Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

AutoModerator t1_iw2ttzt wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

redduif t1_iw2v8rp wrote

>Researchers Ashley Martin and Malia Mason assert that 90% of virtual assistants are initially programmed with a binary female gender. This matches the negative stereotype of women as compliant and available to serve.

I don't know but generally a gps 'assistent' pretty much tells the driver what to do, turn left, take the third exit, you made a mistake turn around now.

They are much more orders than compliant words of a submissive assistent.
Also, I don't know of any non-gendered vocal product so imo it's biased by habit.

I choose the voice which annoys me the least, whichever gender that is.
Everything has to be about genders these days it seems. Is gender even the right word here or is it more a stereotypical generalization of a female or male voice, which would mostly be related to the sex, rarely the gender.
Do gender fluid people alter the pitch of their voice when they change genders ?

*eta : Just to be clear, i'm not attacking any gender choice or fluidity thereof of people, but the research and products in general making things about gender, just because the topic is popular right now.

65

gentlemancaller2000 t1_iw2vm47 wrote

I’m a little confused and it’s probably my ignorance, but I was thrown by this statement:

“Researchers Ashley Martin and Malia Mason assert that 90% of virtual assistants are initially programmed with a binary female gender.”

Are they saying that because Siri and Alexis sound female they’re necessarily binary? I don’t recall Siri ever telling me anything that would suggest that. How would a digital assistant be programmed so that it sounds non-binary or gender neutral?

14

TaserLord t1_iw2w767 wrote

It does sound like the researchers are bringing an "agenda" to this. "Negative stereotype of women as compliant and willing to serve" needs to be unpacked before it can be included in the conclusions of a scientific paper.

108

106503204 t1_iw2wabq wrote

But what if our robot AI overlord identifies as an Apache helicopter?

0

Sir_Bax t1_iw2wt7e wrote

>I don't know but generally a gps 'assistent' pretty much tells the driver what to do, turn left, take the third exit, you made a mistake turn around now.

>They are much more orders than compliant words of a submissive assistent.

So boomer wife stereotype?

−7

essendoubleop t1_iw2xii4 wrote

I'm all twisted and turned upside down with the gender discussion in the past few years, but I thought female doesn't refer to gender, but sex? It's kind of silly how confused I am now about a very simple thing.

8

VividEchoChamber t1_iw2yquq wrote

Can we all stop talking about gender? It’s such a lame topic that lacks any true intellectual substance. Ugh.

10

reallynotburner t1_iw2zd6m wrote

American fighter jets used a woman's voice on the cockpit voice warning system. In earlier tests pilots reacted quicker and more correctly to "her" warnings than to the test male voice. More recent testing has debunked the perceived female voice advantages, but for 30 years the voice was by a woman.

164

Dingus10000 t1_iw2zmks wrote

Maybe look at which type of devices use which type of voices. Do devices that tell you to do things have male or female voices? How about devices that you tell to do things ? What about the difference between male and female users. I bet if you investigated like this they’d see their assumption doesn’t work out for them.

24

grizgrin75 t1_iw304fh wrote

Been a thing ever since people gendered boats and gods.

34

WildWook t1_iw30u1a wrote

It's personification that people get attached to, it seems "human" so we categorize it differently in our mind.

6

TaserLord t1_iw30z8j wrote

Is there a dominant negative stereotype that matches this? Is there a balancing, positive stereotype, or stereotypes focused on other traits which might also be in play? Are respondents signing on to that negative stereotype? Is there an association between the negative stereotype and the gendered voice? Does the selection of the voice, including pitch and timbre, word selection, and voice inflection invoke the negative stereotype either unintentionally or by design? There's a lot of assumptions bound up in the statement they make - they need to be teased out before the stereotype can reasonably be put forward as the cause of the voice preference. That's all I'm saying.

43

Psychological-Log669 t1_iw317lq wrote

I can believe it. I for sure like the sound of the woman voice over the man.

1

PhelesDragon t1_iw3238c wrote

Jokes on you, my phone is gender neutral.

1

minecon1776 t1_iw33f0u wrote

good news: everything is gendered in like every language other than english and a few others

5

Midknight129 t1_iw33kuk wrote

If you really want to rigorously test this, take a large, diverse sample of people, put each one in an fMRI and watch the brain activity in real-time as they answer questions regarding preference for various synthesized voices on different kinds of technology. Personal assistants, navigation, you must construct additional pylons, give them a variety of different examples, watch which parts of the brain light up when listening to each one, and match it up to which ones they like best and which ones they like least. Then make a correlation map for which brain areas are most active for any given choice.

Then, get a second sample set of people, do the same thing, but sort through the results looking only at the brain activity and make a prediction of what their answers were based on how that activity matches up with the previously established map. Eg. We note that activity in [this] part of the brain indicates preference for female voice in receiving directions. This person has activity in that same part of the brain, so we predict that their answer was a preference for female voice. The more accurate the predictions, the stronger the model. This is where AI analysis and deep learning can truly shine.

15

Whale-n-Flowers t1_iw35qm7 wrote

If I used more voice commands or ever had my phone off silent, I'd definitely try to find if Brent Spiner has made one as Data.

Honestly, I rarely even turn the GPS voice on these days. Haven't actually heard from my adventure buddy in half a decade.

5

LinkesAuge t1_iw36xbw wrote

It's also the type of framing you could turn into the complete opposite because the stereotype of woman as compliaant and willing to serve is just the other side of the coin where women are seen as more cooperative and less conflict seeking.

2

local_eclectic t1_iw37ubd wrote

Too bad. We still shouldn't make it anyway because it reinforces gender stereotypes and roles, and that tends to negatively impact women in the long run much more than men since traditional gender roles oppress women.

People also respond more to sensationalized stories rather than real news. We've seen how toxic it has been to our societies promote that kind of content. More popular doesn't mean better or healthier.

−3

DarkTreader t1_iw387um wrote

I don’t think it’s the prevailing opinion that navigation voices are “commanding”. While they aren’t timidly saying “would you please turn right?” They are being assistants. You initially ask the device to give you directions, thus freeing you up to concentrate on operating the vehicle. You are delegating, you are in charge, and the voice is giving clear instructions as a helper but in no way do most people consider these commands. If you miss the turn it recalculates and gives you new directions. You are free to ignore them. They are clearly subservient to you in operation so I believe your perception, while perfectly valid for you, is in the minority and navigation is by no means designed to be a commander but an assistant. If they felt any more forceful people would less likely to use them.

9

DarkTreader t1_iw38rzq wrote

It refers to both. You could be assigned female at birth by identify as male. You could be assigned male at birth but identify as nonbinary.

Your sex refers to what you were assigned at birth and what sex organs you have. Gender applies to what you identify.

−2

nek_wizard t1_iw39256 wrote

Don't we generally feel more attached to anything we personify. "Gendered" is just a way to trigger people.

4

[deleted] t1_iw39g7m wrote

New groundbreaking research from the university of Ellen Paige

−1

GalacticShonen t1_iw3b72c wrote

That last link is still just an article about a study, where is the actual paper? It doesn't make any mention of music. They only tested 12 people, and they were all men? That's a very small and not diverse sample size. They mention melody in quotes to describe the tonal variance between male and female voices but that is not what melody means. It's hard to say exactly what the author meant when i can't find the actual published paper making me question if it was peer reviewed to begin with.

And to clear up any confusion, music and language have overlapping cognitive resources as music is suggested to be a precursor form of communication for our species.

14

AqUaNtUmEpIc t1_iw3jf5m wrote

I’ve never considered that using Siri makes me guilty of perpetuating negative stereotypes or that women in general were guilty of this. It doesn’t feel like a servant and it has access to far more RAM than I so it has more knowledge about nearly everything.

Further, there will be a pocket of society that will take issues with “a binary male voice” giving them “orders”. This is trivial.

7

redduif t1_iw3jvh6 wrote

I wrote a whole reply to this but frankly the original study being behind paywall this article might not represent it properly, so I scrapped that.

To illustrate "If they owned a gendered technology item, participants felt more attached to the item. Gendered items also led to more negative stereotypical thinking about gender."

What does that even mean?

"The researchers acknowledge that the participants were all from the United States, and it is possible that these results may not apply in all cultures where gendered technology is present".

I sought for this information indeed, because they talked about cars.
A car in french is female, in dutch it's male although one wouldn't know without a dictionary.
In Spanish it is male.
While they specify geographical location, the article doesn't specify native or even secundary language.

A prominent vacuum robot is called Roomba.
The 'a' may suggest it's rather female.

So before going in a whole discussion of gender perception, I'd need to read the premise of the study.
This article to me suggests they started out with some negative suppositions, which could bias the conclusions, and participants speaking other languages may have an influence on their perception of gendered objects as English is one of the very few gender neutral languages.
Although it's rather mothership for exemple, so it exists unofficially for some words.
And while mustang had Boss they also had Shelby, being quite the cool car in several movies, so what does that mean in their affection yet negativity conclusion ?

While in a way one could argue negative publicity is also publicity, just based on this article I'm not convinced there is any link to gender perception of objects and the reason to buy that object or not.

Especially since assistant voices are often a choice on each product rather than having to choose male female or neutral beforehand.

7

redduif t1_iw3llck wrote

And so as to go from the article, is that because of some greater affection towards them is or stereotypical negativity because you needed it to be a subordinate and thus a female according to them?

And also, if the best navigation system had only neutral or male voices, would you rather have bought/used an inferior system with a female voice ?

Because that's kind of what they suggest.

2

Agariculture t1_iw3nqn1 wrote

I have has many nav systems in the last 20ish years. I have a British female voice because I can and I like the sound. If it wasn’t available I couldn’t care less.

4

Spocks-Nephew t1_iw3ob7w wrote

My smart speaker identifies as an amplifier.

2

DarkTreader t1_iw3osg4 wrote

All this is good, I’m merely disputing your statement in the second paragraph that directions are “commands”. I think this is important to your thesis because you believe the article made some unsupported assertion while your statement about directions being commands i believe commits the same error. Everything else I have no dispute with.

3

grizgrin75 t1_iw3qmjo wrote

I'll take your word for it. I merely presented these as some of the first instances of people gendering a class of things in their lives.

Also, as a semi-related side note, not all cultures that gender boats gender them female, which seems to drive the cultures that DO gender them female right up a tree. Kinda weird, but whatever.

2

Stalagmus t1_iw3u0zy wrote

Good lord that’s pathetic

Glances down at my Siri chest tattoo

3

DeeDeegc t1_iw3uokg wrote

Hold up! Did they just assume Siri's gender? These bigots need to slow their roll.

0

CroCreation t1_iw4054l wrote

There is no technological difference between artificially simulated genders. AI gender is a social construct.

1

pyriphlegeton t1_iw472zg wrote

"[...] 90% of virtual assistants are initially programmed with a binary female gender. This matches the negative stereotype of women as compliant and available to serve."

Well...sure but it also matches the positive stereotype of women being nicer and more likable. Also maybe more trustworthy and reliable.

We can just make up reasons but those are just unfounded allegations.

Personally, I find female voices to sound nicer and more friendly. That would be my reason, as far as I'm aware.

13

T0WERM0NKEY t1_iw4fmdh wrote

What does "gendered technology" even mean?

3

Orollo t1_iw4rzs7 wrote

This seems awfully unscientific for a science sub.

1

moutnmn87 t1_iw5b1i6 wrote

Im not sure being more forceful would make people less likely to use assistant apps . Both my girlfriend and I would choose pick a grumpy sailor mouth voice for the hos of that was an option.

1

TracyMorganFreeman t1_iw5zux1 wrote

Gender in grammar is just another dimension to word, like case, number or tense. It isn't even necessarily masculine or feminine. German has a neuter gender as well; Arabic has a two level gender system with masculine/feminine and animate/inanimate. Dravidian languages have genders that distinguish a noun between human and non-human classifications.

Grammatical gender largely serves to distinguish the antecedents of pronouns in the same sentence through agreement with other words. It isn't necessary for a language to function(only 25% or so of languages have it), but adds granularity with fewer words.

The reason people who gender a particular noun masculine in one language are put off by them being gendered grammatically feminine in another isn't because of bias for or against one sex, but the normal jarring effect of differences in syntax. Some languages have different rules for apposition that mess with you, and some languages have different rules for whether an adjective for a noun follows or precedes the noun to which it applies, or whether there's agreement in number or not.

English is a particular one of confusion for non native speakers because it's a Germanic language with a simplified Germanic grammar structure(absent grammatical gender and noun declension) but has tons of French loanwords and cognates that brings with them French syntaxes and orthographies(German doesn't have silent letters for example)

10

bat_manual t1_iw67wvx wrote

>Researchers Ashley Martin and Malia Mason assert that 90% of virtual assistants are initially programmed with a binary female gender. This matches the negative stereotype of women as compliant and available to serve. If the consequence of gendering technology is to support negative gender stereotypes, why do companies continue to produce gendered technology? The research team hypothesized that gendered technology creates affection, which increases the individual desire for these products.

I don't personally use digital assistants, but I imagine that a female voice is easier to hear in many situations because the higher register is less likely to blend in with background noise, and thus easier to hear.

3

The_Humble_Frank t1_iw697uu wrote

...not sure if you are aware, but many modern languages gender books, food, chairs, pencils, i.e. everything, as part of their normal syntax.

Old English lost its gendered articles, starting in the 10th century and completely by the 14th century.

10

greentshirtman t1_iw8qjcg wrote

......yes, that's part of the article we are discussing.

"Finally, participants were presented with one of three options, a new car gendered female, a new car gendered male, or a genderless new car. They were then asked to rate the car’s humanness, and the researchers assessed gender stereotypes associated with the gendered cars."

Don't ask a question you don't want answered.

−1

TheSecularGlass t1_iw8ykc3 wrote

The article discusses this, but most here won’t read it: It’s not specifically gendering that does it, it’s anthropomorphizing things. We get more attached to people than things, so when we attribute more “people-y” traits to things, we get more attached to things.

1