ACCORDING to new research published at the University of Sheffield, men are biologically programmed to find it more difficult to hear women’s high-pitched voices than men’s lower ones.
Hmmm. I have a problem with behavioural psychology. The idea that we are genetically pre-programmed to behave in a certain way always seems a cop out, ignoring the variables that exist in society and avoiding the real issues of power and control and access to education and money.
How do we know that men don’t simply learn to pay more attention to other men and that this in turn develops, to a greater extent, a part of their cognitive process? And, therefore, a part of their brain? How convenient to say that we are genetically programmed to be better at one thing than another. Society need never change. Give little boys guns and little girls dolls and let them get on with it. Back to Peter and Jane Ladybird readers when Peter helped deep voiced Daddy with the car and Jane helped high voiced Mummy with the tea.
It’s been similar with intelligence. A number of psychologists have through the years tried to prove intelligence is genetic. That certain groups of people are innately cleverer than others. One remembers the work of Eysenck and Jensen, which linked IQ to race. We now know that intelligence, whatever that is, is much more likely to be influenced by environmental factors and opportunity; even change of diet, it seems, can affect learning. One has to ask why people would bother to spend so much money on private education if it was all in the genes?
A few years ago there was a bestseller called Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. I took a particular dislike to this book. I don’t think we can divide the sexes like this. I think most of us come from the planet Zog. In the 17th century, quite a lot of women deliberately lived as men. It made life easier, gave them freedom to be how they wanted and to live life more independently. No one noticed. They got away with it. This is because men and women have much more in common than they have differences. What is true is that to get on in the world it is useful to imitate some of the characteristics of the successful.
Which brings us back to voices. Deep voices in our society are considered easier on the ear. They carry more authority and we associate them with truthfulness. This is why, for a long time, the BBC only used male newsreaders. Apparently, they were more credible, we believed what they said.
This is why Mrs Thatcher famously got a speech coach to lower her voice by 46 KHz, to a range that is midway between male and female. It helped in parliamentary debate. It helped her become and stay PM of Britain. People were more likely to accept what she said.
Recently, David Beckham has had professional coaching to lower his tone; if you compare his performance on stage at Live 8 to interviews from a few years ago the change, indeed, is remarkable.
So this is not a male/female thing. It is because we are used to and have learnt that deeper voices carry with them a more serious message. They demand our attention and respect. If we were Clingons or Teletubbies we would think differently. I expect there are tribes somewhere in the world where high voices are valued beyond all else and the more one squeaks the better.
As it is, when someone shouts “Fire” in a high-pitched voice I am sure we shall all hear perfectly. Surprising how listening can be so selective!
PS. The other week I asked for suggestions for the name of a male chastity belt; of the publishable, my favourite with an Elizabethan tone is from Nikos in Paphos who suggests, “a Percy Protector”. I will pass that on to my mate Blackadder.
