confuse, intimidate, and prevail, instead of actually attempting dialogue. Some do it so habitually they don't even realize they're doing it anymore - especially since they've likely been using tone of voice and body language to manipulate and/or intimidate since childhood.

 

Finally, I've never heard a calm speaker ever being described as being "shrill". It's not a quality of male or female voices at rest or in normal use, any more than yelling and roaring is, its usually a deliberate modulation of the voice to produce an unwanted and uncomfortable psychological effect in others. I suppose in public speaking there might be some who stray into "shrill" territory without intending to do so, if so perhaps they are not really suited to it? And might be advised to undertake steps to reduce the problem?

I have no problem with taxpayers stepping up to provide job-relevant training to anyone in public service. It's not like we're talking about a wardrobe or hairstylist or something, if (according to constituents or whoever else attends the functions where the complaints have arisen) it helps her to be tangibly (ie reduced complaints) more effective in her job then what's the problem? Communications are important skills for politicians and administrators, same as any relevant job skill.

Refuge Refuge's picture

Daedalus wrote:
Its not exactly violence, but it is somehow a form of assault on the senses/sensations of others and calculated to cause what might be described as pain or at least something that must be endured with gritted teeth. I would say it's a semi-violent behaviour and I don't really trust those who habitually use it - I think it says something about their character. There are some - both men and women - who approach every disagreement seeking to use tactics like voice tone to bewilder, confuse, intimidate, and prevail, instead of actually attempting dialogue. Some do it so habitually they don't even realize they're doing it anymore - especially since they've likely been using tone of voice and body language to manipulate and/or intimidate since childhood. 

Finally, I've never heard a calm speaker ever being described as being "shrill". It's not a quality of male or female voices at rest or in normal use, any more than yelling and roaring is, its usually a deliberate modulation of the voice to produce an unwanted and uncomfortable psychological effect in others.

As a self proclaimed (as noted above) shrill voice person who is tries to be concious of her voice I am very offended by your post.  To say that it says something about my character that I don't attempt dialogue (presumanbly about the issue) because I use my voice to bewilder, confuse, intimidate is very offensive and I would only hope that by being on this board that when I have disagreed with issues is shows that is incorrect.

Some may do it to do those things but that is not case in fact, only one example and to speak of that as the be all and end all truth of people who use shrill voices is ridiculous.

Some people don't use shrill voices habitually because they have been manipulating since childhood, some people (as you put it) don't have the ability to self regulate and when in certain environments will lose self regulation and use a shrill voice in the same way the some people will lose self regulation (during a traumatic time) and go have a smoke or lose self regulation and start drumming their fingers on the table.

You say that you have never heard of a calm speaker who has a shrill voice and then go on to say that is a deliberate moderation.  If a person in calm they are in a state of agitation and they do not have the ability to control their actions the same way when they are calm so to say that they are deliberately modulating their voice after saying they are not calm is an oxymoron.  I am sure you are aware when someone is using an emotion such as crying to manipulate as soon as you give in they stop (for instance a mother crying on the phone because you  won't come home for the Sunday night dinner and she stops as soon as you  agree or calms down as soon as you agree) where as someone who has really lost self regulation can not calm down even if the situation is solved (ie a mother who's child disapears and then is found safe will not stop crying and just move on they usually will cry or be upset the rest of the night and not feel okay or safe for quite some time after).

It is very offensive to me that you give your opinion as fact and the only possible case instead of saying some women or a lot of women or some men or a lot of men or some people or a lot of people.

All behaviour can be used to manipulate and control others but when one displays behaviour they have to look at the anticedent (ie why they are displaying that behaviour) to infer what it is that person is trying to accomplish.  In this particular case the politician was trying to get something accomplised and her shrill tone of voice was actually interfering in that which means she was not using it to manipulate.  To say this behaviour is always used as a way to manipulate others is very simplistic speaking about other people and in this particular case is wrong.

Just because you want to judge people with shrill voices does not make it true.

Daedalus Daedalus's picture

I probably wouldn't think your voice is shrill, refuge. Perhaps we have a different understanding of what constitutes "shrill" (is there a quantitative measurement for it?). I define shrill as something similar to shrieking, not merely a high pitch and rapidity, but something more than that.

The voice that I find shrill is not one you could accidentally use any more than you could accidentally begin shouting aggressively (involuntarily, sure, unconsciously, sure, but not accidentally - a scream is shrill, but nobody screams accidentally). And I did acknowledge that people could lose control and "stray into "shrill" territory without intending to do so", so I find your accusation in that regard baseless.

Nor did I give my opinion as fact ... my whole post is full of "I think", "personally I don't think" "I do think" etc etc ... how you could mistake it for anything other than personal observation and opinion eludes me. It is chock-full of qualifiers. In fact, every single paragraph begins with one.

Nonetheless, I apologize if I came across in a manner you find offensive, but I think your disagreement would probably vanish if you used the same metric for "shrill" as I do. To me it's more than just a little high pitched etc, its a particular sort of sound - in fact I sometimes use it to describe written passages or even general ideas that resemble the sort of behaviour people I regard as shrill display, and so do many others, referring to something that is clearly behavioural (eg use of the phrase "shrill rhetoric" to mean rhetoric that seems almost as if it is shrieking).

To me, shrill is almost shrieking but not quite. If you can nearly shriek in regular conversation, and that's just the way your voice is, well, I'd have to see it to believe it. I'm nearly forty, I've heard thousands of people speak in my lifetime, and I've never seen or heard that.

Refuge Refuge's picture

Daedalus wrote:
I probably wouldn't think your voice is shrill, refuge. Perhaps we have a different understanding of what constitutes "shrill" (is there a quantitative measurement for it?).

 

We were talking in this thread specifically about the sound of the politicians shrill voice, so in this case the measurement would be her voice.  If you find her voice shrill you would find my voice shrill as mine is worse than hers when I don't watch it.
This thread is not about how women or men create negative emotions, if you wanted to comment on that instead of commenting on a topic about shrill voices and how they affect the person who uses it (ie sexism) maybe you should have started a new thread.

Daedalus wrote:

There are some - both men and women - who approach every disagreement seeking to use tactics like voice tone to bewilder, confuse, intimidate, and prevail, instead of actually attempting dialogue. Some do it so habitually they don't even realize they're doing it anymore - especially since they've likely been using tone of voice and body language to manipulate and/or intimidate since childhood.

What you acknowldged was that women manipulate using shrill voices without realizing they are manipulating anymore. So no, you did not acknowledge that women who use shrill voices can without intending to do so.  You say that some women approach disagreements seeking to use tactics so habitually to manipulate without intending to do so which is very different from saying that they don't intend to go into shrill territory.
The closest you come is saying that in public speaking some people go into the shrill territory but only after talking about how women manipulate using a shrill voice and NOT specificing they use shrill voices as manipulation in public speaking.
Daedalus wrote:

Nor did I give my opinion as fact ... my whole post is full of "I think", "personally I don't think" "I do think" etc etc ... how you could mistake it for anything other than personal observation and opinion eludes me. It is chock-full of qualifiers. In fact, every single paragraph begins with one.

 

That is right, you begin each paragraph with an I think however you don't stay on topic with your I think in the paragraph. You start with "Personally I don't think people should habitually use either tone of voice" and then go on to talk about how shrill tones of voice are a form of assault. If you would have said the first statement and the second statement with a qualifier as well sometimes or personally when someone does it I feel like they are assualting me but instead you accuse people who use shrill voices as perpetrators of a form of assault and thus your opinion that people shouldn't use it. I think that hitting someone is assault and personally I think they shouldn't do it. Or personally I don't think that people should hit other people. It is assault. Nowhere in that statement do I say I have the opinion that hitting someone is assault only my opinion they shouldn't do it. There may not be a big difference for you but there is a big difference for me.

 

Daedalus wrote:
If you can nearly shriek in regular conversation, and that's just the way your voice is, well, I'd have to see it to believe it. I'm nearly forty, I've heard thousands of people speak in my lifetime, and I've never seen or heard that.

When I am excitied about something I have often had people tell me to be quiet in restaurants, and other public places (and I know that it is not about my volume) and even close friends kid with me saying - oh that hurts. So it does exist even though you haven't seen it, just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And when I am at my worst it is purely when I am talking about something that excites me, not when I am arguing with someone.

 

When you talk in well, I haven't seen it all you end up doing is diminishing others experiences. When you use statements like "I've heard thousands of people speak in my lifetime and I have never seen or heard that" you diminish my experience as a shrill speaker, - oh it must not be that bad!

Daedalus Daedalus's picture

Refuge wrote:
We were talking in this thread specifically about the sound of the politicians shrill voice, so in this case the measurement would be her voice.

Sure but since we have no audio its a nonexistant metric at the moment.

Quote:
What you acknowldged was that women manipulate using shrill voices without realizing they are manipulating anymore.

That's a disingenious misrepresentation of what I said. I never singled out women - I was abundantly clear that both sexes use their voice itself, not just the words, to intimidate, manipulate, bewilder, confuse, etc.

Quote:
no, you did not acknowledge that women who use shrill voices can without intending to do so.

It appears pretty clear to me that I did exactly that, acknowledge that some can be shrill unintentionally in certain situations:

there might be some who stray into "shrill" territory without intending to do so

It's difficult to take you seriously when you repeatedly claim I didn't say things that are right there in black and white on the page.

Quote:
That is right, you begin each paragraph with an I think however you don't stay on topic with your I think in the paragraph.

I think the paragraphs themselves are riddled with "I thinks". Should I put it before each and every sentence? I think at that point it's getting a bit absurd.

Quote:
I think that hitting someone is assault and personally I think they shouldn't do it.

Hitting someone IS assault and you really don't need to qualify it. More semantical absurdity!

If I have to precede everything with "I think" can we invent some sort of shorthand? Would a # sign do?

Sometimes, # people make Herculean efforts to misunderstand. Personally I regard such behaviour unfavourably.

Quote:
So it does exist even though you haven't seen it, just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And when I am at my worst it is purely when I am talking about something that excites me, not when I am arguing with someone.

Are you sure it isn't the volume? I know someone who does something similar but it isn't just the pitch.

Anyway, I've always thought of "shrill" as not just a certain pitch etc but also a certain way of behaving ... as in the term "shrill rhetoric".

 

Quote:
When you talk in well, I haven't seen it all you end up doing is diminishing others experiences.

Since I only joined yesterday, and this is my only post where I've really engaged anything that could be construed as a "personal experience", well, you haven't seen much have you? You talk like I've been around for a while and you're familiar with me, which is impossible.

Quote:
When you use statements like "I've heard thousands of people speak in my lifetime and I have never seen or heard that" you diminish my experience as a shrill speaker

How can my personal experiences diminish yours? Just because they don't accord hardly means that. If they don't accord, well, that's what dialogue is for.

Refuge Refuge's picture

Daedalus wrote:

Refuge wrote:
We were talking in this thread specifically about the sound of the politicians shrill voice, so in this case the measurement would be her voice.

Sure but since we have no audio its a nonexistant metric at the moment.

Perhaps you should read the thread again, there is in fact a link to a video which shows her voice before and after.

Daedalus wrote:

Quote:
What you acknowldged was that women manipulate using shrill voices without realizing they are manipulating anymore.

That's a disingenious misrepresentation of what I said. I never singled out women - I was abundantly clear that both sexes use their voice itself, not just the words, to intimidate, manipulate, bewilder, confuse, etc.

The only time that you  mentioned realizing women go out of control is when you said that it happens during public speaking.  You said:

Daedalus wrote:
And I did acknowledge that people could lose control and "stray into "shrill" territory without intending to do so", so I find your accusation in that regard baseless.

Yet your post talks about women manipulating in a disagreement and not referencing disagreement in public speaking.  In none of your post did you talk about acknowleging that this happens after talking about women manipulating.  Your words, not mine.

Daedalus wrote:

Quote:
no, you did not acknowledge that women who use shrill voices can without intending to do so.

It appears pretty clear to me that I did exactly that, acknowledge that some can be shrill unintentionally in certain situations:

there might be some who stray into "shrill" territory without intending to do so

It's difficult to take you seriously when you repeatedly claim I didn't say things that are right there in black and white on the page.

Full quote:

Daedalus wrote:
I suppose in public speaking there might be some who stray into "shrill" territory without intending to do so

Yes you admit to one situation there may be unintenntional shrillness, not situations.  That is hardly acknowledging that it happens that people lose control in general. 

Daedalus wrote:

Quote:
That is right, you begin each paragraph with an I think however you don't stay on topic with your I think in the paragraph.

I think the paragraphs themselves are riddled with "I thinks". Should I put it before each and every sentence? I think at that point it's getting a bit absurd.

Quote:
I think that hitting someone is assault and personally I think they shouldn't do it.

Hitting someone IS assault and you really don't need to qualify it. More semantical absurdity!

If I have to precede everything with "I think" can we invent some sort of shorthand? Would a # sign do?

Sometimes, # people make Herculean efforts to misunderstand. Personally I regard such behaviour unfavourably.

As I mentioned I think that hitting someone is assault and personally I think they shouldn't do it. Or personally I don't think that people should hit other people. It is assault. Nowhere in that statement do I say I have the opinion that hitting someone is assault only my opinion they shouldn't do it. There may not be a big difference for you but there is a big difference for me. 

Daedalus wrote:

Quote:
So it does exist even though you haven't seen it, just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And when I am at my worst it is purely when I am talking about something that excites me, not when I am arguing with someone.

Are you sure it isn't the volume? I know someone who does something similar but it isn't just the pitch.

Anyway, I've always thought of "shrill" as not just a certain pitch etc but also a certain way of behaving ... as in the term "shrill rhetoric".

I am sure it is not the volume.  I get direct feedback on it.  I have never had anyone say that I have acted shrill or given me feedback on my behaviours, if you had read my post earlier you  would have seen that I commented on that and how that it is relatively easy for me to monitor that part of my behaviour.  It is the shrillness in my voice that is the problem.  Why are you  questioning my experience, do you think that because I don't fit into your box of what you have seen that it can't exist?

 

Daedalus wrote:

Quote:
When you talk in well, I haven't seen it all you end up doing is diminishing others experiences.

Since I only joined yesterday, and this is my only post where I've really engaged anything that could be construed as a "personal experience", well, you haven't seen much have you? You talk like I've been around for a while and you're familiar with me, which is impossible.

I used one direct statement from you -"I've never seen or heard that." I did not comment about you, your past I commented on your behaviour ("you talk") in that post in that sentence ("I haven't seen it"- a shorter version of your quote).

Daedalus wrote:

Quote:
When you use statements like "I've heard thousands of people speak in my lifetime and I have never seen or heard that" you diminish my experience as a shrill speaker

How can my personal experiences diminish yours?

When you dismiss my experience because it isn't in your experience.  You haven't seen it but I live it.

Daedalus wrote:

To me, shrill is almost shrieking but not quite. If you can nearly shriek in regular conversation, and that's just the way your voice is, well, I'd have to see it to believe it. I'm nearly forty, I've heard thousands of people speak in my lifetime, and I've never seen or heard that.

You said yourself until you see it you wouldn't believe it.  So you are saying you don't believe me because you can't hear me talk.  That would be dismissive just as if I were to say to someone, the cops beat you up?  Well, I'd  have to see it to believe it.

Daedalus Daedalus's picture

Refuge wrote:

Perhaps you should read the thread again, there is in fact a link to a video which shows her voice before and after.

I missed that! Well, I can't listen to it anyway. I fried my soundcard trying to record 'cardholder services' harassing me on the telephone with this radio shack thingy that nobody should use.

Quote:
Refuge wrote:

What you acknowldged was that women manipulate using shrill voices without realizing they are manipulating anymore.

Daedalus wrote:
That's a disingenious misrepresentation of what I said. I never singled out women - I was abundantly clear that both sexes use their voice itself, not just the words, to intimidate, manipulate, bewilder, confuse, etc.

The only time that you  mentioned realizing women go out of control is when you said that it happens during public speaking.  You said:

Daedalus wrote:
And I did acknowledge that people could lose control and "stray into "shrill" territory without intending to do so", so I find your accusation in that regard baseless.

Yet your post talks about women manipulating in a disagreement and not referencing disagreement in public speaking.  In none of your post did you talk about acknowleging that this happens after talking about women manipulating.  Your words, not mine.

My words say "people" where you claim I say "women". Nowhere do my posts talk about "women manipulating" - they talk about people manipulating. I think you are distorting things in some sort of attempt to paint a false picture.

Quote:

Full quote:

Daedalus wrote:
I suppose in public speaking there might be some who stray into "shrill" territory without intending to do so

Yes you admit to one situation there may be unintenntional shrillness, not situations.  That is hardly acknowledging that it happens that people lose control in general.

Of course if it happens in public speaking it could happen in other stressful situations. The reason it happens in public speaking is stress and anxiety, not because the crowd is exerting some physical effect on anybody's larynx. Since we were talking about a public speaking situation, and hadn't yet ventured into your situation, my speculation involved public speaking specifically.

Quote:
So it does exist even though you haven't seen it, just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

I'm a very empirical person. I didn't say that it was impossible ... just that I hadn't seen it, in all the thousands of people I've heard speak, and therefore had difficulty imagining it.

Quote:
do you think that because I don't fit into your box of what you have seen that it can't exist?

Certainly not, I've never seen Africa but I'm sure it exists. However if you told me there were crabs in Japan that could grow to a legspan of 13 feet I'd express a little doubt, question a little, and want a bit of convincing before accepting it. (They do exist, btw, Japanese spider crabs).

 

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
When you use statements like "I've heard thousands of people speak in my lifetime and I have never seen or heard that" you diminish my experience as a shrill speaker

How can my personal experiences diminish yours?

When you dismiss my experience because it isn't in your experience.  You haven't seen it but I live it.

I didn't dismiss it. I said I have difficulty believing it. That, too, is a personal experience.

Quote:
You said yourself until you see it you wouldn't believe it.  So you are saying you don't believe me because you can't hear me talk.  That would be dismissive just as if I were to say to someone, the cops beat you up?  Well, I'd  have to see it to believe it.

Well, we obviously have different standards of credulity. If some person I did not know said they had been beat up by the cops, I would not automatically presume it's true on their say-so, at least not to the degree that I'd repeat the claim with any veracity.

I didn't say I wouldn't believe it, either - I said I had difficulty believing it without seeing/hearing it. That doesn't exclude the possibility of being convinced in other ways.

In any case, if you aren't doing something akin to shrieking - you're really just taking offense at a semantical misunderstanding. I wasn't talking about people who have a certain natural voice, but people who use their voice as a weapon in disagreements, and do so with a furrowed brow and teeth bared, not people who do so when they're happily excited and pleased with their company.

Refuge Refuge's picture

Daedalus wrote:

Daedalus wrote:

That's a disingenious misrepresentation of what I said. I never singled out women - I was abundantly clear that both sexes use their voice itself, not just the words, to intimidate, manipulate, bewilder, confuse, etc.

The only time that you mentioned realizing women go out of control is when you said that it happens during public speaking. You said:

Daedalus wrote:
And I did acknowledge that people could lose control and "stray into "shrill" territory without intending to do so", so I find your accusation in that regard baseless.

Yet your post talks about women manipulating in a disagreement and not referencing disagreement in public speaking. In none of your post did you talk about acknowleging that this happens after talking about women manipulating. Your words, not mine.

My words say "people" where you claim I say "women". Nowhere do my posts talk about "women manipulating" - they talk about people manipulating. I think you are distorting things in some sort of attempt to paint a false picture.

Maybe you should check the forum topic. It is feminism. Yes, you can talk about parallels between men and women however we focus on what people are saying about women. In your post yourself you reference that even some men can be shrill, meaning that we are starting from a basis that the people who are shrill are women and as has been established previously in this thread can be a sexist comment towards women. You even established that yourself in your post:

Daedalus wrote:
They're different techniques, and though I'm associated them by gender here, it certainly isn't always the case

Again I say, if you wanted to do a general thread about how people are manipulative by using their voice the femisinst forum is certainly not the place and this thread, which is looking at the sexist aspect of people using the fact that this woman wanted to change her shrill voice instead of saying that she wanted to do voice training which would be equally applied to men and women, is also not the place.

Daedalus wrote:
Of course if it happens in public speaking it could happen in other stressful situations. The reason it happens in public speaking is stress and anxiety, not because the crowd is exerting some physical effect on anybody's larynx. Since we were talking about a public speaking situation, and hadn't yet ventured into your situation, my speculation involved public speaking specifically.

It actually isn't my situation it would be the situation of the politician and it was your proposed situation:

Daedalus wrote:
There are some - both men and women - who approach every disagreement seeking to use tactics like voice tone to bewilder, confuse, intimidate, and prevail, instead of actually attempting dialogue. Some do it so habitually they don't even realize they're doing it anymore - especially since they've likely been using tone of voice and body language to manipulate and/or intimidate since childhood.......Finally, I've never heard a calm speaker ever being described as being "shrill". It's not a quality of male or female voices at rest or in normal use,

When I listened to her speaking I thought, wow, I am way worse than that. Again if you weren't trying to infer the above behaviour to the politician you should have taken it to another thread or made a disclaimer - I am done talking about my opinion of her now and am now moving on to my opinion of people who use shrillness or other agressive tones to manipulate people and is completely offtopic it just made me think of this, as this thread is all about if it was sexist to say if the paper was sexist in pointing out her shrill voice. Many on babble have done that but you have yet to do that.

I am shrill when I am calm as well if I don't watch it (I do hear myself and have to make purposeful modulations, when I catch it), so again this is your situation that you proposed not "my situation".

Daedalus wrote:
I'm a very empirical person. I didn't say that it was impossible ... just that I hadn't seen it, in all the thousands of people I've heard speak, and therefore had difficulty imagining it.

I am a very emperical person as well but I can easily imagine situations that are beyond my experience like police brutality when trying to figure out if I think it is valid. It also means if I have a hard time imagining it when I am adressing someone who has been victim to it I would not use language like I'd have to see it to believe it when I am talking to someone that is involved with the situation.

Daedalus wrote:
Well, we obviously have different standards of credulity. If some person I did not know said they had been beat up by the cops, I would not automatically presume it's true on their say-so, at least not to the degree that I'd repeat the claim with any veracity.

I did not expect you to repeat my claim as true, only that you listen and respect what I have to say as my personal experience without using phrases like "I would have to see it to believe it".

Daedalus wrote:
I didn't say I wouldn't believe it, either - I said I had difficulty believing it without seeing/hearing it. That doesn't exclude the possibility of being convinced in other ways

No , you said

Daedalus wrote:
well, I'd have to see it to believe it.

If you meant something different you should have said something different.

Daedalus wrote:
In any case, if you aren't doing something akin to shrieking - you're really just taking offense at a semantical misunderstanding. I wasn't talking about people who have a certain natural voice, but people who use their voice as a weapon in disagreements, and do so with a furrowed brow and teeth bared, not people who do so when they're happily excited and pleased with their company.

Funny how this politican way of speaking is her natural voice, which is what this thread is about!  Also Funny how you never used the word shriek in your first post, maybe you should have said what you meant. 

Coyote

Others have said it better, but the most outrageous part of this story is choosing to highlight a woman's expenses over that of other councillors, for no reason other than that it plays to stereotypes.

And I tend to think this expenditure falls within the realm of what an elected official is expected to do.

Skinny Dipper

I don't think that a politician should consider his/her elected position as being a profession.  I don't think that my tax dollars should go to someone just to help him/her get re-elected.

Papal Bull

Snert wrote:
Quote:

These very small, discretionary budgets are what city councillors get in order to help them serve the public more effectively, whether it's printing up newsletters, hiring someone to answer their constituency office phone, or, yes, professional development to help them do their jobs better.

OK.  But it's not entirely clear to me how hiring a guy who paints himself silver and pretends to be Elvis helps anyone do their job better.

 

Funny personal point.

 

A while back I used to be involved with some "performance art" that many people (anywhere, not just here at babble) would find exceedingly distasteful - looking back at it the whole thing only turned into something that I am proud of over the past 3 years or so when myself and my fellow performers matured a little bit and cut the crap about "offensive is funny". Anyways, we'd go up on stage in all sorts of crazy get ups and do our shtick. Now, when I was younger I was always very fond of public speaking - to this day I have no problem being in front of big crowds (rare though it is). This little group of mine really helped me get through a lot of self-confidence. At this point, I'd wager that when I have practised a speech (or even when I'm doing it ad lib) I sound a lot better and can make a far more cohesive and pleasent point than most of the general public. Silver Elvis? It isn't much different. If you knew the things that I did in my spare times (ie, my projects, writings, "music", etc.) you'd probably think that I am a loutish idiot, however I'd say that is far from the truth, if I may say so for myself. People like Silver Elvis and I have, through lots of personal experience, gained valuable insights into how to address people and get the reactions that you desire - how to get your ideas across and make sure that they are received as closely to the original message as you intended. Believe me, I won the speech writing contests in my grade school - that got me started. I know lots of people that really aren't very confident in front of crowds and lack the self-confidence necessary to have their ramblings make sense. A lot of people are a touch 1960s campaign speech Nixonian in their self-presentation to larger groups. Sure, they're not as sweaty, but they can often be just as stilted and uncomfortable APPEARING. And besides, not everyone has a voice for radio - so to say. It takes lots of practise and self-discipline to develop a public voice.

 

As for your further points regarding her learning to speak her "own" language. Bullplop. So few people in Canada know proper grammar or elocution (or in my case care to really apply it consistently). Execution of speech is not taught in our education system, which means that a lot of people simply can't speak for themselves when faced in a larger situation. Believe me. Don't try to argue. It isn't taught. And if you didn't teach yourself when you were young to change the way you speak (I did my "overhaul" of speech when I was 18 and entering university - I felt very uncomfortable because for the first time in my life I encountered the "monied" people and my way of speech was made fun of - so I decided to ensure that I spoke more clearly)  then it is very, very, very hard to get over habits that your parents and your friends and your society handed down to you.

 

ETA: and from personal knowledge that I have gleaned from many people, women are expected to speak soft. They're not supposed to be forceful. Women are supposed to be cowed in the way they speak and if a Silver Elvis (clearly someone who delights in the charisma that weirdness can bestow) helps whoever it is get over these traps, then good on them. Lots of women (particularly in politics) are taught to stand back when speaking, to just smile, nod, and add a non-sense point to back up a "stronger" male on the podium. That's why it is a shock when strong female voices emerge from the general din of a society that is, on a whole, not used to voicing its own concerns, needs, and values.

remind remind's picture

Skinny Dipper wrote:
I don't think that a politician should consider his/her elected position as being a profession.  I don't think that my tax dollars should go to someone just to help him/her get re-elected.
Of course it is a profession and learning how to speak properly translates into representing your constituents better.

Webgear

remind wrote:

Of course it is a profession and learning how to speak properly translates into representing your constituents better.

 

I disagree, this is a part of a number of skills a politician should have before getting elected.

 

Why should the tax payers pay for this?

______________________________________________________________________________________________

We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.

Daedalus Daedalus's picture

Refuge wrote:
In your post yourself you reference that even some men can be shrill, meaning that we are starting from a basis that the people who are shrill are women and as has been established previously in this thread can be a sexist comment towards women.

It could be, however, in this case it wasn't. There's nothing in the article that says anything about women in general being shrill at all - it, too, talks about people in general. It was misrepresented here, with my impression being (before reading the article) that it had referenced women as being shrill. When I read it, I found it did not.

Quote:
this thread, which is looking at the sexist aspect of people using the fact that this woman wanted to change her shrill voice instead of saying that she wanted to do voice training which would be equally applied to men and women

There is nothing in the article to support your claim of sexism. There is no presumption in the article that it is a problem exclusive to women. That's a presumption that has been foisted on the discussion. I'm saying that this isn't a feminist issue. There are men with speech difficulties or unpleasant voices, just as there are women. It's just not a gender issue.

Quote:
this thread is all about if it was sexist to say if the paper was sexist in pointing out her shrill voice.

I don't think it was and that's exactly the point I'm trying to make and why I got involved in the discussion. Being "shrill" is a speech problem that might be more common to women, but it's not the only speech problem that exists and it isn't exclusive to women. Having an unpleasantly thundering voice might be a problem that is more common to men, but if someone brings up a guy who has that problem and says he should maybe get some help with it, it is not a sexist comment against men. It's about that individual. Likewise, the article was about that individual, and when it did talk about people with a shrill voice in general, it didn't say anything about the female population.

Quote:
I am a very emperical person as well but I can easily imagine situations that are beyond my experience like police brutality when trying to figure out if I think it is valid.

It's not very empirical to judge if things are valid by whether or not you can imagine them as possible. Empiricism is skeptical.

There is no disrespect in saying that I'd need some evidence to accept a statement as true. Skepticism is my right. More than that, any statement about what I believe or do not believe is a personal experience.

"Personal experience" isn't some sacred thing. A violent misogynists' rage at women is a personal experience, for instance. It's just a subjective viewpoint, and subjective viewpoints don't have to be automatically accepted.

Quote:
Funny how this politican way of speaking is her natural voice, which is what this thread is about!

Well, no, it isn't actually. At least that is not the impression the article gives. The article gives the impression she experiences this difficulty during public political meetings - that's all it really talks about. A shrill politician isn't necessarily shrill away from the table.

I believe most politicians have manipulative personalities and use psychological tactics such as speaking styles and body language to get their way with people. It's probably why there are so many lawyers in the profession, since that job too tends to utilize the same "skills" and trial lawyers develop a talent for badgering, manipulating, bewildering etc.

remind remind's picture

Webgear wrote:
remind wrote:
Of course it is a profession and learning how to speak properly translates into representing your constituents better.
I disagree, this is a part of a number of skills a politician should have before getting elected.

 

Why should the tax payers pay for this?

Because effective communications  when dealing with internal, and outside, government situations on behalf of your constituents is a must. If you have something to present, that is valid, it can get lost in the inablity to speak properly or effectively. People won't listen and good thoughts and actions can get lost.

 

Refuge Refuge's picture

Daedalus wrote:

Refuge wrote:
In your post yourself you reference that even some men can be shrill, meaning that we are starting from a basis that the people who are shrill are women and as has been established previously in this thread can be a sexist comment towards women.

It could be, however, in this case it wasn't. There's nothing in the article that says anything about women in general being shrill at all - it, too, talks about people in general. It was misrepresented here, with my impression being (before reading the article) that it had referenced women as being shrill. When I read it, I found it did not.

I don't care if you think the article was or wasn't sexist, that is your opinion to have not mine.  I was merely responding to you saying that you never said they were women and you clearly did.  From here

Quote:
 
Daedalus post #35 wrote:

That's a disingenious misrepresentation of what I said. I never singled out women - I was abundantly clear that both sexes use their voice itself, not just the words, to intimidate, manipulate, bewilder, confuse, etc.

Daedalus post #31 wrote:
They're different techniques, and though I'm associated them by gender here, it certainly isn't always the case

I was merely resonding to saying you never refered to women, when you did. 

Daedalus wrote:

Refuge wrote:
this thread, which is looking at the sexist aspect of people using the fact that this woman wanted to change her shrill voice instead of saying that she wanted to do voice training which would be equally applied to men and women

There is nothing in the article to support your claim of sexism. There is no presumption in the article that it is a problem exclusive to women. That's a presumption that has been foisted on the discussion. I'm saying that this isn't a feminist issue. There are men with speech difficulties or unpleasant voices, just as there are women. It's just not a gender issue.

That is why I said this thread,, not this article looks at the sexist aspects........ Again I don't care if you think the article is sexist that is your opionion but you can't argue this thread isn't about sexism because it is about looking at if the article is sexist.

Daedalus wrote:

Quote:
this thread is all about if it was sexist to say if the paper was sexist in pointing out her shrill voice.

I don't think it was and that's exactly the point I'm trying to make and why I got involved in the discussion. Being "shrill" is a speech problem that might be more common to women, but it's not the only speech problem that exists and it isn't exclusive to women. Having an unpleasantly thundering voice might be a problem that is more common to men, but if someone brings up a guy who has that problem and says he should maybe get some help with it, it is not a sexist comment against men. It's about that individual. Likewise, the article was about that individual, and when it did talk about people with a shrill voice in general, it didn't say anything about the female population.

Again I emphasise I don't care if that is what your opinion is on if it is sexist.  What you say you were talking about was that you thought that people used tones of voice to intimidate which has nothing to do with this thread.  You said

Daedalus wrote:

That's a disingenious misrepresentation of what I said. I never singled out women - I was abundantly clear that both sexes use their voice itself, not just the words, to intimidate, manipulate, bewilder, confuse, etc.

I responded that this thread was about looking at if it is sexist to say she had a shrill voice.  This topic is not about how men or women manipulate others.  If you want to do a topic about that move it to another thread.

Daedalus wrote:
Refuge wrote:
I am a very emperical person as well but I can easily imagine situations that are beyond my experience like police brutality when trying to figure out if I think it is valid.

It's not very empirical to judge if things are valid by whether or not you can imagine them as possible. Empiricism is skeptical.

Maybe you should look up the definition of empiricism.  One that I favor.  A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses.  In otherwords they don't have to be viewed by my senses but what they have to be is behavioural in nature so that it is believable. 

When you set up a scientific study when you start with a hypothesis you have to imagine the outcome to come up with the hypothesis.  Then you have to set up variables that will be able either prove or disprove.  You start with imagining and then move onto evidence.

Also, empirical evidence does not have to be witnessed by me.  I never saw someone get beat up by the police but if I read the report from the hospital on the injuries it would be emprical evidence that the person was hurt. People reported seeing him being arrested and he was led to the police car without any injury to his face.  The police officer in question has a record for being aggressive.  All empirical evidence, none of it witnessed by me.  

Daedalus wrote:
There is no disrespect in saying that I'd need some evidence to accept a statement as true. Skepticism is my right. More than that, any statement about what I believe or do not believe is a personal experience.

"Personal experience" isn't some sacred thing. A violent misogynists' rage at women is a personal experience, for instance. It's just a subjective viewpoint, and subjective viewpoints don't have to be automatically accepted.

Again I never asked you to believe me, I asked you to listen to and respect my position.  And not say things like "well, I would have to see it to believe it". 

Daedalus wrote:

Refuge wrote:
Funny how this politican way of speaking is her natural voice, which is what this thread is about!

Well, no, it isn't actually. At least that is not the impression the article gives. The article gives the impression she experiences this difficulty during public political meetings - that's all it really talks about. A shrill politician isn't necessarily shrill away from the table.

Again, maybe you should listen to the tape to judge if you believe those are her natural speaking tones or if she only does it for public speaking. 

Daedalus wrote:

I believe most politicians have manipulative personalities and use psychological tactics such as speaking styles and body language to get their way with people. It's probably why there are so many lawyers in the profession, since that job too tends to utilize the same "skills" and trial lawyers develop a talent for badgering, manipulating, bewildering etc.

Again I say that is not what this thread is about.  You wanted to start a different thread on the article you need to start a different thread.  Out of the feminist forum.

remind remind's picture

I have to agree with you refuge, moreover, if a man had used his discretionary money to get speech training the media would never have reported it! It is just their typical sexist badgering of womem politicians.

remind remind's picture

Nio actually, you chose to go on a tangent about men's voices can be shrill too, and about how people use their voices to intimidate,  and pretty much everything else, but the fact that the media were playing their typical sexist BS, on a woman politician.

Daedalus Daedalus's picture

Refuge wrote:

I was merely resonding to saying you never refered to women, when you did.

Yes, I did refer to women. But not in the context you alleged.

Quote:
Again I don't care if you think the article is sexist that is your opionion but you can't argue this thread isn't about sexism because it is about looking at if the article is sexist.

So the threads about whether the article is sexist or not, but you don't care to hear opinions about that?

I think this will be my last post on the issue - this is becoming nonsensical, and distracted from the topic by hairsplitting semantics. I'm satisfied that I made my point that there isn't a sexist aspect to the article. Plus I learned something that I didn't know. That's an ideally satisfactory outcome for participation in any discussion.

Quote:
Maybe you should look up the definition of empiricism.  One that I favor.  A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses.  In otherwords they don't have to be viewed by my senses but what they have to be is behavioural in nature so that it is believable.

Yes, they do have to be viewed ("observed") with your senses. Empirical knowledge is the precise opposite of intuitive knowledge (ie "believable", "behavioural", "imagined").

Quote:
When you set up a scientific study when you start with a hypothesis you have to imagine the outcome to come up with the hypothesis.  Then you have to set up variables that will be able either prove or disprove.  You start with imagining and then move onto evidence.

No, you don't start with "imagining". That's why professional scientists don't go around looking for elves or trying to prove/disprove God. It starts with an observation of a natural phenomena for which there is no scientific theory, or no satisfactory theory. Then, you do research, to help you construct a hypothesis - a model that will make predictions about the phenomena under certain circumstances. Then you test the hypothesis, and if the predictions it makes are inaccurate, you change it to reflect what was observed in your tests. And you keep doing that until the predictions match with the model you created - at which point you have succesfully produced a theory.

Refuge Refuge's picture

Thankyou Remind, that is percicely my point.

Daedalus, you should read some scientic studies on behaviour and cognitition as well as sociological studies and research how they got the ideas for them, you might find it expands your ideas of empiricism. Also look at models that start with hypothesis not with research (if you are familiar with studies you will know that different models start at different parts of the reasearch circle).

Nice trying to make a strawman out of my words - I don't care ( have a concern) with if you think the article is sexist or not, my concern is that you posted inappropriately in the feminist forum.

In terms of what you say I allege you give no details so I assume that you mean I alleged you were in the feminist forum in this thread talking about women specifically, and threw in men as well, being manipulative. I allege this is inappropriate for this thread and a good possibility of the feminist forum, but I will let the moderators judge that.

Pages