-“We harbor an ideological bias against the feminine voice, rooted in positive primal associations with masculinity.”
Some highlights from the JSTOR article On Men and Women’s Public Speech.
“Gunn uses speeches delivered by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in their 2008 contest for the Democratic nomination to illustrate how gendered norms about speech create a double bind for women.
Gunn argues that the field of public address is an important symbolic arena where we harbor an “[ideological] bias against the feminine voice,” a bias, he contends, that is rooted in positive primal associations with masculinity (and the corresponding devaluation of femininity, the voice that constrains and nags—the mother, the droning Charlie Brown schoolteacher, the wife).
Both Gunn and Campbell contend that masculine speech is the cultural standard. It’s what we value and respect. The low pitch and assertive demeanor that characterize the adult male voice signify reason, control, and authority, suitable for the public domain. Women’s voices are higher pitched, like those of immature boys, and their characteristic speech patterns have a distinctive cadence that exhibits a wider range of emotional expression. In Western cultures, contends Gunn, this is bad because it comes across as uncontrolled. We associate uncontrolled speech (what Gunn calls “the cry, the grunt, the scream, and the yawp”) with bodily functions and sexuality—things that happen in the private, domestic spheres (both coded as feminine). Men are expected to repress passionate, emotional speech, Gunn explains, precisely because it threatens norms of masculine control and order.
The notion of control also relates to the cultural ideal of eloquence. Eloquence is not just a Western value but is rewarded in many cultures around the world.”
[…]
““Eloquence” is, essentially, code for values associated with masculinity.”
Ouch. Yet another patriarchal societal barrier that needs to be brought to light and rectified with all due haste.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
2 comments
April 12, 2016 at 3:30 pm
radicalwitch
This is very informative. Recently, I read some comments of some right-wing men who are supporters of Trump, praising his wife’s one-minute long speech, clearly prepared by Trump himself, as “eloquent.” Now, this woman has no real education, having dropped out of every school of higher learning she ever attended, her English is very broken and often lacking in prepositions, and she sounds like a child. Yet this was called, “eloquent.” At the time, I was baffled. After reading this post, it is now crystal clear to me what the men meant by this. Thank you!
LikeLiked by 1 person
April 13, 2016 at 10:47 am
The Arbourist
@Radicalwitch
You are most welcome. :) It’s nice to find a bit of clarity on certain issues once and awhile – unfortunate that it has to be on the underlying patriarchal mechanisms that poison our society. :/
LikeLiked by 1 person