GENDER AND SPELIG

I recently askd sme flkZ (what correlation you see between"correct spelling and gender). here are some of the respns:


Kids take on great pressure, inner and outer, to spell correctly at bees, hear a bell ding, and win. To watch their performance is to see a wide variety of dynamic and unintelligible individual personality elements come out through on-the-spot competition for which they have gruelingly trained. The personality elements do not clearly correspond with their identification numerals, the placement they attain, nor all the expectations placed on them (including their own). Gender does not clearly correspond to anything, though certain fixated fictions of gender are highly codified, enforced, and deemed correct gender agreement. It is agreed that there is a correct way to spell that. Clarity is a construction, and so is this.

Ellen Redbird
writer / archaeopteryx / queer liquid

________



Historically, in English at least, it seems clear that the establishment of a supposedly definitive OED and Webster's Dictionary created a level of institutional and cultural control over the variable ways in which people earlier spelled words. These dictionaries created both the idea that a word SHOULD have a single spelling and that the dictionary could tell you what that spelling was, although, simultaneously, the dictionaries did suggest at least something of the prior history of variable spellings.

On the one hand, there was some level of positive practical effect from this codification--communication could be made easier in some instances when there was some level of agreement about the nature of what communication looked like. But the other, intended, and deeply unfortunate result of this codification was that people who were less likely to "spell properly" (people who were in great measure those who didn't have access to the kind of education that told them what spelling should be, or who saw words in ways considered non-standard) could also be codified not simply as uneducated but also as stupid, etc. Since, historically, women were more likely to be denied an education, they were correspondingly less likely to be taught "proper" spelling and more likely to be labeled as stupid. Indeed, it was quite a vicious circle, since labeling them as stupid or incapable led to not educating them which led to more chances to label them, etc.

Today we live in an English language which assumes that words have only one spelling, despite the fact that people themselves don't always know the supposedly authoritative way to spell many words. Yet the idea of challenging dominant modes of spelling also has a long history, challenges highlighted especially in the Modernist era and after, although there are examples from many other areas and time periods as well.

Learning how to spell "correctly" indicates some degree of acceptance of institutional control over language. Not learning how to spell "correctly" can indicate resistance (more active or passive in some cases) to this control, but it doesn't necessarily indicate resistance. It could also indicate the fact that some people view the field of language differently, quite literally--most people with so-called "learning disorders" when it comes to writing are simply people who see the visual field of the page in any number of unexpected ways, although in a culture which demands normative language abilities, people who have such differences often suffer from a lack of opportunities--the pain caused by stigmatization of their differences is very real. But people who don't learn to spell "correctly" also include those who see themselves as not conforming as thoroughly as they would like to do.

Perhaps surprisingly, in my experience as a teacher, male students are much more likely to spell words "incorrectly" than female students. Leaving aside the question of so-called "learning disorders," (and here it would be interesting to know what percentage of people diagnosed with such "disorders" are male or female) it's tempting to theorize about why that's true. One might be tempted to say, for instance, that male students are more likely to achieve a sense of self-worth from defying their teachers, while female students are more likely to achieve self-worth by doing the things asked of them. Or one might be tempted to say that male students are more likely to see writing as a feminized activity at which it would be unmanly to excel, while women are more likely to find writing to be an area in which it is acceptable for them to do so. But both such distinctions are generalizations based on what is already anecdotal evidence, so I'm not going to make either of those points, although I bring them up because I imagine them as ones that others are likely to make. More importantly, though, I would suggest that while it is obviously crucial not to stigmatize non-normative spellers, it's equally essential not to see them in some easy sense as heroic rebels--not learning to spell as educational institutions would like can in some cases be done by people who feel impervious to (or at least uninterested in) the consequences, just as learning to spell that way can be indication of a heroic attempt to not feel threatened and inconsequential.

An interesting wrinkle worth considering here is that some non-normative spellings are more disruptive to the concept of normative spelling than others. For instance, a recent linguistics study that has been going around on the internet among interested parties suggests that changed consonants are much more damaging to normative understanding than changed vowels. According to the ideas in that study, if kari were to send me an "invatition"--two letters switched, then I myself at least would still know what she means. Were she to send me an "inligation"-- again, two letters switched--then I would be much more likely to assume some legal issue was at stake.

Another particularly disruptive type of non-normative spelling is the one in which a word, by being "misspelled," seems to be another word. The most amazing incident of this kind that I was ever involved in had to do with a student who had written the line "I was bored by the [ ] system." When I asked her what it was that bored her, it turned out she hadn't meant "bored"-- she'd meant "barred." As a poet, that pun is fascinating to me; as a student who felt like she had been unfairly kicked out of a program, the intriguing pun was of no interest to her--she wanted me to understand what had happened to her, and was frustrated that I still wasn't understanding.

As an editor in the area of avant garde literature, I've often found the boundary between a conscious misspelling and a typo to be quite blurry. My general rule of thumb is to think that if a piece contains numerous non-normative spellings, then they are all intentional, whereas one or two non-normative spellings in a piece are much more likely simply to be typos. In either case, it's crucial to query the writer, and I never know what's going to happen; sometimes it is a typo, sometimes I've missed their interest in a non-normative version of that word. In either case, as editor, it seems to me that authorial intention should be the final arbiter. But mistakes in this matter still happen to me; in the Telling It Slant essay collection that I edited, for instance, there are five typos that have been brought to my attention (all of them quite quickly!)--four were typos in which the word should have been corrected to a normative spelling, and one was a word that had been spelle
d non-normatively that had been edited to become normative, although I had no memory of making the change. It's quite possible, for instance, that I thought I'd added a letter by accident and then deleted it because I thought it was my own mistake that the letter was there in the first place.

Mark Wallace



________________


Your question mostly makes me wonder -- and marvel over -- how I've rarely thought about this linkage before....even as your question now reminds me that correct spelling is often used as a tool for a dominant group to affirm their dominance.  As if the judgment of "correct" is not subjective....and historical when we all know how history also is written, is articulated, to dominate...

Eileen Tabios


______________

Rekindling Bravery

Text submitted prior to grammar standardization process.

 

Repriorotize the finishing process: gendercheck all documents before released into the public arena imposing judgement of apitiude upon conciousness of blurred binary as a replacement to standard ingles; the standardized autonomy of communication has been the verdict of trials of discrepancy,

 

To be ìnaturalizedî into speech, to be ìnaturalizedî into gender: a double-speak of the utmost Orwellian type. Rather, a ìneutralizationî of influcuation and auditory formulation. Conformity of hand movements dedicated to key placement on a key board. The brain connectivity of location of the minutia, incremential conversation broken down into letters, by letter; the atomic compounds. Periodic tables aid in recognition of combination, as a dictionary.

 

The dependence on accuray, e.g. naturalization and neutralization to illuminate the subtle (a word I hardly communicate in the public arena without the aid of big brother disabling spell check) I usually spell suttle.

 

Granted the obvious connection between reguired standards and limitation are a corollary. There is similiairilty in indocurination. Bapitsm into gender and grammar follow a parrellel time contiumium. Devlopemnental stages of regiment resulting in socialization for capitaliaitic venture. The commidification of privacy and process. Functional standards for acceptance and insurance for social dynamic and illusive equillbrium; a pathology/nerousis of daily repetition. 

 

Spelling as a (dis)function. 

 

Here I have attemplterd to atpe nased on memenory as If somethjomh could resilt from me not neomg ayyemtibe to the leys, bur reaher inside the process a zen edperoemde, a linear wace ;l;enghrwen franrwed inside an itterance. I will contimire for a dhort time so as to dedlope reeseatch nbeased. I must relinquidh thos fdrive for accuracy, as spelling is a control mechaifm. The ficayional account or yje prokecyed pupperytay that an uaypr issiuluions oneself to have. There is truly no reilting in a conformed tyjoughr or recepir of text.

 

Text determined by spell check.

 

Here I have attempted to tape nosed on memento as If somethjomh could result from me not neigh eyetie to the leys, bur reamer inside the process a Zen edperoemde, a linear wake ;l;enghrwen fared inside an iterance. I will centimeter for a short time so as to elope research unbiased. I must relinquish thus drive for accuracy, as spelling is a control mechanism. The ficayional account or yes projected puppetry that a harpy issiuluions oneself to have. There is truly no retiling in a conformed tyjoughr or receipt of text.

 

And yet, the amount of power I forfit in typing without concentration on comphrehension is no different than that which I ìcorrect.î The standardization process provides comfort, communalism and univeristyality. All of the illusions of utopia, ultitarianism and facism. The methodology similar, the intent varied, but ultimately dependant on motivation.

 

The genderification, of what once was malleable en totale, also acts a steel frame work of productivity, commidifcation, sculpting, a repossessing, an external modification, a removal, publification. The sad lack of privacy, relinquished without a knowing-authorization. 

 

Deb (sic)a-Martorana

Identification: Catastrophic Calmness Wasting Energy on Function


_______________________

Tell me how to spell it and I will tell you how to write it/read it. Isn't that the definitive answer to social legibility?. The clearly defined categorical perversion?. Lee Edelman says you can read it, queerness or the social construction of a legilble gender/sign.? Or some such saying/reading. I say embrace the variants, gender/sigh. Thus one gets off more eloquently. With/"Out" standardization.


Julie Kizershot

________________

Hmm?well, the issue of ?correct spelling? is of some interest to me because I have a learning disability, which pretty much just affects my spelling and handwriting. I have always been a terrible speller and basically have no visual memory for symbols. The learning specialists who tested me throughout my childhood were always surprised at the odd narrative ways I created to remember visual/ spatial relationships. If an image doesn?t have meaning to me, there is no way I can remember it?

The type of learning disability I have is much more common in men, so it seems strange to me to associate ?correct spelling? with gender. Growing up, my messy handwriting and poor spelling always made me feel different from the stereotype of a girl. I always envied the more feminine handwriting of the other girls in school, and it was one of the ways I felt separate from them.

Despite the strange spellings that occur in my own drafts, I have to say, I am not a fan of invented spellings (except in pre-spell checked drafts.) Poetry is a marginal art form to start with and to defy the most basic convention of spelling keeps readers from reading the poem at all. There are other subtle and more subversive ways that poems can subvert conformist ways of thinking and ultimately these are much more interesting to me than playing with surface conventions.


Joanna Fuhrman, Poet and Teacher
Books: Ugh Ugh Ocean, Freud in Brooklyn (Hanging Loose Press)


_______________


That which binds. That which is stapled by pronouns. That which trips me up
the visual cues playing havoc with synaptic messaging. That which sculpts
and narrows. That which cracks open, cavernous. That which sifts and sorts.
That which is encased. That asbestos wrapped. That like a cream puff and
tamarind. That like a puddle open before me and scentless I step into again
and again.

Sina Queyras
writer
http://www.ecwpress.com/books/slip.htm
http://www.prairiefire.mb.ca/reviews/queyras_s.html

__________

as a late entry:

An interesting angle to think about is that "tween girl" spelling that has crossed over to mainstream in things like "luv". Before the mainstreaming of a wide variety of hacker codes (letter substitution) and IM shorthand (lol, cya, brb), things like "ttyl", "bff", "kit" were very much "girl" gendered in my experience growing up. And I mean specifically "girl" not "women" with all the stereotypical baggage that is meant to entail. Think yearbook signing and friendship bracelets here.

And these were things one was to roll there eyes at as they got older. Now I think we still do the same, but the injection of IM and hackerspeak has somewhat degendered it and placed it into the general "whatever" neighborhood.

Don't know how much this ties directly into ideas of spelling... maybe it is more on the secret languages topic...

Jamie Gaughran-Perez