This page is referenced by:

• 1 2019-04-09T23:52:41-07:00 Pitch 18 Cory Schutter visual_path 2019-04-30T17:42:38-07:00 Author: Cory Schutter
  
  “Pitch” is a word that balances between the contradictions of the anatomical and classical conceptions of a what a human voice is and should be. The word is as vague as it is practical, related to terms such as “timbre,” “loudness,” “volume,” but most often, a vocabulary of “higher” or “lower.” Pitch is an umbrella term for the perceptual sonic qualities of the human voice, a quality which separates speaking from unwanted sound or noise. With roots in the Greek conceptions of harmonias (ἁρμονίας) and rythmos (ῥυθμός), pitch was used as a method of limiting the vocality of females and “catamites”/kinaidos (κίναιδος). While the western canon of rhetorical practice has evolved, the resonance of stronger, deeper voices has been continually privileged over voices lacking in baritone (βαρύτονος) qualities. As rhetoric shifted into English and the modern era, these conceptions guiding the range of the human voice found their way to the word “pitch.” While the word itself has become detached from its Aristotelian lineage as the second property of voice, the attachment of pitch as a limiting force still remains (Harvard Center for Hellenic Studies).
  
  Discussing pitch requires a visit to the often gendered etymology which has shaped the western appreciation of voice. Pitch represents an anglicized combination of ἁρμονίας (harmonias, from Greek ἁρμόζω / ‘harmózo’ or ‘I fit together’) and ῥυθμός (rythmos, from Greek ῥέω / ‘reo’ or ‘I flow’), unsurprisingly giving English the cognates “harmony” and “rhythm.” Harmonias was the word associated with the pitch utilized by Greeks, eventually shaping the idea of τόνος (tonos), or tone (Harvard Center for Hellenic Studies). These words are the key components of “pitch” to this day, as the idealized pitch in Western culture is one that flows and fits together. According to Ancient Greek and early philosophers of rhetoric, there was only one voice to be heard, the baritonos (βαρύτονος). The Greek understanding of voices was related in proximity to the “heavy tone” or deep-sounding baritone. The highest range was called oxútonos (οξύτονος) from Koine Greek “with a shrill sound.” This range was accompanied by paraoxútonos (παροξύτονος) and proparaoxútonos (προπαροξυτονος), meaning “next to oxútonos” and “before next to oxútonos.” The embedding of human voices into rigid structures of “heavy tone” and “shrill sound” indicated the lack of value placed on higher-sounding voices.

  Pitch is understood in modern times to be “a measure of the frequency of vibrations which produce different sound tones” (Oxford Reference: A Dictionary of Media and Communication). Its etymological origin appears to relate to balance or thrust, but has an obscure development (Oxford English Dictionary). The Oxford Reference definition of pitch adds additional commentary on the impact of sex and gender upon communication, noting that “lower pitched voices are widely perceived as more authoritative and credible, giving males an advantage” (Oxford Reference: A Dictionary of Media and Communication). In many ways, the voice is regarded as the heartbeat of communication, and within it, pitch operates as both limitation and liberation. Pitch is the aural quality of a voice, often shaping the understood meaning of an argument or speech act. This vocal quality highly relates to ideas of control and power, as speech has been historically expressed by men and is often expected to be so in the modern world. 
  
  This public imagination of woman as shrill has been documented since the time of the Greeks, an era in which women were considered abrasive. A belief spread that female vocality was wrong and essentially against the laws of nature. Classicist John Heath writes that women who used their voices in the public sphere were characterized as subhuman creatures, “speaking in hectoring tones in imitation of citizens, and inarticulate sounds” (Heath, 2005). The female voice is often compared to a dog’s bark; Heath continues, “Semonides’ infamous women all share some particular ‘animal’ characteristics - mostly unrestrained sexual and gastronomical appetites - but the Bitch also can’t keep her mouth shut, barking ceaselessly” (Heath, 2005).
  
  The story of Cassandra is almost archetypal of attitudes to female speech, as the prophetess was considered insane because of her ability to speak about the future. The disbelief men held for Cassandra would lead to her rape, entrance into sex slavery, and eventual murder (Carson, 1995). Many other celebrated women within Greek mythology meet chilling and violent fates because of their unpredictable and unwanted voices. The Greek myths chronicled the sounds of women, few of them pleasant, with “heart chilling groans,” “high pitched and horrendous voices,” “deadly voices,” “incredible babbling,” and “fearsome hullabaloo” (Carson, 1995). Women of Greek mythology were painted as women not worth speaking to, and not worth hearing -- their voices noise, not speech.
  
  Anne Carson writes about Aristotle’s descriptions of “the high-pitched voice of the female is one evidence of her evil disposition, for creatures who are brave or just (like lions, bulls, roosters and the human male) have large deep voices” (1995). Classicist Mary Beard writes that public speaking and the development of rhetorical skills were not only exclusionary of women, but actually “defined masculinity as a gender” (Beard, 2017). “Public speech was a – if not the – defining attribute of maleness,” Beard writes, going on to explain that a “woman speaking in public was, in most circumstances, by definition not a woman” (Beard, 2017). The dangerously shrill voices of women threatened to upend society if ever recognized, requiring social suppression and if not violent mutilation to prevent speech (Beard, 2017). These ideas would be replicated when Shakespeare suggested that a “soft, gentle, low voice was ‘an excellent thing in a woman” (Carnegie & Esenwein, 1915).
  
  For the men who spoke in high-pitched or gentle voices, their status was immediately seen as being kinaidos, a man who desired penetration by another man. Juvenal wrote that the high and more sensuous voice of a man, the more likely “the more often his right hand lingers on his smooth crotch, the more suspicious you should be” (Olson, 2014). The fact that there are no records from kinaidos shows that their voices immediately discounted their experiences, much like women. A man with a high pitch voice was nothing more than a pathicus, a sodomite, not even a citizen (a man) as he allowed himself to be penetrated by men. Those lacking the baritone qualities of a true and good citizen were not worth hearing, making pitch a marker of inclusion or exclusion in ancient Greek society.
  
  These views of the female voice and aberrant male voices shaped the philosophy of communication, which originated in ancient Greece and continues to heavily impact Western communication today. There is little basis in modernity for discrimination or differential treatment based on pitch, as it is largely out of the control of the speaker. Some research suggests that human ancestors may have preferred a lower pitch, as it is a sign of elevated testosterone levels and beneficial male aggression (Anderson, Klofstad, & Nowicki, 2016). In an increasingly globalized world, aggression has long been discarded as a requisite for leadership or social protection. Anatomically, a person can shift their voice up and down the vocal register, “but in most cases the change is minor in comparison with the innate differences of pitch among individuals” (Anderson, Klofstad, & Nowicki, 2016). The length and thickness of vocal folds determine the pitch range of an individual: male vocal folds are between 17mm and 25mm in length, female vocal folds are between 12.5mm and 17.5mm in length. Pitch is based on anatomical factors, and is largely out of control of the speaker. Vocal therapy can be used to manipulate affected pitch, but can never permanently change the true pitch and throat anatomy of a speaker. The larynx is a secondary sex characteristic as, “their thickness is further influenced by the action of hormones such as testosterone” (Anderson, Klofstad, & Nowicki, 2016). There is a wide overlap in Hertz (from 100 to 260 Hz) between male and female voices, but females tend to use a larger range of their voice than males (University of Iowa). Similarly, a voice may sound stereotypically gay in certain cultures if it uses a larger vocal range than a typical heterosexual male (Laura Panfili, 2011).
  The reasons for gay men stereotypically having a larger pitch range has more to do with socializing patterns than sexual orientation. Males who spend a significant time with females are more likely to have higher pitched voices and may imitate many female vocal traits (Lakoff, 1990). Pitch patterns can appear based on the relationships held by a speaker, meaning those who spend time with similarly high pitched voices will have their pitch or speech patterns reinforced – masculine voices restrict range to create a cool monotone (McConnell-Ginet, 1983). Within the vocal register, each person has a modal voice or normal voice, which may end up being disguised by vocal fry or falsetto when an effeminate voice lingers in dynamic ranges (McConnell-Ginet, 1983). While a man with a high pitched voice may seem to have a permanent vocality, in fact, this can often be change through speech therapy or simple vocal exercises. A masculine voice is learned and then internalized, but not necessarily natural (McConnell-Ginet, 1983). Men with higher voices may feel compelled to change or limit their range in order to succeed in professional or social settings, as the perceived “gay voice” may elicit employment discrimination (Fasoli, Maass, Paladino, & Sulpizio, 2017).
  
  Female speakers are often accused of being “shrill” or “glib” based on their natural vocal qualities. Characterizing individuals not worth hearing based on the inherent quality of furthers control structures within society. When certain voices, or, non cishet male-voices are heard, they can be othered and erased from culture due to the aural quality of a person’s pitch. This can impact the voices that are represented on radio and in other media and limit access to freedoms of speech. Of late, there have been efforts to document and record the issues women particularly face when speaking with the strength of their own voices. As Lindy West writes, “‘Shrill’ is a gendered insult; calling a man ‘shrill’ makes as much sense as calling a smell ‘tall’” (West, 2016). As mentioned in the very definition of pitch, deeper voices give males an advantage within communication. Studies have shown that Americans are more likely to vote for an individual with a deeper voice, although women do not discriminate against lower-pitched male voices in their decision making (Klofstad, C. A., Anderson, R. C., & Peters, S., 2012). This creates an inequity in opinion and opportunity for men and women alike.
  
  Voice pitch is influential in the way Americans select leaders, and vocal traits like a deepened voice signal credibility and authority for men and women alike (Anderson, Klofstad, & Nowicki, 2016). A woman with a higher-pitched voice is usually considered more attractive, “whereas those with lower-pitched voices are perceived as more dominant” (Anderson, Klofstad, & Nowicki, 2016). It is for this reason that some women may choose to drop their voice or modulate their pitch in order to achieve greater success. Elizabeth Holmes, founder of the now-defunct health-technology company Theranos, notably crafted a deep and husky voice to gain credence in a largely anti-woman industry. Pulitzer Prize winning journalist John Carreyrou writes that many were surprised by Holmes affected voice, which would rise “several octaves higher” when in the company of trustworthy acquaintances (Carreyrou, 2018). Margaret Thatcher endured vocal training to “accelerate her political career” (Anderson, Klofstad, & Nowicki, 2016). Hillary Clinton has long been criticized for having a “loud, monotone, and shrill voice,” curious because her voice matches the “average in pitch and loudness for her age and gender” (The Atlantic). Clinton’s voice was not viewed as endearing as the similar vocal style of Bernie Sanders who frequently yells into microphones while speaking. Holmes and Clinton are both caught in similar double binds of either too female or not displaying enough femininity through their voices.
  
  
  
  Female voices must work against years of developing media technologies that were meant to be used by physiological males. Women’s voices were harder to pick up on early recording instruments and microphones, a factor in the proliferation of male voices on the radio (Anne Brice, Berkeley). Women who step forward to speak are judged against a lineage of resonant baritone voices that have told the history of Western culture for remembered history. Shrillness is a concept defined in the absence of baritone, against the laws of a communicating society with a preference for deeply resonant voices. The absence of voices that break 260 Hz has formed a philosophy of communication that still continually reveres a “low, bell-like voice” (Carnegie & Esenwein, 1915).
  
  The modern understanding of pitch is tangled in a discourse about who is allowed to utilize speech as a citizen. The classical rhetorical tradition of pitch is heavily present in an increasingly egalitarian understanding of communications. The study of pitch can be advanced by devising new methods of understanding and frameworks for the sound of speech, normalizing non-baritone voices, or equalizing all voices through modulation technologies. Investigating pitch as an English word, mapped upon Greek histories, could provide additional understanding of the word. Identifying histories within non-Western rhetorics will also serve to liberate pitch from constrictive understandings. An insistence to elevate vocal style over substance is an archaic trope belonging to ancient Greek concepts rooted in overtly misogynistic perceptions of the vocally aberrant human.
  
  Works Cited

  Anderson, R., Klofstad, C., & Nowicki, S. (2016). How voice pitch influences our choice of leaders. American Scientist, 104(5), 282. https://doi.org/10.1511/2016.122.282
  
  Beard, M. (2017). Women & power: a manifesto (First American Edition). New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation.
  
  Carreyrou, J. (2018). Bad blood: secrets and lies in a Silicon Valley startup (First edition). New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
  
  Carnegie, D., & Esenwein, J. B. (1915). The Art of Public Speaking. The Home Correspondence School.
  
  Carson, A. (1995). Glass, irony, and God. New York: New Directions Book.
  
  Fasoli, F., Maass, A., Paladino, M. P., & Sulpizio, S. (2017). Gay- and lesbian-sounding auditory cues elicit stereotyping and discrimination. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(5), 1261–1277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-0962-0
  
  Heath, J. (2005). The talking Greeks: speech, animals, and the other in Homer, Aeschylus, and Plato. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
  
  Klofstad, C. A., Anderson, R. C., & Peters, S. (2012). Sounds like a winner: voice pitch influences perception of leadership capacity in both men and women. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279(1738), 2698–2704. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.0311 
  
  Lakoff, R. T. (1990). Talking power: the politics of language in our lives. New York: Basic Books.
  
  Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S., & McKenzie, R. (1996). A greek-english lexicon (Rev. and augm. throughout). Oxford : New York: Clarendon Press ; Oxford University Press.
  
  McConnell-Ginet, S. (1978). Intonation in a man’s world. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 3(3), 541–559. https://doi.org/10.1086/493501
  
  Olson, K. (2014). Masculinity, appearance, and sexuality: dandies in roman antiquity. Journal of the History of Sexuality, 23(2), 182–205. https://doi.org/10.7560/JHS23202
  
  Panfili, Laura, "Vowel Duration and Perceptions of the Gay Accent" (2011). Linguistics Honors Projects. Paper 7. http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/ling_honors/7 
  
  West, L. (2016). Shrill: notes from a loud woman. New York: Hachette Books.
• 1 2019-04-30T17:52:21-07:00 Pitch 2 plain 2019-04-30T17:53:30-07:00 Author: Cory Schutter
  
  “Pitch” is a word that balances between the contradictions of the anatomical and classical conceptions of a what a human voice is and should be. The word is as vague as it is practical, related to terms such as “timbre,” “loudness,” “volume,” but most often, a vocabulary of “higher” or “lower.” Pitch is an umbrella term for the perceptual sonic qualities of the human voice, a quality which separates speaking from unwanted sound or noise. With roots in the Greek conceptions of harmonias (ἁρμονίας) and rythmos (ῥυθμός), pitch was used as a method of limiting the vocality of females and “catamites”/kinaidos (κίναιδος). While the western canon of rhetorical practice has evolved, the resonance of stronger, deeper voices has been continually privileged over voices lacking in baritone (βαρύτονος) qualities. As rhetoric shifted into English and the modern era, these conceptions guiding the range of the human voice found their way to the word “pitch.” While the word itself has become detached from its Aristotelian lineage as the second property of voice, the attachment of pitch as a limiting force still remains (Harvard Center for Hellenic Studies).
  
  Discussing pitch requires a visit to the often gendered etymology which has shaped the western appreciation of voice. Pitch represents an anglicized combination of ἁρμονίας (harmonias, from Greek ἁρμόζω / ‘harmózo’ or ‘I fit together’) and ῥυθμός (rythmos, from Greek ῥέω / ‘reo’ or ‘I flow’), unsurprisingly giving English the cognates “harmony” and “rhythm.” Harmonia was the word associated with the pitch utilized by Greeks, eventually shaping the idea of τόνος (tonos), or tone (Harvard Center for Hellenic Studies). These words are the key components of “pitch” to this day, as the idealized pitch in Western culture is one that flows and fits together. According to Ancient Greek and early philosophers of rhetoric, there was only one voice to be heard, the baritonos (βαρύτονος). The Greek understanding of voices was related in proximity to the “heavy tone” or deep-sounding baritone. The highest range was called oxútonos (οξύτονος) from Koine Greek “with a shrill sound.” This range was accompanied by paraoxútonos (παροξύτονος) and proparaoxútonos (προπαροξυτονος), meaning “next to oxútonos” and “before next to oxútonos.” The embedding of human voices into rigid structures of “heavy tone” and “shrill sound” indicated the lack of value placed on higher-sounding voices.

  Pitch is understood in modern times to be “a measure of the frequency of vibrations which produce different sound tones” (Oxford Reference: A Dictionary of Media and Communication). Its etymological origin appears to relate to balance or thrust, but has an obscure development (Oxford English Dictionary). The Oxford Reference definition of pitch adds additional commentary on the impact of sex and gender upon communication, noting that “lower pitched voices are widely perceived as more authoritative and credible, giving males an advantage” (Oxford Reference: A Dictionary of Media and Communication). In many ways, the voice is regarded as the heartbeat of communication, and within it, pitch operates as both limitation and liberation. Pitch is the aural quality of a voice, often shaping the understood meaning of an argument or speech act. This vocal quality highly relates to ideas of control and power, as speech has been historically expressed by men and is often expected to be so in the modern world. 
  
  This public imagination of woman as shrill has been documented since the time of the Greeks, an era in which women were considered abrasive. A belief spread that female vocality was wrong and essentially against the laws of nature. Classicist John Heath writes that women who used their voices in the public sphere were characterized as subhuman creatures, “speaking in hectoring tones in imitation of citizens, and inarticulate sounds” (Heath, 2005). The female voice is often compared to a dog’s bark; Heath continues, “Semonides’ infamous women all share some particular ‘animal’ characteristics - mostly unrestrained sexual and gastronomical appetites - but the Bitch also can’t keep her mouth shut, barking ceaselessly” (Heath, 2005).
  
  The story of Cassandra is almost archetypal of attitudes to female speech, as the prophetess was considered insane because of her ability to speak about the future. The disbelief men held for Cassandra would lead to her rape, entrance into sex slavery, and eventual murder (Carson, 1995). Many other celebrated women within Greek mythology meet chilling and violent fates because of their unpredictable and unwanted voices. The Greek myths chronicled the sounds of women, few of them pleasant, with “heart chilling groans,” “high pitched and horrendous voices,” “deadly voices,” “incredible babbling,” and “fearsome hullabaloo” (Carson, 1995). Women of Greek mythology were painted as women not worth speaking to, and not worth hearing -- their voices noise, not speech.
  
  Anne Carson writes about Aristotle’s descriptions of “the high-pitched voice of the female is one evidence of her evil disposition, for creatures who are brave or just (like lions, bulls, roosters and the human male) have large deep voices” (1995). Classicist Mary Beard writes that public speaking and the development of rhetorical skills were not only exclusionary of women, but actually “defined masculinity as a gender” (Beard, 2017). “Public speech was a – if not the – defining attribute of maleness,” Beard writes, going on to explain that a “woman speaking in public was, in most circumstances, by definition not a woman” (Beard, 2017). The dangerously shrill voices of women threatened to upend society if ever recognized, requiring social suppression and if not violent mutilation to prevent speech (Beard, 2017). These ideas would be replicated when Shakespeare suggested that a “soft, gentle, low voice was ‘an excellent thing in a woman” (Carnegie & Esenwein, 1915).
  
  For the men who spoke in high-pitched or gentle voices, their status was immediately seen as being kinaidos, a man who desired penetration by another man. Juvenal wrote that the high and more sensuous voice of a man, the more likely “the more often his right hand lingers on his smooth crotch, the more suspicious you should be” (Olson, 2014). The fact that there are no records from kinaidos shows that their voices immediately discounted their experiences, much like women. A man with a high pitch voice was nothing more than a pathicus, a sodomite, not even a citizen (a man) as he allowed himself to be penetrated by men. Those lacking the baritone qualities of a true and good citizen were not worth hearing, making pitch a marker of inclusion or exclusion in ancient Greek society.
  
  These views of the female voice and aberrant male voices shaped the philosophy of communication, which originated in ancient Greece and continues to heavily impact Western communication today. There is little basis in modernity for discrimination or differential treatment based on pitch, as it is largely out of the control of the speaker. Some research suggests that human ancestors may have preferred a lower pitch, as it is a sign of elevated testosterone levels and beneficial male aggression (Anderson, Klofstad, & Nowicki, 2016). In an increasingly globalized world, aggression has long been discarded as a requisite for leadership or social protection. Anatomically, a person can shift their voice up and down the vocal register, “but in most cases the change is minor in comparison with the innate differences of pitch among individuals” (Anderson, Klofstad, & Nowicki, 2016). The length and thickness of vocal folds determine the pitch range of an individual: male vocal folds are between 17mm and 25mm in length, female vocal folds are between 12.5mm and 17.5mm in length. Pitch is based on anatomical factors, and is largely out of control of the speaker. Vocal therapy can be used to manipulate affected pitch, but can never permanently change the true pitch and throat anatomy of a speaker. The larynx is a secondary sex characteristic as, “their thickness is further influenced by the action of hormones such as testosterone” (Anderson, Klofstad, & Nowicki, 2016). There is a wide overlap in Hertz (from 100 to 260 Hz) between male and female voices, but females tend to use a larger range of their voice than males (University of Iowa). Similarly, a voice may sound stereotypically gay in certain cultures if it uses a larger vocal range than a typical heterosexual male (Laura Panfili, 2011).
  The reasons for gay men stereotypically having a larger pitch range has more to do with socializing patterns than sexual orientation. Males who spend a significant time with females are more likely to have higher pitched voices and may imitate many female vocal traits (Lakoff, 1990). Pitch patterns can appear based on the relationships held by a speaker, meaning those who spend time with similarly high pitched voices will have their pitch or speech patterns reinforced – masculine voices restrict range to create a cool monotone (McConnell-Ginet, 1983). Within the vocal register, each person has a modal voice or normal voice, which may end up being disguised by vocal fry or falsetto when an effeminate voice lingers in dynamic ranges (McConnell-Ginet, 1983). While a man with a high pitched voice may seem to have a permanent vocality, in fact, this can often be change through speech therapy or simple vocal exercises. A masculine voice is learned and then internalized, but not necessarily natural (McConnell-Ginet, 1983). Men with higher voices may feel compelled to change or limit their range in order to succeed in professional or social settings, as the perceived “gay voice” may elicit employment discrimination (Fasoli, Maass, Paladino, & Sulpizio, 2017).
  
  Female speakers are often accused of being “shrill” or “glib” based on their natural vocal qualities. Characterizing individuals not worth hearing based on the inherent quality of furthers control structures within society. When certain voices, or, non cishet male-voices are heard, they can be othered and erased from culture due to the aural quality of a person’s pitch. This can impact the voices that are represented on radio and in other media and limit access to freedoms of speech. Of late, there have been efforts to document and record the issues women particularly face when speaking with the strength of their own voices. As Lindy West writes, “‘Shrill’ is a gendered insult; calling a man ‘shrill’ makes as much sense as calling a smell ‘tall’” (West, 2016). As mentioned in the very definition of pitch, deeper voices give males an advantage within communication. Studies have shown that Americans are more likely to vote for an individual with a deeper voice, although women do not discriminate against lower-pitched male voices in their decision making (Klofstad, C. A., Anderson, R. C., & Peters, S., 2012). This creates an inequity in opinion and opportunity for men and women alike.
  
  Voice pitch is influential in the way Americans select leaders, and vocal traits like a deepened voice signal credibility and authority for men and women alike (Anderson, Klofstad, & Nowicki, 2016). A woman with a higher-pitched voice is usually considered more attractive, “whereas those with lower-pitched voices are perceived as more dominant” (Anderson, Klofstad, & Nowicki, 2016). It is for this reason that some women may choose to drop their voice or modulate their pitch in order to achieve greater success. Elizabeth Holmes, founder of the now-defunct health-technology company Theranos, notably crafted a deep and husky voice to gain credence in a largely anti-woman industry. Pulitzer Prize winning journalist John Carreyrou writes that many were surprised by Holmes affected voice, which would rise “several octaves higher” when in the company of trustworthy acquaintances (Carreyrou, 2018). Margaret Thatcher endured vocal training to “accelerate her political career” (Anderson, Klofstad, & Nowicki, 2016). Hillary Clinton has long been criticized for having a “loud, monotone, and shrill voice,” curious because her voice matches the “average in pitch and loudness for her age and gender” (The Atlantic). Clinton’s voice was not viewed as endearing as the similar vocal style of Bernie Sanders who frequently yells into microphones while speaking. Holmes and Clinton are both caught in similar double binds of either too female or not displaying enough femininity through their voices.
  
  
  
  Female voices must work against years of developing media technologies that were meant to be used by physiological males. Women’s voices were harder to pick up on early recording instruments and microphones, a factor in the proliferation of male voices on the radio (Anne Brice, Berkeley). Women who step forward to speak are judged against a lineage of resonant baritone voices that have told the history of Western culture for remembered history. Shrillness is a concept defined in the absence of baritone, against the laws of a communicating society with a preference for deeply resonant voices. The absence of voices that break 260 Hz has formed a philosophy of communication that still continually reveres a “low, bell-like voice” (Carnegie & Esenwein, 1915).
  
  The modern understanding of pitch is tangled in a discourse about who is allowed to utilize speech as a citizen. The classical rhetorical tradition of pitch is heavily present in an increasingly egalitarian understanding of communications. The study of pitch can be advanced by devising new methods of understanding and frameworks for the sound of speech, normalizing non-baritone voices, or equalizing all voices through modulation technologies. Investigating pitch as an English word, mapped upon Greek histories, could provide additional understanding of the word. Identifying histories within non-Western rhetorics will also serve to liberate pitch from constrictive understandings. An insistence to elevate vocal style over substance is an archaic trope belonging to ancient Greek concepts rooted in overtly misogynistic perceptions of the vocally aberrant human.
  
  Works Cited

  Anderson, R., Klofstad, C., & Nowicki, S. (2016). How voice pitch influences our choice of leaders. American Scientist, 104(5), 282. https://doi.org/10.1511/2016.122.282
  
  Beard, M. (2017). Women & power: a manifesto (First American Edition). New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation.
  
  Carreyrou, J. (2018). Bad blood: secrets and lies in a Silicon Valley startup (First edition). New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
  
  Carnegie, D., & Esenwein, J. B. (1915). The Art of Public Speaking. The Home Correspondence School.
  
  Carson, A. (1995). Glass, irony, and God. New York: New Directions Book.
  
  Fasoli, F., Maass, A., Paladino, M. P., & Sulpizio, S. (2017). Gay- and lesbian-sounding auditory cues elicit stereotyping and discrimination. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(5), 1261–1277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-0962-0
  
  Heath, J. (2005). The talking Greeks: speech, animals, and the other in Homer, Aeschylus, and Plato. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
  
  Klofstad, C. A., Anderson, R. C., & Peters, S. (2012). Sounds like a winner: voice pitch influences perception of leadership capacity in both men and women. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279(1738), 2698–2704. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.0311 
  
  Lakoff, R. T. (1990). Talking power: the politics of language in our lives. New York: Basic Books.
  
  Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S., & McKenzie, R. (1996). A greek-english lexicon (Rev. and augm. throughout). Oxford : New York: Clarendon Press ; Oxford University Press.
  
  McConnell-Ginet, S. (1978). Intonation in a man’s world. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 3(3), 541–559. https://doi.org/10.1086/493501
  
  Olson, K. (2014). Masculinity, appearance, and sexuality: dandies in roman antiquity. Journal of the History of Sexuality, 23(2), 182–205. https://doi.org/10.7560/JHS23202
  
  Panfili, Laura, "Vowel Duration and Perceptions of the Gay Accent" (2011). Linguistics Honors Projects. Paper 7. http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/ling_honors/7 
  
  West, L. (2016). Shrill: notes from a loud woman. New York: Hachette Books.