For example female voices for early radar systems were chosen, because their voices stand out from the male fighter pilots. Sexist? Maybe, but also a smart and pragmatic decision. San Francisco apparently uses high-pitched voices as they are easier to hear over clattering train cars.
> "It's much easier to find a female voice that everyone likes than a male voice that everyone likes," said Stanford University Professor Clifford Nass,
> When it comes to consumer applications of computerized voices, the sex of the voice is usually determined by what service or product is employing it. For example, transit systems such as the San Francisco Area's BART often use higher-pitched voices because they are easier to hear over the clatter of the train cars.
> Bajarin, the Silicon Valley analyst, believes that more computerized voices would be masculine if not for the associations with HAL, whose malicious intent in the 1968 Stanley Kubrick film was made even creepier by his soothing tone.
"A lot of tech companies stayed away from the male voice because of HAL," he said. "I've heard that theory tossed around multiple times." (One prominent exception: The chipper "You've got mail!" voice from AOL's dial-up days.)
> Siri speaks like a man in the UK, where iPhone 4S owners have swarmed online forums to request a female voice instead. "Eww!! Hope UK gets female voice soon," wrote one commenter.
Does it? I've had it set to a female voice since, uhm, forever...?
I am absolutely guilty of sexism towards my AI assistants, but it's in a congratulatory way. On Google Home, I have an issue whereby it often thinks I'm speaking Italian when I'm not, hence doing the wrong thing. I set the Italian responder to be male (like I am), and the English one to female; so when I hear a male response I think "stupid man is stupid", repeat the command more clearly, and get a "competent female" voice who will do the right thing.
Siri does not have this sort of granularity, you have to switch languages manually - which makes it less flexible but, I guess, slightly more precise (although it's still just Bad pretty often).
The point of this article seems to hinge on gender roles, specifically a submissive and polite attitude (assumed if I'm not mistaken because it sounds feminine). Regardless of whether or not that makes sense, an announcer such as the ones described always tells us things unilaterally and without recourse: The train is late, we're all requested to go left, your plane is delayed, your plane must now be boarded, etc.
It's not submissive at all: It's there to inform you of reality and you're expected to comply. There's an implicit threat to it, where if you do not listen or don't comply life will be difficult for you.
> There's an implicit threat to it, where if you do not listen or don't comply life will be difficult for you.
One could say that plays into a certain type of "bitchy, commandeering" female stereotypes. Which is why this sort of analysis is often fluff with an agenda - once you're determined to find bad elements in human behaviour, you will find something.
I think the article totally miss the point of why we use female (high pitch) voice instead of male (low pitch) voice.
In a public environment, the majority of the lower spectrum of sound is flooded with the surrounding noise what means that if a low pitch noise is used it will barely be understable. High pitch voices are well better in theses cases because it uses the less busy part of the sound spectrum resulting in clearer sound. There is nothing to do with gender and patriarchy.
Is that true, though? If there's automotive traffic or construction work going on, possibly, but any public space with lots of women and (especially) children won't be quiet in the high frequencies. I nonscientifically believe the booming male voices were a lot more effective at being understood and commanding attention over the din at public swimming pools back when I used to spend summers there. They also sometimes have a grumpy old guy do announcements in public transports here in case of major incidents, and I find he's much easier to understand at times than the disembodied female voice they otherwise use. Seems like subway trains and trams produce a lot of high-pitched noise.
There's also this thing with having a "soft voice", that's something much more often attributed to women than men (IME – can't remember hearing that said about a man, like, ever). But in a relatively quiet environment, I pretty much never notice any difference in loudness, nor on recordings, and it's definitely not a shyness thing. But they still get drowned out much, much easier in public spaces than my own male voice, and it's visibly frustrating having to almost scream to just be understood while I can talk normally. That was a pretty regular thing during lunch break for a while when I worked in a team with several women who had that issue.
And finally, while I may be really weird in that regard and everyone else here just processes content and not the voice that's talking, but female and male voices really do have very different emotional coloring for me. I think my native country is still a bit behind when it comes to ubiquitous disembodied female voices, but I'll readily believe it works, and I don't have difficulty imagining the emotional part of the message hinges at least partly on its femininity.
> There's also this thing with having a "soft voice", that's something much more often attributed to women than men (IME – can't remember hearing that said about a man, like, ever).
Because natural male voice is generally lower than female voice. Also there is research on gender neutral voice (like this https://www.genderlessvoice.com/) but as you can hear, the voice is everything but natural and easy to understand
And how can you tell the difference between a high pitched male voice and a female voice? It's resonance, and it has a big effect on audibility especially in environments where the lower mids are crowded.
I think she's describing this kind of ethereal quality these voices tend to have by being both relatively soft and loud. That isn't a necessity, you can have announcement voices that sound much more like someone speaking very loudly.
> intended to take on a specific gendered role; to politely and submissively assist.
> Moreover, the monotonous presence of pre-recorded voices also embodies the stereotype of the ‘nagging’ female. She’s constantly reminding us to remove shopping bags from the checkout, to mind the gap, to be careful and so on.
One of these is not like the other.
A thought exercise for the article authors: how would these parts of the article look if the voice sounded like a man?
I found it a bit odd that the article seemingly does not ask designers of voice systems why the voice is typically female-sounding. I have to imagine they’ve tested it both ways, so what’s their explanation for why they consistently make the choice they do?
I think the author is trying to sow outrage, to pit people against each other based on gender, to emphasize the differences instead of the commonalities and support conflict rather than cooperation. That's what people like the author want: class, race and gender wars.
Truck driver. The comm terminal in my truck (Qualcomm) has a female voice, for navigation waypoint reminders, reading messages, and warnings.
It is not a pleasant voice. I've name it after my ex wife, because it's always telling me what to do.
This is particularly annoying in Oregon, where the max speed was raised from 55 years ago, and she will tell you every five seconds that "You are exceeding the posted speed limit. ... You are exceeding the posted speed limit. ..." So you turn off the voice (which I could never do when I was married), and give up the other useful voice functions.
The optical scanner advertisement from 1968 was interesting. "16 legs and eight wagging tongues." I was a teenager then, and I can imagine women being annoyed by that ad, and me and other men being dismissive. To our discredit, despite it being "a different time."
Maybe I'll rename my Qualcomm to George. (Although she really was always telling me what to do.)
Readit News
This 10 year old CNN article is way more informing:
https://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/21/tech/innovation/female-co...
For example female voices for early radar systems were chosen, because their voices stand out from the male fighter pilots. Sexist? Maybe, but also a smart and pragmatic decision. San Francisco apparently uses high-pitched voices as they are easier to hear over clattering train cars.
> "It's much easier to find a female voice that everyone likes than a male voice that everyone likes," said Stanford University Professor Clifford Nass,
> When it comes to consumer applications of computerized voices, the sex of the voice is usually determined by what service or product is employing it. For example, transit systems such as the San Francisco Area's BART often use higher-pitched voices because they are easier to hear over the clatter of the train cars.
> Bajarin, the Silicon Valley analyst, believes that more computerized voices would be masculine if not for the associations with HAL, whose malicious intent in the 1968 Stanley Kubrick film was made even creepier by his soothing tone. "A lot of tech companies stayed away from the male voice because of HAL," he said. "I've heard that theory tossed around multiple times." (One prominent exception: The chipper "You've got mail!" voice from AOL's dial-up days.)
> Siri speaks like a man in the UK, where iPhone 4S owners have swarmed online forums to request a female voice instead. "Eww!! Hope UK gets female voice soon," wrote one commenter.
The same male voice (same voice actor) who did the summary of contestant performances between rounds of The Weakest Link.
Does it? I've had it set to a female voice since, uhm, forever...?
I am absolutely guilty of sexism towards my AI assistants, but it's in a congratulatory way. On Google Home, I have an issue whereby it often thinks I'm speaking Italian when I'm not, hence doing the wrong thing. I set the Italian responder to be male (like I am), and the English one to female; so when I hear a male response I think "stupid man is stupid", repeat the command more clearly, and get a "competent female" voice who will do the right thing.
Siri does not have this sort of granularity, you have to switch languages manually - which makes it less flexible but, I guess, slightly more precise (although it's still just Bad pretty often).
I hate war, but I can't help but love the pragmatism and rationality.
It's not submissive at all: It's there to inform you of reality and you're expected to comply. There's an implicit threat to it, where if you do not listen or don't comply life will be difficult for you.
One could say that plays into a certain type of "bitchy, commandeering" female stereotypes. Which is why this sort of analysis is often fluff with an agenda - once you're determined to find bad elements in human behaviour, you will find something.
In a public environment, the majority of the lower spectrum of sound is flooded with the surrounding noise what means that if a low pitch noise is used it will barely be understable. High pitch voices are well better in theses cases because it uses the less busy part of the sound spectrum resulting in clearer sound. There is nothing to do with gender and patriarchy.
There's also this thing with having a "soft voice", that's something much more often attributed to women than men (IME – can't remember hearing that said about a man, like, ever). But in a relatively quiet environment, I pretty much never notice any difference in loudness, nor on recordings, and it's definitely not a shyness thing. But they still get drowned out much, much easier in public spaces than my own male voice, and it's visibly frustrating having to almost scream to just be understood while I can talk normally. That was a pretty regular thing during lunch break for a while when I worked in a team with several women who had that issue.
And finally, while I may be really weird in that regard and everyone else here just processes content and not the voice that's talking, but female and male voices really do have very different emotional coloring for me. I think my native country is still a bit behind when it comes to ubiquitous disembodied female voices, but I'll readily believe it works, and I don't have difficulty imagining the emotional part of the message hinges at least partly on its femininity.
The "soft spoken" is used for men.
https://youtu.be/21ZfGPp-Ves
She repeatedly calls female voices "disembodied" as if male ones aren't or the solution is to have the speakers encased in female puppets.
> Moreover, the monotonous presence of pre-recorded voices also embodies the stereotype of the ‘nagging’ female. She’s constantly reminding us to remove shopping bags from the checkout, to mind the gap, to be careful and so on.
One of these is not like the other.
A thought exercise for the article authors: how would these parts of the article look if the voice sounded like a man?
It is not a pleasant voice. I've name it after my ex wife, because it's always telling me what to do.
This is particularly annoying in Oregon, where the max speed was raised from 55 years ago, and she will tell you every five seconds that "You are exceeding the posted speed limit. ... You are exceeding the posted speed limit. ..." So you turn off the voice (which I could never do when I was married), and give up the other useful voice functions.
The optical scanner advertisement from 1968 was interesting. "16 legs and eight wagging tongues." I was a teenager then, and I can imagine women being annoyed by that ad, and me and other men being dismissive. To our discredit, despite it being "a different time."
Maybe I'll rename my Qualcomm to George. (Although she really was always telling me what to do.)