Women's Rights & Issues
Related: About this forumNaomi Wolf misses the point about 'vocal fry'. It's just an excuse not to listen to women
Naomi Wolf misses the point about 'vocal fry'. It's just an excuse not to listen to women
Lets face it its not womens voices that are annoying, its the fact theyre speaking. Stop telling women how to speak and just listen to them.
When Naomi Wolf urges women to change their vocal patterns to regain their strength, she merely addressed a symptom. Photograph: viewpress Vp / Demotix/viewpress Vp/Demotix/Corbis
The first time I ever even noticed vocal fry was when someone was complaining about vocal fry. It was in an episode of the radio show This American Life. Apparently, listeners had been calling in to complain about about some of the younger female presenters speaking voices. Apparently, they were making a croaky sound when speaking. I had never even noticed it.
But since I heard about it, Ive been paying attention, and I have observed as many young men doing it as young women. There is ample evidence that shows men do it too. But youd never know that from all the moralising and hypothesising about young women and vocal fry.
Vocal fry is not a problem. It is merely another excuse to dismiss, ignore and marginalise womens voices, both literally and figuratively. And its just the latest in a long history of finding excuses not to listen to what women, especially young women, say. The rejection of womens literal voices is not a new phenomenon. Before vocal fry, there were complaints about overuse of the word like. Before that, there was upspeak. Even the mere sound of womens voices is used as an excuse to dismiss women.
. . . .
All of this brings to mind Claudine Herrmanns The Tongue Snatchers, which suggests that language itself is constructed in a way that marginalises women. It describes the two options usually available to women: to either be silent or to adopt the dominant language of men. But even when we adopt and adapt, there are always excuses not to listen, representing the no win situation women are faced with. When they speak with assertiveness, theyre bossy or aggressive, even bitchy. Vocal fry is merely the most recent excuse not to listen to women.
. . . .
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/28/naomi-wolf-misses-the-point-about-vocal-fry-its-just-an-excuse-not-to-listen-to-women
RandySF
(58,722 posts)Men and women both do it.
niyad
(113,229 posts)it sounds like, I have never heard anyone speaking that way.
Novara
(5,838 posts)There's an expert on something or another that msnbc often will bring on (the economy?) and every word he says sounds like that. I can't listen to him.
But Naomi Wolf is wrong. It does matter. If you sound like an idiot, you won't be taken seriously, no matter what sex you are. She should be focusing on the fact that women need to work harder at sounding professional so they're not ignored. Yeah, they're already at a disadvantage, but telling them that using "popular" speaking styles doesn't matter is just plain wrong. It does matter. Throwing out convention because you assume you've already lost the game is the absolute wrong way to go about it.
niyad
(113,229 posts)ignored. do we sound whiny? do we sound too forceful? too aggressive? too meek? the game is rigged, no matter what we do.
Novara
(5,838 posts)In this matter I think we have to play their game and try twice as hard to be thought of as half as good. Clinging to poor pronunciation and grammar in an effort to hold fast certainly won't help.
niyad
(113,229 posts)educated and aware. it is extremely painful to my poor, abused ears.
There's a time to code-switch and there's a time to speak like you're a national news anchor.
I do think America is getting more stupid as inappropriate grammar/language/spelling has become more commonplace and more acceptable.