I Can Fry if I Want To: Why Are Females Chided for Vocal Tics That Guys Use Too?

By Krissy Eliot

It seems as if every time a women opens her mouth, she runs the risk of antagonizing the vocal police.

If her voice is too high, she fails to convey authority. If she aims low and engages in “vocal fry”—that creaky-voiced dip in tone at the end of a sentence—she’s contributing to what Slate’s Lexicon Valley podcast host Bob Garfield decries as a vocal fry “epidemic”: Likening it to “a human record scratch,” he declares, “When you hear it enough, you may want to kill yourself.” If she drops in filler words such as “like” and “you know,” she evokes the merciless mocking familiar to viewers of the films Clueless and Legally Blonde. And if she uses “uptalk” (the raising of pitch at the end of a phrase or sentence? To make it sound like a question? Even though it’s a statement?) she finds her vocal pattern derided in a myriad of recent articles that address female upspeak as a demon to be be exorcised from the body of phonetics. In a recent letter addressed to young women, feminist Naomi Wolf warned that they were being “hobbled” by vocal habits that signaled submission, hesitancy and weakness.

But here’s the truth of the matter: Both genders engage in these vocal and speech behaviors.

Research by University of Pennsylvania linguistics professor Mark Liberman shows that the “low creaky vibrations” of vocal fry “have been common since forever” among men and women (even though women tend to use it more). Publisher Pearson surveyed 700 managers and asked them how they feel about upspeak in both sexes (since research shows that men and women do it), and 70 percent said it was “annoying” for all genders and would hinder chances of getting a job. Liberman also analyzed 12,000 phone conversations and discovered that although young people used filler words such as “like” more than older people, men and women both used it. In fact, men use it more often.

So why are female speech patterns, like, under such scrutiny, while men can, like, talk however they want?

“Young, urban women are the leaders of language change,” said Auburn Barron-Lutzross, a linguist and UC Berkeley Ph.D. candidate who researches the way people use language to understand and construct social identities. “So when something new happens [in female speech], people will become critical and maybe even disturbed and say, ‘That’s not how the language is supposed to sound!’ But it will continue to spread.”

In other words, women are speech innovators. And these innovations can be a shock when they subvert listener expectations of how people “should” sound.

People on the UC Berkeley campus talk about their own voices, the voices of others—and their perceptions of how males and females “should” sound.

For example, people expect a higher-pitched tone from a woman, and when she delivers a low, creaky voice (vocal fry), a listener is more likely to regard it as suspect. In a 2014 study, researchers recorded seven young adult males and seven young adult females saying, “Thank you for considering me for this opportunity” in both their regular tone and in vocal fry. The recordings were played for 400 male listeners and 400 female listeners. Listeners tended to prefer normal voices over vocal fry, but they also generally disliked the female vocal fryers more—ranking them as less hirable and less “trustworthy” than the male fryers.

Because it is a vocal flourish, fry can make someone’s speech sound affected or unnatural. This can make a speaker seem inauthentic—especially if the speaker is a female who traditionally has a higher, non-creaky voice.

“Nobody wants to talk to somebody who sounds like a machine, or somebody that [makes you wonder] if they really mean what they say,” said Deborah Sussel, an acting, voice and speech coach and senior lecturer emerita at UC Berkeley. “If it sounds mechanical, if it sounds like a style of speaking, if your belief isn’t behind it, it’s going to sound phony.”

Men, of course, usually speak in a lower register, so when they use vocal fry to dip into a deeper tone, they simply seem more “manly.” In fact, vocal fry was originally used more often by men to seem “hyper-masculine,” and was considered to be a “robust marker of male speech,” according to an academic paper by visiting Berkeley scholar Ikuko Patricia Yuasa.

“Despite the fact that more recent researchers have detected frequent creaky voice usage among female speakers,” Yuasa writes, “in general, previous researchers of creaky voice have interpreted it as a voice quality of masculinity or authority.”

So when a woman uses vocal fry, she’s deviating from the tone society expects her to use—and this can be jarring since feminine voices are not usually tied to authority. “Women are relatively newer to positions of authority,” said Sussel. “So it’s like women are upstarts. They’re really scrutinized and critically listened to.”

Of course, a woman doesn’t want to avoid vocal fry so much that her tone becomes too high pitched—lest she deliver information in the form of a shrill, female yak.

After all, research shows that people prefer leaders with deep voices. Lower voices signify dominance and strength, probably because (shocker) men have deeper voices and have been in power since, well, forever. (Apparently Margaret Thatcher had the right idea when she hired a coach to make her voice deeper.)

So it could be that if a woman is experimenting with her tone or inflection in a way that has yet to be normalized with deep-boomy-man voices, she’s kinda linguistically fringe. And since studies have shown that men are traditionally slower on the linguistic uptake (or should I say, “uptalk”), it can take a while for these trends to become acceptable in society.

For example, women have been using uptalk more casually and frequently than men for decades. It wasn’t until recent years that men finally started to catch on. Even though women still use it more than guys, men are now upspeaking a lot too, according to linguistic studies at the University of California, San Diego.

Last year sociologist Thomas Linneman researched uptalk by watching 100 episodes of the game show Jeopardy! and tracking when and how men and women did it. “Men use uptalk more when surrounded by women contestants,” he observed, “and when correcting a woman contestant after she makes an incorrect response.”

The fact that men shift their speech to match women makes sense. It’s common for people to change how they talk to fit into a group—the phenomenon is called speech convergence.

Given that femininity and “talking like a girl” have long been more likely to be regarded as “weak” or “dumb,” it would make sense for people to be surprised and have a negative reaction to men changing their speech to fit in with the ladies. In her GQ essay on upspeak, Renee Dale cautions men against talking like “an attractive girl-woman,” and suggests what would happen if a man started using uptalk: “If you have a partner with ‘different ideas about money,’ understand what she might do with this. Treat you like the quavery schoolgirl you sound like and buy herself a fancy new bag. To put your plums in because you don’t need them anymore.”


As if women weren’t getting enough flak for their fry and upspeak, they’re also criticized for using filler words, which, as studies have shown, everyone does. But because women tend to use certain kinds of filler words more, those words are then perceived as a disturbing female tic.

The founder of Karmahacks, Ellen Petry Lense, wrote a viral LinkedIn post urging women to stop using the word “just” because it’s “a subtle message of subordination, of deference,” she contends. “It hit me that there was something about the word I didn’t like. It was a ‘permission’ word, in a way—a warm-up to a request, an apology for interrupting, a shy knock on a door before asking ‘Can I get something I need from you?’”

And these critiques aren’t just delivered in blogs and articles—you can even find them in shampoo ads.

After studies showed that females tend to apologize more than males, because women “have a higher threshold” than men “for what constitutes offensive behavior,” a Pantene commercial attacked women’s use of the filler word “sorry.” The ad shows a series of women apologizing for interrupting someone in their office, say, or taking a blanket from a partner in bed. “Why are women always apologizing?” the ad says. “Don’t be sorry. Be strong and shine!”

The ad then shows the same women stealing blankets and opening doors to people’s offices without a “sorry” inserted—as if that’s the better way to speak. Because barging in or blanket-hogging without apology is somehow the better way to go about things.

Where are all the Axe commercials and open letters to men suggesting that guys cease using fillers—or for that matter, prodding them to apologize more?

As blogger Debuk satirically points out, they’re in short supply:

This week everyone’s been talking about an article in the Economist explaining how men’s use of language undermines their authority. According to the author, a senior manager at Microsoft, men have a bad habit of punctuating everything they say with sentence adverbs like ‘actually’, ‘obviously’, ‘seriously’ and ‘frankly’. This verbal tic makes them sound like pompous bullshitters, so that people switch off and stop listening to what they’re saying. If they want to be successful, this is something men need to address.
OK, people haven’t been talking about that article — mainly because I made it up. No one writes articles telling men how they’re damaging their career prospects by using the wrong words. With women, on the other hand, it’s a regular occurrence.

What’s most interesting about this is the research surrounding why women use certain kinds of filler words more.

Researchers at the University of Texas broke up filler words into two categories: filled pauses and discourse markers. The use of filled pauses (words like “uh” and “um”) was found to be comparable across all ages and genders. But discourse markers, like “I mean” and “you know,” don’t simply fill silences—they convey meaning, purposefully signaling to a listener that the speaker is simply expressing a personal opinion or seeking assurance that the listener is understanding them. The use of such discourse markers was found to be “more common among women, younger participants, and more conscientious people.”

So even though women’s tendency to use more discourse markers may be perceived as a verbal tic, it could actually be that women are just far more thorough, careful and principled in their speech. Perhaps men should adopt more frequent use of “sorry” and “just” in order to be perceived as more meticulous and get along better with people.

The irony of all this is that the media’s widespread, negative reaction to female linguistic tendencies calls more attention to them, which could cause more people to pick them up in the long run. Sure, there are a lot of people who don’t want to talk like Kim Kardashian, poster child of vocal fry—but there are also a lot of people who do.

Regardless of what anyone thinks of a woman’s voice or manner of speaking, if it’s not getting in the way of communication, then the critics should probably just get over it.

“It all depends on the individual case,” says Sussel, the vocal and speech coach. “One of the things that I’m assessing is if their habit is getting in the way of their communication to such an extent that I would want to encourage a new habit. If it’s just occasional, I don’t see anything wrong with it.”

Share this article:
Google+ Reddit


Thus from an academic institution. Apart from its argument by anecdote and its sweeping generalizations and its conflating of several speech tics, the premise is undone by a central fact for which a data set exists…but dismissed here as a paranthetical in the 4th paragraph. Young American women fry far more than men. At Lexicon Valley, we asked scholars why. And we got answers. Interesting approach, no?
Yes, because it was itself outrageously sexist and agist, lazy, factually incorrect and presumptious, imputing to me sentiments that not only I do not harbor but are entirely impeached by 1 million words of my published work. So, yeah. Smarting.
Huh. I mighta thought the host of On the Media would have a thicker skin than that. But I guess we’re all fragile.
Bob You are fighting the good fight and I am completely on your side. While men do exhibit uptalk the vast majority of vocal fryers are women. Instances of men using vocal fry are akin to man bites dog stories. Just to be clear, the vast majority of Canadians and Guardian readers disagree with American vocal fry apologists. (please review the comment sections of the CBC and Guardian webpages on Naomi Wolf’s recent article on VF) This is not a sexist issue. This argument fails very quickly when one notices that BOTH men and women, in equal numbers, complain about it on the web. That fact is always forgotten and never mentioned. In fact, some the best anti-vocal fry crusaders are women, Faith Sallie of CBS, Lake Bell for example, but lets ignore that. Ultimately feminists like Wolf are really just exposing the American culture of infantilization women. A good friend of mine, a therapist in private practice returned to the USA after 15 years abroad in England. She was just amazed to find so many women here talking like little girls. This is what Lake Bell refers to as “sexy baby voice”. It’s become the standard defacto speaking style of younger girls in the States. In the past 15 years women have been acculturated to adopt this submissive affectation. Being Canadian, like Naomi Wolff, my ears are tuned to various American speaking habits. Vocal Fry is an affectation period and is a suburban female middle class speaking style. To me it’s just another symptom of the self indulgent attitude that some millenniums have. I can talk like a Kardashian if I want and you had better get used to it. It is learned behavior and can be unlearned. I think that one of the major reasons the backlash has been so intense is that this affectation it is considered phony and contrived. Most of us consider this speaking style an example of minnow like behavior. Wouldn’t be nice if people could be themselves and feel forced to assume verbal affectations in order to “fit in” When I was young we used the term “plastic” to describe affected behavior and speech. Vocal Fry and uptalk are Plastic! I am curious however…is the author of the article a 20 something and suburban bred? Just asking….;)
I’m a little late on this but felt the need to comment. Many, many men use vocal fry. It does sound more masculine, but it annoys me when it is used too much by both men and women. A little bit is fine, but I find too much to be grating. Plus, it’s terrible for your voice. For examples of men who use vocal fry, I will point you to Benedict Cumberbatch, Sylvester Stallone, and Ira Glass. Noting that women also dislike when women use vocal fry does not invalidate the idea that policing women’s voices is sexist. Internalized sexism exists (even among feminists sometimes). Implicit bias is totally a thing. Yeah, I know, I actually said, like, “totally”, you know? As to whether women use vocal fry or whether women are speech innovators, I’m unsure whether either of those things is true. The study with those findings was tiny and would have to be replicated with a much larger group to see if it reaches significance. The “women as linguistic innovators” thing, from my understanding, was pure conjecture; but I’m not going to look into that more right now. I’m not a linguist, and I could be wrong about that. The articles that I’ve read on vocal fry have not shown any firm data that that is the case. They also just seemed to be lousy science journalism. A commenter noted that they hear more women use vocal fry than men and that more people from the States use vocal fry than Canadians. I’m assuming you’ve all heard of confirmation bias? Oh, dear, there I go using upspeak! Despite the article saying that vocal fry has been around forever, some seem to still think this is a new phenomenon. I’m sure there are many other examples I can point out, but for an older example of a woman with vocal fry, please listen to Katherine Hepburn’s vocal style. (I’m sure there are examples of men doing this as well.) As for “Sexy baby voice,” sometimes you can hear vocal fry there as well due to a lack of breath support, but it is not the same as vocal fry in general. (Babies don’t have low, creaky voices.) For an example of this, listen to Marilyn Monroe or Melanie Griffith. One last thing, sometimes vocal fry isn’t even an affectation. Some people may have medical issues where a vocal fold is damaged, which allows additional air through to create that croaking sound. I get vocal fry during allergy season. If you’re tired, you may get vocal fry. It is something that literally (not figuratively) everyone does at one point or another. Vocal fry happens when you are speaking low in your register and when you run out of breath support. That is why it often happens at the end of sentences, which is when you voice would naturally be lowering while using your remains air. (I’m a singer.) Please ignore the many errors (in both grammar and spelling) that I’ve likely made typing this, as I typed this entire thing on my phone.
I separated paragraphs when I typed my comment above, but it didn’t post that way. Sorry if it is hard to read.
Don’t worry about any grammar, your response was fine. Just a few things. On sexy baby voice I agree it’s not vocal fry per se however it’s strongly correlated and you will often find one with the other. Lake Bell describes it much better than I…..See link below https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY_6fFdRnik I also agree that men VF as well. In fact I’m working with one right now. To me his case is so bad its terminal as he fry’s EVERY word as well as uptalks. It goes without saying that listening to him is painful. Its obvious to everyone that his insecurities play a major role in his affectation. On internalized sexism…I might hazard a guess that telling females that their dislike of VF is the result of internalized sexism would not go down very well. In reading their comments it seems that their issues with it pretty much track with mens. I have read the “vocal fry is not new” excuse many times, and yes Katherine Hepburn may have had VF, however this argument tends to miss the point. The current vocal fry epidemic IS new when viewed from our cultural zeitgeist.
Wait, people are purposely trying to sound like a rusty door hinge? I just assumed that they had suffered vocal chord damage and that it couldn’t be helped.
Vocal fry for women is not the same as the same thing as for men. Men lower their voice as far as they can before it creaks in order to highlight masculinity.Hyper feminine women like Kim Kardashian have high voices and do not lower them as far as possible before initiating the creaking as men do. Women initiate creaking at a high pitch to make a girlish sound. It’s an alteration of the Marylin Monroe high breathy voice. At its basic level voice affectation just like gendered body language are mating signals. One other point, men who lower their voices till they creak like Clinton Eastwood I belive would prefer not to creak. The creaking in male voices is a simple matter that their voices are not innately low enough to accommodate the level of masculinity that they wish to project.
Diddalidoo, no, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Vocal fry or that creaking sound usually happens at the lower end of the register. It doesn’t sound girlish at all. You can produce something similar at a higher pitch, but it sounds different. I’m not sure how to describe that sound exactly, but it’s much less common. The breathy sound you’re talking about is something entirely different than either of those things. Women use it to sound authoritative, but it’s mostly not intentional. If you want an example of the sound, listen the voice work of Tatiana Maslany in the role of Rachel Duncan in Orphan Black. In that role, she is playing an executive with high status. The great thing about listening to her in that role is that you can compare it to her voice work for the other roles in the show. She uses that sound sometimes for Helena as well but in a very different way. Compare those to examples to her voice work for Alison Hendrix, which is much higher in her register. For a vintage example, listen to Katharine Hepburn. She had a very distinctive voice with lots of vocal fry. You can hear an example of this very clearly at 1:44 in this set of clips from The Philadelphia Story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH2DKZ-2m74.
I’m convinced that most people have no clue what vocal fry actually is when they hear it. We’re all talking about different types of vocal inflection and lumping them all under vocal fry. It’s funny that you used that clips because she, herself, uses vocal fry at the ends of her phrases in it, “writer” at 0:28, “trailers” at 0:31, “voiceover” around 1:08, “world” at 1:14, “soapbox” at 1:43, “country” at 1:46. It’s very subtle compared to other examples, but it’s there. Yes, she also puts it in at the end of the phrase “sexy baby vocal virus” when she’s imitating, so she does know what it sounds like. It is interesting how she is able to get that creakiness while also speaking high (compared to her normal pitch). That’s actually kind of difficult to do. She nails it on the word “fry” at 2:12 (at a lower pitch than the other example) and “uptalking,” which, incidentally, wasn’t actually uptalking.