How voice occupies space and reveals dark aspects that (its mediation) can be anything else than harmful for the establishment of a democratic society.
How can the female voice occupy space and reveal dark aspects, that in its mediation can be anything else than harmful for the establishment of a democratic society?
# Introduction
The last years my ongoing concern lies on the presence of the female voice in public. During my previous studies I gradually realized how my gendered body had been silenced or marginalized through slight gestures from male figures or institutional powers that were obfuscating this situation. Observing, as well, female members of my family, female teachers, workers and immigrant neighbors of my early age environment I found out different types of marginalization and silencing. Examples would be women working at home or the background of a family, taking care of everything in and leaving behind their own desires, men interrupting them when articulating arguments in a political/formal dialogue, underestimating their knowledge. The mediation of their voices and the way they were becoming present, active participants and visible in public spaces and spheres became one of my main interests. My past projects reflected and responded to that concern. I worked with voice and sound. As forms of art are underestimated in the context of the western visual culture. They are forms connected to irrational attitudes and primary oral cultures. The sound of voices reveals hidden suppressed aspects and subjects of the society. Because of its temporariness, non-linearity, invisibility and borderless character *long sounds text* sound can exist and transit in multiple dimensions of spaces at the same time, creating bonds between them. Oral cultures of all times, that are based on vocal expression, differ from the literate cultures in that they embrace the collective sharing of knowledge. More specifically they create "personality structures that in certain ways are more communal and externalized, and less introspective than those common among literates" (Ong, 2002, pg. 67). Feminists have been including and embracing voice in their practices because there is a uniqueness in it that embodies the speakers and their personal stories while connecting the ones being present. Together with this concern I was also dealing with the separation of amateur and expert when I was approaching telecommunication networks and technologies with the intention of learning to build and use them. This separation goes together with the gender exclusion. I quickly found out that this is not my personal problem. In the example of an activist collective, called Prometheus, volunteers expressed similar concerns in the barnraising of a radio station:
In recent years my ongoing concern has been on the presence of the female voice in public. During my previous studies I gradually realized how my gendered body had been silenced or marginalized through slight gestures from male figures or institutional powers that were obfuscating this situation. Observing, as well, female in their roles as members of my family, teachers, workers and immigrant neighbors of my youth I discovered different types of marginalization and silencing. Examples would be women working at home, taking care of everything in the family and leaving behind their own desires, men interrupting them when articulating arguments in a political/formal dialogue and underestimating their knowledge. The mediation of their voices and the way they were becoming present, active participants and visible in public spaces and spheres became one of my main interests. My past projects reflected and responded to that concern while I worked with voice and sound which, as forms of art are underestimated in the context of western visual culture. They are forms connected to irrational attitudes and primary oral cultures. The sound of voices reveals hidden suppressed aspects and subjectivities. Because of its temporariness, non-linearity, invisibility and borderless character [long sounds text] sound can exist and travel within multiple dimensions of spaces simultaneously, creating bonds between them. Throughout history, oral cultures, by being based on vocal expression, differ from the literate cultures in that they embrace the collective sharing of knowledge. More specifically they create "personality structures that in certain ways are more communal and externalized, and less introspective than those common among literates" (Ong, 2002, pg. 67). Feminists have included and embraced voice in their practices because there is a uniqueness in it that embodies the speakers and their personal stories while connecting the ones being present. Together with this concern I also experienced a gender-based differentiation between amateur and expert knowledge when approaching telecommunication networks and technologies with the intention of learning to build and use them. This separation goes together with the gender exclusion. I quickly found out that I was not alone in this regard. In the example of an activist collective, called Prometheus, volunteers expressed similar concerns in the construction of a radio station:
>"The radio activists presented the work of soldering a transmitter, tuning an antenna, and producing a news program or governing a radio station to be accessible to all. Nevertheless, they were conscious of patterned gaps in their organization and volunteer base: men were more likely than women to know how to build electronics, to be excited by tinkering, and to have the know-how to teach neophytes.This troubled the activists"(Dunbar-Hester, pg. 53-54).
In one of my projects, *Sound Acts in Victoria Square* I 'inserted' the recorded sounds of women’s voices into existing conversations at a public square in Athens that was male dominated. Most of the frequenters were immigrants and refugees from different periods of migration to Greece. They were coming from Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Albania, Georgia, Russia and others besides Greece. The gender bias and the way they used the public space differed according to their country of origin. However it was common that many of the young women visiting the square were just passengers with shopping bags or kids around them. The men, on the other hand, were hanging out with their friends, occupying many spots of the square for hours. My intervention was like that; first, I realized and recorded actions of conversations, within two months, with women I met in the square, as well as archived and ordered the collected material. Then I planned and realized the in-situ broadcasting of the collected sound material and directed the new relations and conversations with the public for one day in June 2015. The intervention lasted for some hours and different people, mostly men, were participating in conversations that would include the women's voices or not. Their voices came from a past time of the same place, when they were physically present. At another time only their words were there and 'participated'. From my description of the project: "The broadcasted female voices were abruptly intervening into the existing conversations in the specific places, giving the impression of an non-invited 'absent' guest" (Diakrousi, 2015, pg. ). They were distant voices. I and the speaker were mediating them in the current public.<br>
My ongoing research after that lead me to the public forums and public speeches and the technologies that facilitate them, always with a feminist perspective. This thesis is a series of 5 essays which relate to the female and collective voice and its mediation. They address the voice as a feminist tool for communicating and an object of presence and inhabiting space. Historically, some modes of addressing have been marginalized and shut out of the public domain (see *the monstrosity of female voice*). The separation between private and public space has played an important role in that as it reflects and it is related to the gender separation. The collective voice is marginalized under the realm of the patriarchal individualistic society. The female voice is part of it. The texts deal particularly with the voice as a medium for collective practices (see *the monstrosity...*). This collective vocalization affords the amplification and multiplication either with the aid of technology or embodied practices (see *Multiplication vis a vis amplification*) that refuses the dominant ways of establishing presence and dialogue. In the patriarchal democracy there is a fear of ugly forms of address which are connected to the female body- blood, birth, death, mourning&c- and other dark aspects and passions that are perceived as threat for the society. These are forms of vocalization that are excluded public discourse which centers on “self-control” and “reason”. Such things are creating noise and disorder and "have to be kept" silent according to the patriarchal norms. But alternative mediums and forms of communication have been developed against that (see *transmittingugly things*). There are technologies for self-control and filtration. The men are taught to disport themselves in particular ways and they are taught to teach the women to be silent. In the current era we see how technologies serve to filter forms of collective voices; again this aims to reduce “noise” and thus to exclude (see *Let’s talk about unspeakable things*).
In one of my projects, *Sound Acts in Victoria Square* I 'inserted' the recorded sounds of women’s voices into existing conversations at a public square in Athens that was male dominated. Most of the frequenters were immigrants and refugees from different periods of migration to Greece. They had come from Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Albania, Georgia, Russia and other foreign countries. The gender bias and the way they used the public space differed according to their country of origin. However it was common that many of the young women visiting the square were just passers-by with shopping bags or kids in tow. The men, on the other hand, were hanging out with their friends, occupying many spots of the square for hours. My intervention was like so; first, I realized and recorded conversations, over two months, with women I met in the square, as well as archived and ordered the collected material. Then I planned and realized the in-situ broadcasting of the collected sound material and directed the new relations and conversations with the public for one day in June 2015. The intervention lasted for some hours and different people, mostly men, were participating in conversations that would include the women's voices or not. Their voices came from a past time of the same place, when they were physically present. At another time only their words were there and 'participated'. From my description of the project: "The broadcasted female voices were abruptly intervened with the existing conversations in the specific places, giving the impression of an non-invited 'absent' guest" (Diakrousi, 2015, pg. ). They were distant voices. The audio speaker and myself were mediating them in the then-current public space.<br>
My ongoing research after that lead me to the public forums, speech, and the technologies that facilitate them, always with a feminist perspective. This thesis is a series of 5 essays which relate to female voice, collective voice and their mediation. They address the voice as a feminist tool for communicating, and an object of presence and inhabiting space. Historically, some modes of addressing have been marginalized and shut out of the public domain (see *the monstrosity of female voice*). The separation between private and public space has played an important role as it reflects and it is related to gender separation. The collective voice is marginalized under the realm of the patriarchal individualistic society. The female voice is part of it. The texts deal particularly with the voice as a medium for collective practices (see *the monstrosity...*). This collective vocalization affords the amplification and multiplication either with the aid of technology or embodied practices (see *Multiplication vis a vis amplification*) that refuses dominant ways of establishing presence and dialogue. In a patriarchal democracy there is a fear of ugly forms of address which are connected to the female body- blood, birth, death, mourning- and other dark aspects and passions that are perceived as threatening to society. These are forms of vocalization that are excluded from public discourse which centers on “self-control” and “reason”. Such things are seen to create noise and disorder and "have to be kept" silent according to the patriarchal norms. But alternative mediums and forms of communication have been developed against this (see *transmittingugly things*). There are technologies for self-control and filtration. Men are taught to express themselves in particular ways and they are taught to instruct women to be silent. In the current era we see how technologies serve to filter forms of collective voices; again this aims to reduce “noise” and thus to exclude (see *Let’s talk about unspeakable things*).
Marginalized people are vocalizing things that are unacceptable for the society, unspeakable, political incorrect, emotionally overwhelmed, disorderly. They are too personal, too emotional, too embodied. Carson in her text explains how the direct mode of address of women's voices is annoying for the patriarchal society since Ancient Greece. A woman would expose her inside facts that are supposed to be private data. Examples of these facts would be emotions that reveal pleasure or pain either from sexual encounters or the birth of a child. "By projections and leakages of all kinds- somatic, vocal, emotional, sexual- females expose or expend what should be kept in" (Carson, 1996, pg. 129) and this reveals the fear of society for death, blood, darkness, birth, the female body. This direct continuity and linkage between the inside and outside has been a threat for the human nature and society as it is not filtrated through the rational toll of human, the 'speech'. A human nature that is though defined by the dominant norms. It has been established that our inner desires and needs have to be expressed indirectly through speech and in the case of women through their men’s speech. It is very common that women stay inside home when their men come out to the streets to protest or talk about their family concerns (Kanaveli, 2012)[example]. There is a connection of sound and voice with externalizing our inside facts. One of the principal characteristics of sound is its unique relationship to ineteriority. According to Ong (2002, pg. 69) "[t]his relationship is important because of the interiority of human consciousness and of human communication itself".<br>
One ugly form of addressing in Ancient Greece was an utterance, a high-pitched cry, called ‘ololyga’and it was a ritual practice of women (more in 'Monstrosity...'). This is still valid in countries like Greece or Middle East and it is related to mourning. In their rituals women were also talking offensive bad things under the context of 'aischrologia'; a process in which a woman would freely discharge the unspeakable things on behalf of the city. A more recent one is 'hysteria', introduced by Freud, that expresses the psychic events within the woman's body directly to the outside of the body. Female is associated with the bad things of the collective memory. Gossiping is another form of address that reveals secrets that should have stayed hidden. It is an alternative way of communication existing in the private domains and has been created in response to the exclusion of speech in public. Gossip "provides subordinated classes with a mode of communication beyond an official public culture from which they are excluded" (The Gossip, 2017, p.61). But even in Ancient Greece this form was annoying; Plutarch tells a story about how a secret is spread fast by women creating chaos and ruins, in contrast to men that are keeping themselves from revealing it (Carson, 1996, pg. 130).<br>
Other ugly things are the private and hidden events of family violence. For feminists in the early 20th century the speech in public, in a group of other women sharing the same problem, was a way to externalize the personal violence and suppression of women, without using violence in response. Protesters, respectively, talk collectively about the unfair economical and political structure of the society either by demonstrating or occupying public spaces. All these examples are not following the rationalist approach of the context they are part of. They express passion, vulnerabilities and unfulfilled desires with their voices and presence. The idea that democracy is a civilized way of taking decisions that doesn't accept any form of over-emotion or overflow of expression, is nothing more than an illusion. An illusion that threatens the existence of democracy by creating exclusion and disregarding the importance of passions and desires in politics. As Mouffe (2013) says, "[i]f there is anything that endangers democracy nowadays, it is precisely the rationalist approach, because it is blind to the nature of the political and denies the central role that passions play in the field of politics." Thus democratic processes should take into consideration any irrational fantasies and desires that the public express. Their suppression may lead to repressed pain, fanaticism and totalitarianism.
## What ugly things, and the medium
Marginalized people vocalize things that are unacceptable for the society, unspeakable, politically incorrect, emotionally overwhelming, disorderly. They are too personal, too emotional, too embodied. Carson explains how the direct mode of address of women's voices has been an annoyance for the patriarchal society since Ancient Greece. A woman would expose her inside truths that were supposed to be kept private. Examples of these would be emotions that reveal pleasure or pain either from sexual encounters, or the birth of a child. "By projections and leakages of all kinds- somatic, vocal, emotional, sexual- females expose or expend what should be kept in" (Carson, 1996, pg. 129); this reveals society's fear of death, blood, darkness, birth, the female body. This direct continuity and linkage between the inside and outside has been a threat for the human nature and society as it is not filtered through the rational tool of humans, 'speech'. It has been established that our inner desires and needs have to be expressed indirectly through speech, and in the case of women, through their men’s speech. It is very common that women remain inside their homes when their men take to the streets to protest or talk about their family concerns (Kanaveli, 2012)[example]. There is a connection of sound and voice with externalizing our inside truths. One of the principal characteristics of sound is its unique relationship to interiority. According to Ong (2002, pg. 69) "[t]his relationship is important because of the interiority of human consciousness and of human communication itself".<br>
One perceptively ugly form of address in Ancient Greece was an utterance, a high-pitched cry, called ‘ololyga’which was a female ritual practice (more in 'Monstrosity...'). This is still valid in Greece and the Middle East, and it is related to mourning. In their rituals women would also say offensive bad things under the context of 'aischrologia'; a process in which a woman acting as a proxy, would freely discharge unspeakable things on behalf of the city. A more recent one is 'hysteria', introduced by Freud, that connects the psychical events within a woman's body directly to the outside, her exterior behavior. Females are often associated with sins and evil within the collective memory. For example, gossiping is another form of address that reveals secrets that should have stayed hidden. It is an alternative way of communication existing in the private domain and has been created in response to the exclusion of speech in public. Gossip "provides subordinated classes with a mode of communication beyond an official public culture from which they are excluded" (The Gossip, 2017, p.61). But even in Ancient Greece this form was undesirable; Plutarch tells a story about how a secret is spread fast by women creating chaos and ruins, in contrast to men that keep themselves from revealing it (Carson, 1996, pg. 130).<br>
Other ugly things are the private and hidden events of family violence. For feminists in the early 20th century, public speech, in a group of other women sharing the same problem, was a way to externalize the personal violence and suppression of women, without using violence in response. Protesters, respectively, talk collectively about the unfair economical and political structure of the society either by demonstrating or occupying public spaces. All these examples do not follow the rationalist approach of the context they are part of. They express passion, vulnerabilities and unfulfilled desires with their voices and presence. The idea that democracy is a civilized way of making decisions that doesn't accept any form of over-emotion or overflow of expression, is nothing more than an illusion, one that threatens the existence of democracy by creating exclusion and disregarding the importance of passions and desires in politics. As Mouffe (2013) says, "[i]f there is anything that endangers democracy nowadays, it is precisely the rationalist approach, because it is blind to the nature of the political and denies the central role that passions play in the field of politics". Thus, democratic processes should take into consideration any irrational fantasies and desires that the public express. Their suppression may lead to repressed pain, fanaticism and totalitarianism.
## Streaming media in relation to female continuity
In the ancient medical and anatomical theory women had two mouths, the upper and the lower, connected through a neck. The lips of both of them guarded the “hollow cavity” (Carson, 1996, pg. 131) and they had to remain closed. Having two mouths that speak simultaneously is confusing and embarrassing and this creates ‘kakophony’. Females were expressing something directly when it should have been told indirectly. This direct continuity between the inside and the outside is repelling for the male nature that aspires the self-control which interrupts this continuity and dissociates the inside from the outside (Crason, 1996, pg. 131). They 'transmit' unfiltered information. At this point I would like to draw parallel lines with the streaming media that has been used as a tool of direct and urgent communication for protesters like in the case of the Occupy Movement. Similarly with the continuity I described before streaming protocols and processes are delivering unedited live messages that sometimes don't agree with the mainstream current public opinion. In Occupy Wall Street for example streaming media, like Livestream, Ustream and Youtube stream, was a way for the protesters to be heard in public fast and broadcast their own news online ("Multiplication..."). Thus, experts or official media platforms could not filter their speech and alter the message before they spread it online. The companies providing online streaming wouldn't agree with the action and message of the #occupy and thus they would publicly differentiate themselves from them. "Both Livestream and Ustream officials say they simply operate platforms and are not supporting the movements. They have made some adjustments on their platforms and provided some extra resources to accommodate Occupy movement video. Mr. Haot removed advertising from the Occupy channels after some brands complained that they did not want their ads appearing next to streaming video of protesters"(Preston, 2011). Similarly radio streaming has been a way for activists, protesters, artists, citizens to share their own news and music [example of wartime radio. Women in Afghanistan]. This unaltered and direct speech of (radio/streaming) broadcasting [(Ernst, 2016, pg. 104) more from his text] have similarities with the non controlled direct expression of the female bodies in public (like 'hysteria', 'aischrologia', 'ololyga'). There is a fear of continuity related to the message that comes out unedited from the inside of the human container and their channels. My assumption comes to introduce an 'embodied streaming' that relates the medium with the human body based on the need a message to be articulated and distributed to others. Live streaming provides the opportunity for a body to be present somewhere else almost live through the voice or a video representation. There is a small delay, the transmission delay [more on that].
In ancient medical and anatomical theory women had two mouths, the upper and the lower, connected through the neck. The lips of both these mouths guarded a “hollow cavity” (Carson, 1996, pg. 131) and they had to remain closed. Having two mouths that speak simultaneously is confusing and embarrassing, and this creates ‘kakophony’. Females were expressing something directly when it should have been said indirectly. This direct continuity between the inside and the outside is repulsive for the male nature, which aspires for self-control, interrupting this continuity and dissociating the inside from the outside (Carson, 1996, pg. 131). Women 'transmit' unfiltered information. At this point I would like to draw a parallel with streaming media, that has been used as a tool of direct and urgent communication for protesters, like in the case of the Occupy Movement. Similarly with the continuity I described before, streaming protocols and processes deliver unedited live messages that sometimes disagree with the mainstream current public opinion. At Occupy Wall Street, for example, streaming media, like Livestream, Ustream and Youtube stream, was a way for protesters to be immediately heard in public and to broadcast their own news online ("Multiplication..."). Thus, experts or official media platforms could not filter their speech and alter messages before they were spread online. The companies providing online streaming didn't agree with the actions and messages of the #occupy and thus they would publicly differentiate themselves from them. "Both Livestream and Ustream officials say they simply operate platforms and are not supporting the movements. They have made some adjustments on their platforms and provided some extra resources to accommodate Occupy movement video. Mr. Haot removed advertising from the Occupy channels after some brands complained that they did not want their ads appearing next to streaming video of protesters"(Preston, 2011). Similarly, radio streaming has been a way for activists, protesters and citizens to share their own news and music [example of wartime radio. Women in Afghanistan]. This unaltered and direct speech of (radio/streaming) broadcasting [(Ernst, 2016, pg. 104) more from his text] has similarities with the uncontrolled direct expression of the female bodies in public (like 'hysteria', 'aischrologia', 'ololyga'). There is a fear of continuity related to the message that comes out. unedited, from the inside of the human 'container' and its channels. This continuity seems to me like an 'embodied streaming' that relates the medium with the human body, based on the need for a message to be articulated and distributed to others. Live streaming provides the opportunity for a body to be present somewhere else, with a slight delay through the voice or a video representation. There is a small delay, the transmission delay [more on that].
Terms of the embodied streaming:
>channels, flow, unedited, live, source, distribution, protocols, delivery systems [more]
@ -21,10 +21,10 @@ Terms of the embodied streaming:
### For an agonistic streaming [streaming media in relation to voice and gender and Hot media]
This uninterrupted continuity shows us that what is important is not the last message but what is happening right now at present and what practices of democracy are emerging while being in the flow. It is like the 'agonistic' model of democracy of Chantal Mouffe in which there is not an external power that filters it and no time for thinking about future utopias and realities but what is happening now. It gives space to the conflicts to happen naturally. Streaming media reflects a sense of liveness and presence. There is no time to reflect or edit the message [Clara and pauline oliveros mediation, workshop at tender]. The audience receives the message directly from the proprietor and can see clearly who is broadcasting, what is the source, how it looks like.[text of chronopoetics] The democracy of agonism accepts all the ideas, thoughts and concerns on the table. [Through a healthy conflict...]
This uninterrupted continuity shows us that what is important is not the message but what is happening right now at present, and what practices of democracy are emerging. It is like Chantal Mouffe's 'agonistic' model of democracy, in which there is not an external power that filters the message and no time for thinking about future utopias and realities, but only what is happening now. It creates space, allowing conflicts to happen naturally. Streaming media reflects a sense of liveness and presence. There is no time to reflect or edit the message [Clara and pauline oliveros mediation, workshop at tender]. The audience receives the message directly from the proprietor and can see clearly who is broadcasting, what is the source, how it looks like.[text of chronopoetics] The democracy of agonism accepts all the ideas, thoughts and concerns on the table. [Through a healthy conflict...]
## Conclusion
The marginalized modes of address share concerns that seem uninteresting or bad for the Western formal and civilized society, that supports a democracy rooting in the Ancient Greek politics. Because of their ugliness, they are suppressed and accused as ugly forms, then filtered and censored before they been expressed in public. They share unfiltered, unedited messages that overpass the rational sphere of speech. From my perspective the medium used by these modes reflects their character. They are based on instant and urgent communication, liveness, "hit and run" approach (from Multiplication...). Today streaming media is used constantly by protesters or citizens for broadcasting news by themselves that are not censored by the government. Streaming media is characterized by the distribution of unfiltered data, the sense of liveness and the continuity (direct distribution) of the message. In this essay I wanted to highlight how the use of streaming media and the concept of streaming in general can be related to these 'ugly' forms of mediation. How these kind of media transmits 'ugly' things, according to the rational society, that marginalized people need to communicate for establishing their own voice and find space for their own desires. These ugly things may subvert, also, the formal society. I think that the acceptance of continuity and direct mediation can facilitate more democratic processes. As "the prime task of democratic politics is not to eliminate passions or to relegate them to the private sphere in order to establish a rational consensus in the public sphere. Rather, it is to 'tame' those passions by mobilizing them towards democratic designs" (Mouffe, 2013). Focusing more on the media that allow/facilitate this process to happen can open possibilities and alternatives of democratic processes. The embodied streaming suggests a resistance with our unfiltered/uncontrollable mediated present selves/bodies.
Marginalized modes of address share concerns that seem uninteresting for Western, formal, civilized society, which supports a democracy rooted in the politics of Ancient Greece. Because of their disparity, they are suppressed and accused as ugly forms, then filtered and censored before they being expressed in public. They share unfiltered, unedited messages that skip the rational sphere of speech. From my perspective, the medium used by these modes reflects their character. They are based on instant and urgent communication, liveness and a guerilla approach (from Multiplication...). Today, streaming media is used constantly by protesters or citizens to autonomously broadcast news and avoid government censorship. Streaming media is characterized by the distribution of unfiltered data, the sense of liveness and the continuity (direct distribution) of the message. In this essay I wanted to highlight how the use of streaming media and the concept of streaming in general can be related to these 'ugly' forms of mediation. How these kind of media transmit 'ugly' things, according to a rational society, and also, that marginalized people need this media to communicate, to establish their own voices, and to find space for their own desires. These ugly things may subvert, also, the formal society. I think that the acceptance of continuity and direct mediation can facilitate more democratic processes. As "the prime task of democratic politics is not to eliminate passions or to relegate them to the private sphere in order to establish a rational consensus in the public sphere. Rather, it is to 'tame' those passions by mobilizing them towards democratic designs" (Mouffe, 2013). Focusing more on the media that allow/facilitate this process to happen can open possibilities and alternatives of democratic processes. 'Embodied streaming' suggests resistance, with our unfiltered/uncontrollable mediated present selves/bodies.
In Ancient Greece there was a mystification around the high-pitched voice that was connected with the evil. The human nature, as defined by the patriarchy, differs from the other animals' nature on the ability on articulating the sound and creating the ‘logos’ (speech). In the primitive stage of consciousness "the brain was ‘bicameral’, with the right hemisphere producing uncontrollable ‘voices’ attributed to the gods which the left hemisphere processed into speech" (Ong, 2002, pg. 30). It was since the figure of Odysseus has been appeared that these voices didn't matter any more and the self-conscious mind got established. Through 'logos' humans can develop dialogue and democratic processes of communication and decision making. All the other forms of expression are wild and not rational, including sign language [example?] and the 'hysterical' exposures of women [more detail on describing why the noise is annoying]. Aristotle and his contemporaries believed that the vocal sound is based on the physiognomy, the genitals, of a person and that is why men speak in a low pitch. The high-pitched utterance of women, called 'ololyga', which was a ritual practice dedicated to important events of the life, like the birth of a child or the death of a person, was considered as a 'pollution' to the civic space. They were annoying sounds. If they were expressed in public they would create chaos and craziness. In mythology, when Odysseus awakens in the island of Phaiakia, he is "surrounded by the shrieking of women (...) and goes one to wonder what sort of savages or super-natural beings can be making such a racket". These women were Nausica and her girlfriends that are described by Homer as "wild girls who roam the mountains in attendance upon Artemis" (Carson, 1996, pg. 125). Similarly Alkaios, an archaic poet that had been expelled from the city, where public assemblies were taken place, was disgust by the presence of women’s voices talking 'nonsense'. In the ancient world women were excluded in the margin, the dark and formless space were speech and thus politics were absent. This disorderly loud female noise was related to a non civilized wild space and a political incorrect sound. It seems like these 'uncontrollable voices' of the primitive human got related to some modes of addressing that were reminders for the past condition of the human brain, judging it as bad influence.<br>
In Ancient Greece, there was a mystification around the high-pitched voice that was connected with the evil. The human nature, as defined by the patriarchy, differs from the other animals' nature on the ability on articulating the sound and creating the ‘logos’ (speech). In the primitive stage of consciousness "the brain was ‘bicameral’, with the right hemisphere producing uncontrollable ‘voices’ attributed to the gods which the left hemisphere processed into speech" (Ong, 2002, pg. 30). It was since the figure of Odysseus has been appeared that these voices didn't matter any more and the self-conscious mind got established. Through 'logos' humans can develop dialogue and democratic processes of communication and decision making. All the other forms of expression are wild and not rational, including sign language [example?] and the 'hysterical' exposures of women [more detail on describing why the noise is annoying]. Aristotle and his contemporaries believed that the vocal sound is based on the physiognomy, the genitals, of a person and that is why men speak in a low pitch. The high-pitched utterance of women, called 'ololyga', which was a ritual practice dedicated to important events of the life, like the birth of a child or the death of a person, was considered as a 'pollution' to the civic space. They were annoying sounds. If they were expressed in public they would create chaos and craziness. In mythology, when Odysseus awakens in the island of Phaiakia, he is "surrounded by the shrieking of women (...) and goes one to wonder what sort of savages or super-natural beings can be making such a racket". These women were Nausica and her girlfriends that are described by Homer as "wild girls who roam the mountains in attendance upon Artemis" (Carson, 1996, pg. 125). Similarly Alkaios, an archaic poet that had been expelled from the city, where public assemblies were taken place, was disgust by the presence of women’s voices talking 'nonsense'. In the ancient world women were excluded in the margin, the dark and formless space were speech and thus politics were absent. This disorderly loud female noise was related to a non civilized wild space and a political incorrect sound. It seems like these 'uncontrollable voices' of the primitive human got related to some modes of addressing that were reminders for the past condition of the human brain, judging it as bad influence.<br>
Today women in public life worry if their voice is too light or high to deserve respect. Thus radio producers and politicians, like Margaret Thatcher, are trained to learn how to speak in public, deepen their voice and being taken seriously as a male speaker would do. Carson (1996, pg. 120) observes that the female voice in public is related to madness, witchery, bestiality, disorder, death and chaos. An thus has to stay hidden from sight.<br>
These are some words used to describe how the female voice sounds like since ancient times according to the text of Carson:
>high-pitched, loud shouting, having too much smile in it, decapitated hen, heartchilling groan, garg, horrendous, howling dogs, being tortured in hell, deadly, incredible babbling, fearsome hullabaloo, she shrieks obscenities, haunting garrulity, monstrous, prodigious noise level, otherwordly echo, making such a racket, a loud roaring noise, disorderly and uncontrolled outflow of sound, shrieking, wailing, sobbing, shrill lament, loud laughter, screams of pain or of pleasure, eruptions of raw emotion, groan, barbarous excesses, female outpourings, bad sound, craziness, non-rational, weeping, emotional display, oral disorder, disturbing, abnormal, "hysteria", "Not public property", exposing her inside facts, private data, permits direct continuity between inside and outside, female ejaculation, "saying ugly things", objectionable, pollution, remarkable
