Human Domestication and Lispy Voice-Overs in Radio Commercials


Today’s pampered, effeminate men are a shell of our former troglodyte selves. Are radio marketers changing their voice-overs to suit today’s emasculated society?

– 15 July 2015 –

C. F. van Niekerk:

150708-van-NiekirkFor my job I spend quite a bit of time on the road, and talk radio helps to fill the hours of tedium.  For the past few years, the growing predominance of lispy male voice-overs in national radio commercials has grown quite irritating! (This tendency has so far not affected the local commercials to any great extent. Yet.) I especially hate the guy trying to sound sexy to a male audience for testosterone boosters! “Heeeey, guys!” Yuck! What were they thinking?

I suspect that radio marketers are doing this quite deliberately. Not only do many of these professional voice-overs speak with a lisp that would have barred them from the industry thirty years ago, they soften their voices overall, like women cooing over their sleeping babies.  I’m guessing that they are coached to do this in order to make them sound less threatening to the wimpified listener.  Some sort of market analysis must have reached a conclusion that authoritative, masculine voices elicit feelings of intimidation in a significant portion of the listenership, and lispy, soft-spoken voices don’t irritate enough people to harm sales. They just annoy me, that’s all. I don’t want some man cooing to me!

The Effeminate Modern Male

Why would authoritative, male voices threaten people? Because they are increasingly rare and today’s people don’t like them. People are not used to the strong male voice of authority. They cringe at it, or they want to defy it.

The child-man has become the norm among the men of the educated, middle-classes. Working class men still talk like crass, boorish working class men. I count myself among them, to some extent. But on occasions when I find myself among men of the educated middle-class, particularly those below the age of forty, a noticeable majority of them seems wimpy and childlike, speaking with softened, often lisped voices, like they never quite grew out of their five-year-old selves.  When I see these men at school functions or in restaurants they are usually accompanied with their wives or children, so they are not homosexuals. The term “metrosexual” comes to mind, but I’m not sure if that term really applies here, as these men don’t seem like outright flaming queers.


The stay-at-home dad who feels comfortable in this role has no doubt lost his sense of masculinity. I can understand this happening for a short period, but he is asking for trouble whether he knows it or not. Who can respect him?

This problem also seems to affect urban Christian men to a great extent. Men who are otherwise upstanding citizens, conservative in their politics and social attitudes, devoted husbands and fathers, are wimpy, soft-spoken pacifists whose wives seem to rule their affairs. Many churches emphasize the tender, nurturing heart and have forgotten the aggressive war to root out evil both in our own lives and without.

While driving along, I also see, more and more, scrawny little men riding bicycles in their tight little frog suits, their helmets fastened securely to their heads while their little biker shorts wag insultingly in the air. (I find this particularly frustrating because I can’t tell their gender until I am quite close to them. And even when a woman dresses in this identical garb, their costumes fail to delight the wandering eye.  Indeed, the androgyny is disconcerting!)  What are these men thinking before their bike rides while they are slithering into these jester suits, strapping their helmets to their heads, and slipping on their riding gloves to protect their softened hands? Do they wear a different outfit for every occasion of their lives, complete with all the accessories? When I ride my bike around, I just wear the same clothes that I wear around the house. Who needs gloves or a helmet?


“Hey, hey! We’re cool guys!” These bicycle weenies think they look pretty fabulous in their jester suits. Accessorized with biker gloves and pink socks!

Much has been said of the societal attack on masculinity overall, and this could play some part in the phenomenon. Schools and mothers no longer allow their boys to fight one another, and boys themselves are increasingly terrified at the thought of physical violence. I remember a few years ago attending my daughter’s eighth-grade graduation (in itself a ridiculous concept, like it’s any challenge to graduate the eighth-grade!), and the school awarded a variety of commendations to high-achieving students. Out of perhaps thirty different awards in academics, athletics, and the arts, only two or three of them were given to boys. I looked down at the pale specimens of weak, pudgy, twitchy eighth-grade boys and decided that very few of them seemed capable of high achievement.

Soft Living

But I wonder if the loss of masculinity has less to do with feminist intolerance and more to do with soft living, lives which are absurdly far-removed from survival? More than ever before in human existence, an enormous portion of society lives like house pets. Someone feeds them, gives them medical care, entertains them, builds their shelters and clothes them. Everything is given and what is produced? More and more, we produce services. What cave man spent his time producing services?

During the First Crusade, when the half-civilized German and Frankish rabble crashed through Constantinople on their way to Jerusalem, they found the rich, overly-civilized Byzantine Greeks to be almost incomprehensibly effeminate and corrupt. The Byzantine emperor quickly ferried the barbarians across the Bosphorus to get rid of them, and most of the ill-equipped Crusaders met their doom in Asia Minor. Fifteen hundred years of urban living had corrupted the Byzantines to such an extent that most of them would no longer fight to save themselves and they depended on foreign armies to protect them.

The soft living of the modern-day Westerners, particularly those who live in cities, would make even the most pampered Byzantine courtier jealous. Who needs masculine traits in such a place? Masculine men are merely proverbial bulls in today’s world of dainty China shops.

Breeding for Domestication

In 1958, Dmitri Belyaev, a Russian geneticist, deliberately set out to domesticate a wild species of animal in order to understand the process by which dogs were domesticated.  He chose the silver fox, selectively breeding this species for “tameness and against aggression”. By the fourth generation of the program, the foxes began to wag their tails at the approach of humans. A few generations more and the foxes leaped into the researchers arms and licked their faces.  These domesticated foxes produced less adrenaline than their wild counterparts. In many cases, their coats became multi-colored like a cat or dog, their ears became floppy, their tails curled. Some of the foxes developed underbites or overbites, or shorter legs and tails. Essentially these foxes retained the characteristics of juvenile wild foxes.  If they could talk they would probably have a lisp.


The domesticated fox, suitable as a house pet, just like today’s over-civilized white Westerner.

For the past several generations, Westerners have similarly bred themselves for domestication. Look at old photos of families, of men, women, and children, from the 19th century or even from the early part of the 20th century and compare them to the family photos of today. There is a hardness in the facial features even in the women and children, but especially of the men. The men of today, most of them, have open, childish faces. And though I haven’t fallen to the level of these child-men, I personally can’t hold a candle to my tough old grandfathers when they were my age. Soft living has negatively affected me as well.


A typical family from 1885. There is a hardness to their faces, even in the wife and children, that we rarely see among white Westerners today.

This phenomenon is likely why we have a spate of female teachers sleeping with underage boys. The teachers no longer see themselves as sufficiently separate from their students; they see the students as peers rather than as a separate social class. Adults of the past would have no desire to socialize with teenaged children on equal terms; the thought would not even occur to them. Today’s adults increasingly behave like—and think like—adolescents even into their old age. A lack of seriousness, failure to take responsibility, short-term thinking, shallowness, and a desire to be a consumer rather than a producer characterize this prolonged adolescence. This immaturity is evident to varying extents among the Baby Boomers, and among subsequent generations this arrested development increasingly dominates the adult population.  Look at all the unmarried, under-employed, live-in Millennials living their lives through their smart phones.

This partially explains the political divide in the United States today.

Juvenile-minded liberals, most of them living in the most artificial of urban and suburban environments, show the most advanced levels of domestication. Gender differences are reduced among this population, and they are more affectionate towards their government masters. Homosexual men in particular act and dress like children, keeping themselves as thin and weak-looking as teenagers. Even the liberal’s claim to higher overall intelligence compared to conservatives, if there is any truth to it at all, demonstrates a greater predominance of childish forms:

In fact, the ability of an adult human to learn is considered a neotenous trait. Physical neotenization in humans has, likewise, caused psychologically neotenous traits in humans: curiosity, playfulness, affection, sociality and an innate desire to cooperate.

“Curiosity, playfulness, affection, sociality and an innate desire to cooperate.” Too much of that sort of thing and we have the childish liberal.

Conservatives, bred more often in rural environments, retain more of the characteristics of Americans from 100 years ago, more of the traits that are necessary for human survival in the wild. This also explains why Europeans are more liberal than people in the United States: Americans, in taming our wild continent, have retained more of the savage traits of our primitive ancestors for a longer period of time than have the Europeans, descended as they are from those who stayed behind.

So it could be that strong, male voices are avoided on the radio because they sub-consciously threaten the tender sensibilities of the modern, urban audience. Or perhaps the strong, male voice is just becoming more rare.

And what happens when a domesticated population is no longer fed and protected by its handlers?  It falls prey to the wild beasts.

Leave a comment


  1. Reblogged this on Brittius and commented:
    The guy in the photograph, shaves his forehead and nose?


  2. I was stay ay home dad for a couple years and its not enjoyable. I had a business at the time so I could claim that’s what I did.

    Do you watch The Last Alaskans on Animal Planet? Its a documentary style series about several families living separately out in the bush. Probably the most masculine men on tv.

    Not really germane, but the ‘incomprehensibly effeminate’ Byzantines lasted almost a thousand years longer than the Western empire who succumbed to the same issues you list-wealthy and soft, foreign armies-and in fact had collapsed before the Crusades began.


    • I never saw the Last Alaskans, but Alaska’s status as the “last frontier” has kept the survival spirit alive among its non-urban residents.

      The Byzantines were a brilliant civilization, one of my favorites. I think that the spread of Christianity allowed them to recover some of their societal cohesion after they separated from the undefendable western half of the Roman Empire. For most of their history, though, they depended militarily on Balkan or other foreign soldiers, and even after the fall of Rome they were never quite able to regain that focused energy that a young civilization possesses. Too many of them, especially among their leaders, remained corrupt and effeminate.

      The Byzantines are a good lesson for our civilization: that we can regroup and prosper for quite a while, even after we have started to grow soft, but we have to cut ourselves off from the rotten parts of our society to make that happen.


      • Independence rather than leaning on outsiders seems to be the difference between surviving and collapsing. If your people aren’t willing to work then somebody else will and they’ll eventually be the ones who get the rewards.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: