Can we talk about "fundie baby voice" without getting political?

[Scarlett]

47 minutes ago, maize said:

 

I'm really not a fan of judging anything about people based on their speech. 

Agree, but her speech was pretty weird.

5 minutes ago, SKL said:

I will say that I never take those kinds of speeches seriously, regardless of who the speaker is.  They all have the same agenda, and I've been over it almost as long as I've been alive.

Absolutely.  

[maize]

2 minutes ago, Harriet Vane said:

As I mentioned up thread, I come to this issue with a specific perspective as a foster mom. Just as you have experience with kids and relatives with speech issues, I have experience with severely traumatized foster kids. 

.

I just bring it up again because this is a both-and situation. It's possible for people to have quirky voices or mannerisms as you say. It's possible for subcultures to teach expected behaviors just as Tia Levings says in the link earlier. It's also possible for trauma to impact the voice. 

That makes sense.

[gardenmom5]

My (older) sister isn't remotely religious - she's actually quiet liberal.  She talks like this.  soft, BABYISH!  Like she is desperate to please the adults.  it makes me want to scream at her to talk like an adult!  I assume . . . it came from her desperation to please our narcissistic grandmother.

 

sorry, off my soapbox.  we went out to lunch with them a week or so ago, and it was just really grating on me.

[DawnM]

I didn't grow up with this.   My parents did attend Bill Gothard Basic Life Principals a few times, but that was back when he was considered more mainstream.   Once he got wacky and started ATI, we didn't attend anymore.   However, I did have a traumatic experience at a Gothard conference and refused to attend anymore.   

[Lecka]

@maize I totally get you saying you are neurodivergent here.  Are all your kids neurodivergent, too?  Are all your kids definitely also oblivious to possibly similar situations?

My sister is neurodivergent and her two children are not.  She attended a church with some similarities but more subtle in their way, but things that I did notice when I attended her church.  
 

I talked to her about it a few times, and she truly did not notice, and she also did the whole thing where she said it didn’t matter to her and she didn’t notice it.  She did agree with me on one point, that she had never thought of or noticed before.  But otherwise she was very dismissive because she personally didn’t see it and she personally is not affected by peer pressure or pressures for conformity or just plain caring about fitting in.  
 

Well!  Not so for her daughters.  They were basically raised in a church with certain expectations for women including gendered expectations, that were not in accordance with my sister’s own views.  My sister didn’t notice the lack of accordance.  My nieces do care about fitting in.  My nieces are more aware of their social surroundings and of unspoken expectations for how to act and what is valued.  

 

Basically I feel like because my sister is clueless on this issue, my niece’s got no guidance, and they are both currently not attending church, and it appears to me that with one of them, a reason is that she has chosen “being a strong, independent woman” and thinks that is incompatible with being “a Christian wife and mother” as it is practiced in this church.  
 

My sister IS a strong, independent woman, and in ways she is not valued in that church and I could pick up on it in visiting, but my sister couldn’t or couldn’t put her finger on it.  It was also a church her husband liked because of having friends there, and with strong children and youth programs.  She was out of step in ways without noticing it.  She had friends, too, and her Sunday school teachers (a husband and wife team, because women could not lead an adult Sunday school class unless they were part of a married couple) were great.  (I say “were” because they are up in the air since Covid but it looks like they may be going back to this church.)  

 

She is not someone who has raised her daughters to think they need to be part of a “husband and wife team” to do something that men are also allowed to do on their own without being part of a “husband and wife team,” and women cannot do on their own.  
 

But they went to this type of church, with no explanation or “here is why I value this church and why I value my job, too” or anything.  My sister never noticed that she was the only working mom and other moms were all part of the church homeschool group, for her age of kids.  
 

It’s the kind of church I would visit and quickly identify as “well I’m not going to fit in here very well unless I do x, y, z.”  And a lot of people are looking for x, y, z and have found it!

 

So overall if you happen to have all neurodivergent kids who are influenced by your own “march to your own drummer” ethos, I think it’s great.  But it’s worth looking at your kids and wondering if they are all neurodivergent too, or if some of them are picking up on all these social cues that you are not picking up on.  

 

[Katy]

I grew up in North Central Florida, and never heard that kind of voice until I moved North. We didn’t have fundie churches nearby though. Most people were Southern Baptist or Methodist, no Gothard influence. I never met anyone with those rules as a kid either. 

[JumpyTheFrog]

I need to push back on the idea that only women are judged for their voices. I listen to probably 2+ hours of podcasts per day, and I can assure you that various voice affectations do distract from someone's message. Yesterday I was listening to a male professor who had good information, but his endless uptalk was annoying. Vocal fry is another trait that is a distraction, just like someone who uses endless filler words. 

Edited March 11 by JumpyTheFrog

[gardenmom5]

24 minutes ago, JumpyTheFrog said:

I need to push back on the idea that only women are judged for their voices. I listen to probably 2+ hours of podcasts per day, and I can assure you that various voice affectations do distract from someone's message. Yesterday I was listening to a male professor who had good information, but his endless uptalk was annoying. Men are also judged if they sound like they have what people call the "gay (male) accent." Vocal fry is another trait  that is a distraction, just like someone who uses endless filler words. 

I think there is  a difference between people who are living everyday average lives, and someone who depends upon their speaking voice (and appearance) for their living. 

[maize]

Men get judged for sounding "feminine" and women get judged for sounding "childlike".

In both cases, lack of respect for women is in evidence. 

[Indigo Blue]

I had never heard about baby fundie voice until now. 
 

But regarding general judging or non judging of voices, I think we should all strive to focus on what someone is trying to convey over what their voice sounds like. I agree that some voices are easier to listen to and less distracting, but one should try to realize this person has something to say, and make an effort to focus on that. 
 

I would never agree that women should try to change their voice to accommodate other people or men. 
 

I say this as a person who has a very soft voice, and I also have a mild stutter. People have mocked my voice to my face many times. If I start stuttering, I can see the person’s face change as they notice it. It’s like I can see that they are now aware of it. Then, that makes it worse. ( Most of the time you’d never know).
 

I’m probably more hyper aware of focusing on what someone is trying to say vs. type of voice, etc. , because of my own experiences. 

[JumpyTheFrog]

23 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

I think there is  a difference between people who are living everyday average lives, and someone who depends upon their speaking voice (and appearance) for their living. 

That's true, but I think most people depend on their voice to earn their living, at least to some degree. Is it the same as a professional speaker? Of course not, but most people would struggle in their jobs if they completely lost their voices. Just like we advise people to wear cleans clothes that fit reasonably well and fit the culture of a place in order to be taken seriously, I think we should encourage people to drop the affectations. Note that  I said affectation, which isn't the same as a stutter or having a high-pitched voice. 

For those of you who don't think we shouldn't actively encourage people to improve their voices, does this mean not trying to get our kids to stop mumbling? (Serious question...no snark intended.) DS14 tends to be a mumbler. It has been a multi-year battle to get him to cut down on it. Sometimes when tired or upset he reverts to being more mumbly, then he gets mad when we can't understand him.

I was once in a Sunday School class with a teacher from the local high school. When he read anything out loud he became so monotone that it was almost impossible to pay attention. (He didn't speak like that.) 

While agree that the standards are different for anyone who regularly does public speaking for a living, I think the importance of a voice is underestimated. 

This Art of Manliness episode about The Fascinating Secrets of Your Voice is almost two years old, so I don't remember much of it, but I do remember it being interesting. He talks about vocal fry, uptalk, and airy voices vs voices with edge.

[gardenmom5]

13 minutes ago, JumpyTheFrog said:

That's true, but I think most people depend on their voice to earn their living, at least to some degree. Is it the same as a professional speaker? Of course not, but most people would struggle in their jobs if they completely lost their voices. Just like we advise people to wear cleans clothes that fit reasonably well and fit the culture of a place in order to be taken seriously, I think we should encourage people to drop the affectations. Note that  I said affectation, which isn't the same as a stutter or having a high-pitched voice. 

For those of you who don't think we shouldn't actively encourage people to improve their voices, does this mean not trying to get our kids to stop mumbling? (Serious question...no snark intended.) DS14 tends to be a mumbler. It has been a multi-year battle to get him to cut down on it. Sometimes when tired or upset he reverts to being more mumbly, then he gets mad when we can't understand him.

I was once in a Sunday School class with a teacher from the local high school. When he read anything out loud he became so monotone that it was almost impossible to pay attention. (He didn't speak like that.) 

While agree that the standards are different for anyone who regularly does public speaking for a living, I think the importance of a voice is underestimated. 

This Art of Manliness episode about The Fascinating Secrets of Your Voice is almost two years old, so I don't remember much of it, but I do remember it being interesting. He talks about vocal fry, uptalk, and airy voices vs voices with edge.

My impression of the thread was the concern about actively teaching women to talk in a submissive voice.  

2dd had a required public speaking class to be admitted to her graduate degree program.  (we roflol about her having to take that class.  It was an easy A.)

[Faith-manor]

Nm

Edited March 11 by Faith-manor

[JumpyTheFrog]

9 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

My impression of the thread was the concern about actively teaching women to talk in a submissive voice.  

Maybe I misunderstood. I thought the not judging voices part had become more general, but perhaps the posters meant it more as "Men shouldn't judge women for NOT having the submissive voice." If that's what they meant, then I agree. People shouldn't be trying to make women put on these affectations.

[kbutton]

53 minutes ago, JumpyTheFrog said:

For those of you who don't think we shouldn't actively encourage people to improve their voices, does this mean not trying to get our kids to stop mumbling? (Serious question...no snark intended.) DS14 tends to be a mumbler. It has been a multi-year battle to get him to cut down on it. Sometimes when tired or upset he reverts to being more mumbly, then he gets mad when we can't understand him.

I was once in a Sunday School class with a teacher from the local high school. When he read anything out loud he became so monotone that it was almost impossible to pay attention. (He didn't speak like that.) 

I don’t think that the pressure for women to have to worry about feelings more than men is the same as speaking as clearly as one is capable of and of learning how to speak in a more formal way for formal settings, etc.

My son mumbled a lot. While he has a hypermobile jaw that does get tired, therapy for auditory processing issues fixed his mumbling and lingering speech issues that years of speech therapy did not completely fix. The mumbling dried right up as did the few sounds he couldn’t make reliably without a lot of effort. Igaps.org is a great place to find someone for testing and therapy.

35 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

I think I was very sensitive to her whole delivery due to my background of abuse in the cult. We really were literally spiritually, physically, mentally abused for not adopting "the keep sweet" voice and countenance, and she just really reminds me of that. I get though that there is a bigger picture.

Just don't completely discount the keep sweet mindset because it is very much a thing in alt right churches. Girls are literally spanked even as toddlers for not using the keep sweet voice, and learning to quickly code change for speaking in the presence of men. My own sister received this treatment as a 3 year old until she learned to keep sweet in our father's presence. It definitely does affect how I perceive this kind of speech pattern and coding even if that isn't the reason the speaker does it.

I think calling this a Gothard baby voice might be better than fundie baby voice when talking about it in a religious context. Not all fundies are abusive or into Gothard, and then it generates confusion and pushback. ETA: not necessarily here, but in the larger world.

Trauma voice seems totally legit also, but it wouldn’t cover code-switching. It would still cover Gothard for women who grew up punished into using it, but it might not cover grown women adopting it.

It’s sad that a conversation like this needs to exist.

Edited March 11 by kbutton

[maize]

1 hour ago, Faith-manor said:

I think I was very sensitive to her whole delivery due to my background of abuse in the cult. We really were literally spiritually, physically, mentally abused for not adopting "the keep sweet" voice and countenance, and she just really reminds me of that. I get though that there is a bigger picture.

Just don't completely discount the keep sweet mindset because it is very much a thing in alt right churches. Girls are literally spanked even as toddlers for not using the keep sweet voice, and learning to quickly code change for speaking in the presence of men. My own sister received this treatment as a 3 year old until she learned to keep sweet in our father's presence. It definitely does affect how I perceive this kind of speech pattern and coding even if that isn't the reason the speaker does it.

I don't discount these extreme cases.

But my own religion was brought up early in the discussion, and there is nothing like this happening in the mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I have no illusions that the church as an organization or the leadership and membership of the church as individuals are perfect, and in fact see lots of room for improvement--including increased leadership roles for women. I have seen some positive changes in my life and hope to see more. And I understand and respect that some people have had experiences that have hurt them; there are people close to me who have chosen to distance themselves from the church for reasons that I understand as completely legitimate.

But lumping the experience of most women among the Latter-day Saints with Gotthard-style fundamentalism is a far stretch. 

I met with a woman just his past week, in my work role as placement coordinator for a non-profit organization dedicated to helping women break into tech careers. She is an immigrant who, due to poverty and health issues as a child, was not able to attend school past fourth grade. She was able to earn a GED a couple of years ago and is now enrolled in an educational programs, the BYU-Pathway, sponsored by the LDS church that offers certificates and college diplomas through flexible, supported, online programs at very low cost with the goal of helping women and men gain in-demand employable skills. She is receiving encouragement and support to gain an education and find high-level employment. I went through the introductory Pathways program myself last year, and my small-group cohort was 9 women and 1 man. I'm now in the follow-on degree program working on a degree in IT and cybersecurity. This is not the kind of program that a Gotthard-style keep-the-women-submissive-and-dependent church undertakes. 

This is one of my personal favorite General Conference talks. What I see and hear is a woman speaking clearly and honestly, to an audience of millions of men, women, and children around the world, about a topic that is meaningful and personal to her. If people want to analyze and critique her voice or deliverance, so be it--they can choose to do so. But I see no value in such a critique.
 

 

[prairiewindmomma]

I agree that lumping LDS women into Gothard fundamentalism would be incorrect.  My original point was that I found "the voice" triggering because it is similar to code-switching that I do see some LDS women do in some settings....the "primary voice".  There has been a lot of discussion about "primary voice" in a variety of settings, including Mormon feminist ones, including discussion about internalized sexism.

https://exponentii.org/blog/challenging-the-internalized-sexism-of-primary-voice/  (discussion about internalized sexism and criticism of judging women for their natural vocal range)

https://religionnews.com/2014/08/04/mormon-women-feminist-ordain-women/  (Janet Riess commenting on a panel discussion at Sunstone about women speaking publicly in church settings)

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2023/04/09/women-lds-general-conference-fewer/ (lack of representation of women's voices)

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/57gpzw/mormons_and_the_primary_voice_or_the_language_of/

  (an example of discussion on Reddit about primary voice, which comes up from time to time)

------

as an aside, because I don't want to derail to much from the "baby voice"/code switching discussion

I get that you've had great experiences in the church, that "primary voice" isn't something that you've had to deal with or been aware of, and that hearing criticism even indirectly related to the church is uncomfortable to you. I get it.

If you're going to bring up the Pathways program as a model of success.....then I think you also need to be aware that not everyone loves the Pathways program. Why does a program designed to better the lives of others, including women, require you to take such a heavy cohort of religion classes and pay 10% tithing and meet the other things required for ecclesiastical endorsement in order to qualify to enter the program? If the goal was simply education + helping people develop better work skills, that could be done easily and effectively without all of the indoctrination. We've well established that the church had $100 BILLION dollars in its investment portfolio alone as of 2020 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mormon-church-amassed-100-billion-it-was-the-best-kept-secret-in-the-investment-world-11581138011 and it may be as high as 150 billion now https://religionnews.com/2023/05/16/6-things-we-now-know-maybe-about-the-lds-churchs-wealth/  The actual monetary donations made in 2022 added up to $63 million....the large amounts that the church claims to give are actually volunteer hours counted as monetary contributions (assigned hourly value).  Like, the church has the money to do SO much actual good....but it acts as an investment/real estate corporation more than it does to help the poor and the needy. 

ETA: the local community college in my metro offers tuition at $128/credit hour.  If you are not LDS and choose to use the pathways program, the cost is $139/credit hour https://www.byupathway.edu/tuition  How is that helpful?

  

Edited March 11 by prairiewindmomma

[maize]

@prairiewindmomma my experience is that when we look for things to criticize,  we find things to criticize.

Which...can be fine. I'm not interested in trying to persuade you to my point of view; I respect you and your experiences and perspective. 

I happen to find a lot of good in my religion and am OK with also being aware of shortfalls. 

My Pathways cohort was a huge benefit to me. The service missionaries who were our mentors are people I will value and respect for the rest of my life. It was a source of support and encouragement at a point where I very much needed support and encouragement. As other church organizations and programs and members and leaders have been at various points in my life. 

So, no, I'm not personally interested in picking apart imperfections in the program. Programs, organizations, and people don't need to be perfect to do good.

I do understand there are people who have found more negatives than positives in their personal experience with church. I accept those stories and experiences. 

But I live my story and my experience,  and I personally find primarily hope and help and support and comfort and encouragement in my faith and my faith community. 

[gardenmom5]

6 hours ago, kbutton said:

 

I think calling this a Gothard baby voice  

My grandmother didn't follow Gothard (but she loved her 70s/80s televangelists!) - but I've found it interesting how many similarities there are between what she did and what Gothard preached.  It makes me think Gothard didn't make it up so much, as to he tweaked it, packaged it, and sold it.  She did come out of the rural farm country Midwest.

I dont' know if my older sister was encouraged to talk babyish, or just allowed to.  I know if I imitated her and talked babyish (as a child trying to get adult attention too), I'd be told to knock if off.  But then, she was our grandmother's absolute favorite victim.

she's 65 years old, and still talks in a babyish, trying to get adult approval, tone of voice.  blech.  (not always, but maybe it's because her husband was there (or mine was, she doesn't see him much) when we all went out to lunch, and usually when I see her it's just us.)    

Edited March 12 by gardenmom5

[Ginevra]

I have not heard this term, though I can imagine it, but I will say, I do have a young relative who was not raised fundie in any way, but does have a remarkably childlike manner of speaking. It has shocked people when they learn she is a mother and a woman with a professional job, because her voice sounds like a young teen girl. It’s not just the vocal pitch, it’s the tempo and the hesitant pace.

[gardenmom5]

5 hours ago, maize said:

@prairiewindmomma my experience is that when we look for things to criticize,  we find things to criticize.

Which...can be fine. I'm not interested in trying to persuade you to my point of view; I respect you and your experiences and perspective. 

I happen to find a lot of good in my religion and am OK with also being aware of shortfalls. 

My Pathways cohort was a huge benefit to me. The service missionaries who were our mentors are people I will value and respect for the rest of my life. It was a source of support and encouragement at a point where I very much needed support and encouragement. As other church organizations and programs and members and leaders have been at various points in my life. 

So, no, I'm not personally interested in picking apart imperfections in the program. Programs, organizations, and people don't need to be perfect to do good.

I do understand there are people who have found more negatives than positives in their personal experience with church. I accept those stories and experiences. 

But I live my story and my experience, and I personally find primarily hope and help and support and comfort and encouragement in my faith and my faith community. 

And there is a huge difference between a "program" and the people in it.  You can have a well designed program - BUT . . . people are "people".  "People", have weaknesses.  They are different, they have strengths, weaknesses, biases. . good days and bad days, baggage that limits capacity . . .etc.  

Many people are *sincerely* trying - but the human condition has flaws.  It's part of mortality.  

Like Maize, I prefer to cut people some slack.    Life is happier like that.

My fil was a Japanese POW.  He was on the Bataan Death March.  He was on the hell ships. (if you look it up, consider yourself warned) He experienced brutality and deprivation most people can't imagine. It destroyed his health.  Years later, when his children were 'only' teenagers and he was laying in a hospital bed dying from colon cancer, one of his nurses asked him why he was always in a good mood.   "Why do it the hard way?".  

 Indeed.  
 

Edited March 12 by gardenmom5

[gardenmom5]

I grew up in the PNW -   In an area that has long been considered, statistically, one of the most irreligious cities/locals in the country.

I grew up in a middle/upper middle class neighborhood.  Classmates had horses - one playground fence backed up to horse property.   (and we'd shove grass through the cyclone fence and feed the horses at recess.)
there were 'popular' girls who spoke very softly in elementary school, teacher favorites, they were the ones who also tended to be some of the more successful students (many I knew all the way through high school). *they were shy* as younger girls.  They got over it as they got older and gained confidence in their abilities. 

 

[maize]

Short women also are more likely to have soft/chirpy voices. It's of course not universal, but smaller vocal tract does naturally tend to correspond to softer and higher pitched sounds. My Grandma was 5'1" and, not surprisingly, had a softer and higher pitched voice than her daughter who took after Grandpa at 6'. 

People's voices also do weird things when they are nervous.

None of which of course means that people can't and don't alter their voice and speech patterns intentionally, or in ways induced by trauma.

I still find analyzing and critiquing people's speech patterns distasteful unless the person is enrolled in a class on acting or speaking or something.

[J-rap]

(I've read many but not all of responses.)  I know women who happen to have a high voice, and naturally sound more child-like as a result.  These women were not fundies trained to speak a certain way.  I also know a few fundie women but they don't have that voice.  I was appalled by Katie Britt's rebuttal though.  It doesn't sound like her normal speaking voice when I hear other recordings of her.  It sounds overly dramatic, forcefully emotional, and overall fake/not authentic.  Like a high schooler auditioning for a play.  I think that has to do more with politics and culture than a fundie background.  But I know nothing about her personal life.

I do think it's interesting that sometimes groups of people seem to take on certain voice characteristics.  Do you think this happens more with women than men?  Whenever I hear women actors from the 30's and 40's, I hear a pattern.  They all speak the same.  I don't think it's meant to sound more feminine, but it does have a certain pattern to it that was probably learned in acting school.  

 

 

[gardenmom5]

6 minutes ago, J-rap said:

   Whenever I hear women actors from the 30's and 40's, I hear a pattern.  They all speak the same.  I don't think it's meant to sound more feminine, but it does have a certain pattern to it that was probably learned in acting school.  

 

 

There's a reason for that.  They *were* trained to speak that way.  Talkies were new, and film producers thought they needed to have their actors/actresses speak a certain way for the audience to sit through a movie.

Charlie Chaplin was notorious for thinking talkies were a passing fad.

 

eta: there will also be a difference in vocalization in actors trained for the stage (where they must project their voice without benefit of a microphone or coming back later to loop the dialogue) - and film.

Edited March 12 by gardenmom5

[Ginevra]

23 hours ago, Scarlett said:

Agree, but her speech was pretty weird.

Absolutely.  

To me, it just sounded like a person with a lot of nerves and/or attempting not to cry. I didn’t watch it all though, so maybe that’s why. 

[Heartstrings]

18 minutes ago, Ginevra said:

To me, it just sounded like a person with a lot of nerves and/or attempting not to cry. I didn’t watch it all though, so maybe that’s why. 

The one phrase I keep hearing describing it is “over coached”.   I’m sure she rehearsed that speech a million times and I can just picture a vocal coach insisting she be Breathy! More breath!   Whisper, but loudly!   She looked like it was hurting her voice, her neck tendons were very prominent and strained, which was not evident in her other speeches so I don’t think that’s normal for her.  Maybe she was sick and they didn’t feel like there was enough time to get anyone else.  
 

I feel bad for her, the consensus seems to be that this really hurt her career and probably took her out of consideration for VP.    

Edited March 12 by Heartstrings

[gardenmom5]

On 3/10/2024 at 6:40 AM, HomeAgain said:

It's such a repressive technique to hide true feelings that it comes off as frightening to me.  Those sort of people are never to be trusted because it's the epitome of "keep sweet" and "bless your heart" all rolled into one.  They're often the ones who have a public persona, and then a very different private one.

I can't help thinking of Dolores Umbridge when it comes to this.  Evil, packaged nicely.

I know what you're speaking about, but I've also known women with very soft voices who are genuinely sweet.  Dolores Umbridge sweet always make the hair on the back of my neck stand up.  To me, I do think there can be a difference in motivation.

 

On 3/10/2024 at 5:09 PM, maize said:

Since we have experience in the same culture, I must be either oblivious or untrainable.

I can't remember ever thanking anyone for asking me to speak.
Can't remember talking about my husband and kids unless I had a relevant anecdote to share.  

I'm not suggesting your experiences aren't genuine. I'm sure they are. They're just not universal.

 

I've never thanked anyone for asking me to speak/teach.  (not even when I was the second speaker (five minute talks don't count), - or got the entire time to myself . . . ) More often than not, those that do have struck me as "nervous" about speaking.  Not always, but more often than not.  

 
IME: Most of the people that talk about their families seem to be new and are doing it more as an introduction. (or they feel like there are so many new people who they don't know/don't know them, they're "introducing" themselves to them.) Or they're, again, nervous about putting together a talk on the assigned topic.  (I've had unassigned talks.  - just - go forth, pick a subject, and speak.)  or they're sharing something that really is a message of faith, courage, miracles, etc.  

And different areas are certainly different.


 

On 3/10/2024 at 6:07 PM, Amira said:

 .  I often hear women thank men for the opportunity to speak (men will say this too,  

But it is also true that women are punished everywhere for using their natural voices.  I 

I've never thanked anyone for asking me to speak. (I have had people come up to me and thank me for speaking.) neither has dh.
I've never been punished for using my "natural" voice.  (which as a ND, could be loud). 

[MercyA]

19 hours ago, Indigo Blue said:

I say this as a person who has a very soft voice, and I also have a mild stutter. People have mocked my voice to my face many times. If I start stuttering, I can see the person’s face change as they notice it. It’s like I can see that they are now aware of it. Then, that makes it worse. ( Most of the time you’d never know).

People can be such jerks. Huge hugs to you. ❤️

[SKL]

Regarding the male side of things, and regarding being over-dramatic, I think there are examples of the "other side" that I also find incredibly cringey.  The first one that comes to mind is Chris Cuomo.

While I didn't know what the real topic was when I first opened this thread, I now know, and I do agree she seemed over-dramatic in the particular speech that is being criticized.  But again, I never listen to such speeches because of the obvious agenda behind all of them.

[Grace Hopper]

On 3/10/2024 at 5:51 PM, Grace Hopper said:

 

It’s not new. One of my (fundamentalist, not from the south) family members in the generation above me was very into books like Marabel Morgan’s 1973 Total Woman. Not sure if it was specifically in that title or one of the other books she had stacked up that taught the supposed attractiveness of childlike qualities. She has an almost-permanent baby voice that was exemplified for me as a young wife. Over the years, and especially now that she’s aged, I’ve heard her slip. The difference is creepy. 

Quoting myself because i got curious trying to remember some of the other books that influenced the elder I mentioned. I found her behavior interesting back then and looked into it years ago, but couldn’t remember more titles. At the time I just wrote them off as silly women’s self-help books that helped explain her behavior. With my curiosity stirred, today I found one of them that’s the subject of this review. 

This one was published in 1963, apparently as a response to second-wave feminism. My jaw dropped as I read this review; I have witnessed the little girl temper tantrum exactly as it’s described here. Definitely used to manipulate the men in this woman’s life! Anyway, reiterating that this is not new stuff. It would be interesting to put publication dates of these kind of books on a timeline along with ATI junk and events of the feminist movement. 

http://samanthapfield.com/2014/03/06/fascinating-womanhood-review-childlikeness/#:~:text=She goes on to give,as an “exaggeration”).

[Grace Hopper]

WRT this voice as a trauma response, I’ve personally not witnessed this but completely accept it as something that happens. 
 

As far as women with naturally soft high. voices, or those who are shy, I reiterate that’s not what I’m talking about. What’s being called “baby voice” in the context of the original post refers to a deliberate style invoked for manipulative purposes. 
 

This manipulation is exercised both by men who want their women to be submissive and by women who use their voices and bodies to get what they want from “leader” husbands. It’s a vicious cycle.

Well gosh now I wanna add the publication of Dune to that timeline I proposed above, he got that idea for the Bene Gesserit voice somewhere…

[gardenmom5]

47 minutes ago, Grace Hopper said:

WRT this voice as a trauma response, I’ve personally not witnessed this but completely accept it as something that happens. 
 

As far as women with naturally soft high. voices, or those who are shy, I reiterate that’s not what I’m talking about. What’s being called “baby voice” in the context of the original post refers to a deliberate style invoked for manipulative purposes. 
 

This manipulation is exercised both by men who want their women to be submissive and by women who use their voices and bodies to get what they want from “leader” husbands. It’s a vicious cycle.

Well gosh now I wanna add the publication of Dune to that timeline I proposed above, he got that idea for the Bene Gesserit voice somewhere…

I think most people get that, but that there also needs to be an awareness  just because someone talks in that type of voice does not mean they're a trained submissive fundie.   I've seen videos of women who aren't remotely religious at all - put on that kitten voice to try and manipulate men. 

[maize]

1 hour ago, Grace Hopper said:

Quoting myself because i got curious trying to remember some of the other books that influenced the elder I mentioned. I found her behavior interesting back then and looked into it years ago, but couldn’t remember more titles. At the time I just wrote them off as silly women’s self-help books that helped explain her behavior. With my curiosity stirred, today I found one of them that’s the subject of this review. 

This one was published in 1963, apparently as a response to second-wave feminism. My jaw dropped as I read this review; I have witnessed the little girl temper tantrum exactly as it’s described here. Definitely used to manipulate the men in this woman’s life! Anyway, reiterating that this is not new stuff. It would be interesting to put publication dates of these kind of books on a timeline along with ATI junk and events of the feminist movement. 

http://samanthapfield.com/2014/03/06/fascinating-womanhood-review-childlikeness/#:~:text=She goes on to give,as an “exaggeration”).

Fascinating Womanhood was a very weird book.

[livetoread]

3 hours ago, maize said:

Fascinating Womanhood was a very weird book.

I read that book as a young teen, and yes, it certainly was, though I'd use other adjectives as well. Makes me mad to think about now. So much harmful stuff I was fed as a girl trying to figure out my place in the world.

[prairiewindmomma]

Can we talk about the trad wife dynamic of this? Is that sufficiently apolitical? I am not aiming at women who are home with children in general…I am talking about the specific social media dynamic right now with its focus on submission, conspicuous leisure, and so on.

[maize]

I haven't been able to figure out how big a phenomenon/movement trad wife is. There's no-one I interact with who identifies as a trad wife. 

I get the impression that it extends beyond religious sub-cultures? 

[Heartstrings]

1 hour ago, prairiewindmomma said:

Can we talk about the trad wife dynamic of this? Is that sufficiently apolitical? I am not aiming at women who are home with children in general…I am talking about the specific social media dynamic right now with its focus on submission, conspicuous leisure, and so on.

I hadn’t thought of it before, but I do see it now that you’ve mention it. 

[Eos]

48 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

Can we talk about the trad wife dynamic of this? Is that sufficiently apolitical? I am not aiming at women who are home with children in general…I am talking about the specific social media dynamic right now with its focus on submission, conspicuous leisure, and so on.

Ok I have a confession: I have a secret morbid fascination with the trad wife instagram aesthetic. Mmmm, all that soft gray linen! 

Seriously though, all the full time and/or homeschooling moms I know, myself included, made a choice to stay home and/or homeschool. Did the online tradwives' husbands make them stay home and become influencers? I'm in a pretty traditional-looking marriage by choice and I'm irritated that these people are claiming this lifestyle as an aesthetic.

There's a lot of interesting critique of the tradwives but what really strikes me is their very feminist-seeming self-promotion.

[SKL]

This trend toward naming every lifestyle feels disturbing.  Shouldn't we just live our lives without checking back to see which boxes we're checking for our defined existence?  What happens when you step outside the box, when you're so invested in that box?

I don't know what "trad wife" means, but if a more traditional lifestyle works for you, yay!  If it doesn't, yay!  If half of it does, yay!

Edited March 12 by SKL

[Heartstrings]

3 minutes ago, Eos said:

Ok I have a confession: I have a secret morbid fascination with the trad wife instagram aesthetic. Mmmm, all that soft gray linen! 

Seriously though, all the full time and/or homeschooling moms I know, myself included, made a choice to stay home and/or homeschool. Did the online tradwives' husbands make them stay home and become influencers? I'm in a pretty traditional-looking marriage by choice and I'm irritated that these people are claiming this lifestyle as an aesthetic.

There's a lot of interesting critique of the tradwives but what really strikes me is their very feminist-seeming self-promotion.

I’ve heard it described as neo Nazi propaganda and really can’t shake that impression.  
 

It’s just so fake!   I have been a SAH homeschool mom for over a decade and  have never once frolicked in a beautiful frock or baked bread in my perfectly clean kitchen while my perfectly clean  baby babbled cheerfully in a high chair, my long flowing hair just so.   It’s propaganda for something for sure.  

[SKL]

1 minute ago, Heartstrings said:

It’s just so fake!   I have been a SAH homeschool mom for over a decade and  have never once frolicked in a beautiful frock or baked bread in my perfectly clean kitchen while my perfectly clean  baby babbled cheerfully in a high chair, my long flowing hair just so.   It’s propaganda for something for sure.  

If I tried to bake bread in my perfectly clean kitchen, that would be the moment my perfectly clean baby would smile and barf all over.  😛

[Heartstrings]

6 minutes ago, SKL said:

This trend toward naming every lifestyle feels disturbing.  Shouldn't we just live our lives without checking back to see which boxes we're checking for our defined existence?  What happens when you step outside the box, when you're so invested in that box?

I don't know what "trad wife" means, but if a more traditional lifestyle works for you, yay!  If it doesn't, yay!  If half of it does, yay!

It’s not just living a certain way, it’s advancing an agenda.  They actively try to recruit people to their movement, have podcasts and you tube channels to help support it, all the things.  They also have the ear of important people who are actively trying to roll back womens rights, such as advocating for women to not be allowed to vote and rolling back access to credit, bank accounts and property ownership.  
 I live fairly traditionally but I’m not willing to give up my right to vote or own a bank account.  

Edited March 12 by Heartstrings

[Heartstrings]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

If I tried to bake bread in my perfectly clean kitchen, that would be the moment my perfectly clean baby would smile and barf all over.  😛

Exactly!   Or poo all the way UP into their hair, a feat of physics I still don’t fully comprehend.  

[prairiewindmomma]

One of the distinctions for me between normal people who are at home with kids and tradwife is the performance of nonessential labor (ie we dont see them clean or tend children, really—-the essentials of a SAHM life). What we see is the aesthetic of cooking from scratch, modeling outfits, etc. It’s that demonstration of non-essential labor that is a cultural signal of wealth and leisure. Normal families dont have leftover Wagyu in their fridge. Many cant afford to have a parent stay home at all.

There’s also the social conditioning aspect of it. It was the Tommy Tuberville comment made above by a pp that made me want to talk about it—she was chosen “because she was a housewife”, even though the position she assumed was a Senate seat, presumably one that should require some competence and skill. 

[maize]

16 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

  I have been a SAH homeschool mom for over a decade and  have never once frolicked in a beautiful frock or baked bread in my perfectly clean kitchen while my perfectly clean  baby babbled cheerfully in a high chair, my long flowing hair just so.  

Really?

This has been my life every day!!!

🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂

How I miss our old willy-nilly emoji...

[Faith-manor]

Have any of you seen the movie, "Mona Lisa Smile"? The propaganda from those looking to restrict women to a Leave it to Beaver type nostalgia reminds me of the scenes from the movie in which the instructors of Vassar College tried to prep the students for their inevitable marriage outcome in which they have to be perfect 24/7 without ambition or aspiration, making everything just perfect for their perfect, pipe smoking, successful, future politician/rich/business husbands going so far as to not require class attendance nor test taking or homework if they married prior to graduation so that they could set up house and make things all nice nice for their perfect husbands.

If you haven't seen it and have HBO MAX streaming, I think it is available on that platform. It is exactly the kind of thing that Prairiewindmomma and others are alluding to, and it is kind of thought provoking. We haven't had the right to vote, to own property, to have bank accounts and investments, an ability to live as adults with autonomy and non-dependency upon men for very long. There is, I believe, a movement within some conservative, religious elements to erode those rights until the accepted narrative for women is Mona Lisa Smile or worse.

In the instance of this speech, I think the entire thing, not just her voice, is the issue. There is so much subtext with the speech, the setting, the slant, mannerisms...

[maize]

14 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

One of the distinctions for me between normal people who are at home with kids and tradwife is the performance of nonessential labor (ie we dont see them clean or tend children, really—-the essentials of a SAHM life). What we see is the aesthetic of cooking from scratch, modeling outfits, etc. It’s that demonstration of non-essential labor that is a cultural signal of wealth and leisure. Normal families dont have leftover Wagyu in their fridge. Many cant afford to have a parent stay home at all.

There’s also the social conditioning aspect of it. It was the Tommy Tuberville comment made above by a pp that made me want to talk about it—she was chosen “because she was a housewife”, even though the position she assumed was a Senate seat, presumably one that should require some competence and skill. 

I do really want to see women who have dedicated large portions of their life to family and home represented in legislative assemblies and elsewhere.  I don't personally feel well-represented by women who have been primarily focused on career throughout their lives. Nurturing and caregiving are huge parts of many women's lives and I want to see those recognized as the competent, skill-filled, impactful work that they are!

Not a fan of the term housewife though and no clue what Tommy Tuberville intended by that remark.

[prairiewindmomma]

1974 = Equal Credit Opportunity Act in which women, married or not, were granted the right to own a bank account or credit account in their own name.  Some of us here are older than 1974, born into a world in which had things not changed we would not be able to control our own finances.

[Grace Hopper]

16 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

One of the distinctions for me between normal people who are at home with kids and tradwife is the performance of nonessential labor (ie we dont see them clean or tend children, really—-the essentials of a SAHM life). What we see is the aesthetic of cooking from scratch, modeling outfits, etc. It’s that demonstration of non-essential labor that is a cultural signal of wealth and leisure. Normal families dont have leftover Wagyu in their fridge. Many cant afford to have a parent stay home at all.

There’s also the social conditioning aspect of it. It was the Tommy Tuberville comment made above by a pp that made me want to talk about it—she was chosen “because she was a housewife”, even though the position she assumed was a Senate seat, presumably one that should require some competence and skill. 

I’m all for traditional homemaking by choice. But what is trending in this #tradwife stuff comes off more like a kept woman with the addendum of perfect little (clean lol) children. More myth than reality. I imagine someone whispering “now don’t you worry your pretty little head about xyz, darlin’”. 
 

There are reasons the 1950s homemaker model went away. Lots of good reasons. I really do understand it is often desirable or simply pragmatic for one person to stay at home to manage the household and activities of family. It’s truly a full time job. But couples should have the freedom to choose without judgment, or limits of law, how to operate their family life.