Monday, December 27, 2010

Oogyboogykajoogyism.

I have a declaration to make. After being told by oh so many people what a feminist says, does, feels, looks like, believes, votes for, buys, boycotts, dates, fucks, and generally is, I have come to realize I am not a feminist. I am actually a follower of a hitherto unknown gender philosophy. As founder of this unknown philosophy, I claim the right of naming it, and I now identify as a follower of Oogyboogykajoogyism.

The fundamental tenet of Oogyboogykajoogyism is that all genders and sexualities deserve equal human rights. As an Oogyboogykajoogyist, I believe in equal opportunity in the workforce, in fairly shared childrearing and household duties, and in freedom of gender and sexual expression. Oogyboogykajoogyism is dedicated to fighting sexual violence and all forms of physical and emotional abuse, and is opposed to the degradation of any gender or sexuality in the public discourse.

Oogyboogykajoogyism also kinda has a thing about Cosmopolitan magazine.

And that's it. There's no other baggage. No one to tell me "oh, but you're not a real Oogyboogykajoogyist if you don't do this" or "since you're an Oogyboogykajoogist, I assume you do that." No one to backhand-compliment me that I'm sure not your typical Oogyboogykajoogyist. No one to tell me that I'm a bad Oogyboogykajoogyist and I'm doing it wrong. No one to write me off because I'm just another angry Oogyboogykajoogyist. As a totally novel philosophy, it has to be taken on its own terms.

I hope you will follow me through the exciting process of transforming this into an Oogyboogykajoogyist blog. I expect great things.



Come to think of it, while I'm at it, I'd like to redefine my gender as an oogyboogykajoogman. That should help even more.

(An oogyboogykajoogman has a female body, but only some of the other traits of a woman. Therefore, when one of them looks or behaves in an unfeminine way, they are not an imperfect woman, but a perfect oogyboogykajoogman.)

29 comments:

  1. This'll be a lot of fun until Second Wave Oogyboogykajoogyists start a fitna.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ah, the name game. Who is, who isn't, and perhaps most importantly, who gets to decide the qualifications.

    Left alone and with normal external pressures, societies tend towards a homogeneous population. Leave 'em alone long enough, and you'll have neopostcentennial-zombie positive-non irradiated-reformed antiorthodox-oogyboogykajoogaminists.

    The best part of academia is getting to make up words that other people may eventually be willing to die for.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And that's it. There's no other baggage. No one to tell me "oh, but you're not a real Oogyboogykajoogyist if you don't do this" or "since you're an Oogyboogykajoogist, I assume you do that." No one to backhand-compliment me that I'm sure not your typical Oogyboogykajoogyist. No one to tell me that I'm a bad Oogyboogykajoogyist and I'm doing it wrong. No one to write me off because I'm just another angry Oogyboogykajoogyist. As a totally novel philosophy, it has to be taken on its own terms.
    I give that a week.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I received a much-desired crock-pot for Christmas this year and joked about having a week off of work to play Suzy Homemaker (not that I do any cleaning or laundry around the house - that's my husband's job - but that I'll have time to cook as much as I want) and my dad gasped in mock horror that I would use that term for myself. Because of course I identify as a feminist and feminists don't want to be in the kitchen. I didn't have the time right then to explain that no, I didn't want to be FORCED to stay in the kitchen. I love to cook (okay, more accurately I love to eat) and I would be happy to spent half of my vacation making yummy things to eat and then freeze so that we will have leftovers and I will not have to cook every night when I come home from work. Also, someone has to do it or we wouldn't eat, and my husband has trouble with Kraft macaroni, so it makes sense to have him do dishes and let me make the noms.

    TL;DR - "I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter."

    ReplyDelete
  5. Awesome. Count me in as an oogyboogykajookyist.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I should point out, this isn't a rebellion against feminism itself, but against people who hear "I'm a feminist..." and don't bother to listen to the rest of the sentence.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You were the one who introduced me to the novel idea of this "feminism" stuff, so I think I'm an oogyboog...thing. Can we just be "Oogies" for short? I like that name.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I should point out, this isn't a rebellion against feminism itself, but against people who hear "I'm a feminist..." and don't bother to listen to the rest of the sentence.

    With all due respect, I don't think it's valid for you to try to define what OBJK is or isn't . . . .

    ReplyDelete
  9. Are men allowed to identify as oogyboogykajoogyists? You've pretty neatly summarized my views on gender politics with this post.

    I would like to point out that I think that many of the disagreements within feminism, as well as many other social movements, are factual rather than normative. Most people agree that men and women should be equal. Feminists are more identifiable by the degree to which they believe that women are not equal. Does oogyboogykajoogyism believe in patriarchy? What about cultural relativism?

    Oogyboogykajoogyism offers a simple and concise statement of gender ethics, but things get unavoidably complicated as soon as you bring factual assertions into it. Twisty Faster, for example, could call herself an oogyboogykajoogyist while insisting that all pornography constitutes sexual violence regardless of consent.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Falsum - Oogyboogykajoogyism IS feminism!

    It's just feminism, but referred to with a word that doesn't make people immediately go "Oh, so let me tell you what you believe, then."

    The fact that I'm a feminist doesn't mean that I agree with anything ever said by anyone also calling themselves a feminist, but apparently this is impossible to explain, so I'm just going to have to get rid of the stupid word while believing the exact same things.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Agreed that the connotations of a word can be so much more problematic than the actual definition. There's no easy answer to this one, I don't think, and I wish there was.

    I feel similarly about the many words used to denote sexuality. There's never enough wiggle room- if you use the "wrong" word, then everybody and their mom is telling you who you want to sleep with. That's why I personally go with 'queer'- it's the easiest umbrella term that I can make my own. Anything else gets the Word Police breaking down the door.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I stand corrected. Apologies for the misinterpretation. You do have a good point that far too many assumptions and requirements have been attached to the word. Great post, in any case.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Falsum - Thanks. :)

    Fanged Butterfly - Ironically, I feel like I don't have the wiggle room to use "queer," because I primarily sleep with guys, so I worry it would be appropriation to use that word when I'm, like, 85% just a plain ol' straight girl.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "I should point out, this isn't a rebellion against feminism itself, but against people who hear "I'm a feminist..." and don't bother to listen to the rest of the sentence."

    I hate when people do this - which is why I tend to identify as a feminist whilst trying bloody hard to get people to listen to the end of the sentence. I want people to bloody pay attention to nuances within the label, and I suppose I am just that fond of the label that I want to try to redeem it by wearing it whilst having a complex philosophy that isn't what everyone expects of feminism. But hoo boy to I understand your desire to stop being lumped into a category with a heap of presumptions associated with it. I also love the sound of the new name. It's so delightfully silly!

    ReplyDelete
  15. As a Christian who writes a sex blog, I really understand. I'm pretty orthodox and I frankly am more rigid in my behavior regarding chastity than a lot of my fellow evangelicals, but I'm kinky and increasingly open about it, and it is confusing to people; it's not what they associate with the label.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Feminism tends to look misandrist/biased towards women in varying degrees because men have it better than women (on the whole and ceteris paribus).* So generally speaking any move towards equality will boost women or lower men, even as seen by someone who recognizes that the two aren't the same thing, which many anti-feminists don't. I understand the need for oogyboogykajoogyism, to get away from that baggage, but I don't think any movement for equality movement can avoid it in a misogynist world.

    *To prespond to whatever counterexample someone is about to give: I said "on the whole and ceteris paribus."

    Mousie:
    I frankly am more rigid in my behavior regarding chastity than a lot of my fellow evangelicals, but I'm kinky and increasingly open about it, and it is confusing to people; it's not what they associate with the label.

    I'm not confused: when you do anything -- when you remarry -- you'll do X. Is that about right?

    ReplyDelete
  17. @Holly - I think "queer" is one of those words that's impossible to appropriate, because it's used to cover such a variety of orientations. I'm monogamously married to a man, but I identify as queer or bi (depending on my mood) because my primary attraction is to women. If you feel queer, go ahead and call yourself queer; nobody has the right to police your self-identity.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hershele, you are correct. It shouldn't be a surprise. But it is, because there are lots of people who self-identify as Christian who are prudes and imply or claim that Christianity supports the prudishness. Feminism suffers the same sort of problem with some of the people who self-identify.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Oh man, I'm totally gonna start using this!

    ReplyDelete
  20. I thought I was bad at being a woman, but it turns out I was an oogyboogykajoogman all along. What a relief!

    The funny thing is, I'm kind of serious. I didn't realize what a weight on my mind the whole "being an imperfect woman" thing was until just now.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hershele OstropolerDecember 29, 2010 at 2:48 PM

    Obviously "movement for equality movement" was the result of reaching the end o the sentence and forgetting what I said at the beginning, but it's closer to what I probably meant than what I intended to type, so I'm going to say it's actually brilliant and clever.

    (Actually I think I was trying to type "movement for gender equality.")

    ReplyDelete
  22. Holly, I've suffered from the same dilemma before. Am I really queer if I'm in a heterosexual relationship? Well, yes I am. I don't see it as a matter of acts, I see it as a matter of attraction. I still fantasize about women, I like to watch them, I am drawn to them. I just happened to find a man - and no wonder! - it's slim pickings out there, I'm telling ya! To find an academic bi or lesbian who is into BDSM and who I just happen to have chemistry with? Yeah, right. (I'm not saying they don't exist, just that in this world I meet more men interested in me than I meet women, so there's a "wider selection".)

    ReplyDelete
  23. And, I know this is only a joke of sorts, but I still kinda feel disappointed that so many people, including you, would just shake off feminism. I mean, it might be a loaded word and a loaded term, but we still can own property, vote and (where I'm at) decide about reproducing because of it. If you look in the dictionary, you'll see it's explained as a movement for equality. Why would we let ourselves be shamed by anti-feminists, PUA's or some sort of a rad-fem front who have lost the boat entirely? We still need to believe in equality and practice it to make it true. That's what we're doing as feminists.

    ReplyDelete
  24. When I read this I think where I split off from the people who do get into the the "who can be a ____..." talking/arguing is that I just pretty much throw my hands up and let those people have the label in question and talk/argue over it all they want. Yeah there are wolves in sheep's clothing among feminists but there are sheep among the herd as well. I just don't put a whole lot of faith in the simple declaration that said person is a sheep anymore that's all.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Good post and I was right there with you until you wrote: I'd like to redefine my gender as an oogyboogykajoogman...(An oogyboogykajoogman has a female body, but only some of the other traits of a woman. Therefore, when one of them looks or behaves in an unfeminine way, they are not an imperfect woman, but a perfect oogyboogykajoogman.)

    Any gendered person may have any traits. Therefore, there may be "unfeminine" characteristics or behaviors according to mainstream society, but who's talking about legitimating that? And the name, which I otherwise love, needs tweaking.

    ReplyDelete
  26. If I'm an oogyboogykajoogyist with male physical characteristics but more than occasionally breaks with the typical male/masculine behaviours and traits, am I an oogyboogykajoogywoman?
    I love your blog since I was introduced to it yesterday, but you've just fallen prey to that which you usually deride.
    Might I offer 'Oogyboogykajoog' as an alternative?

    *runs off to facebook to change philosophy page*

    ReplyDelete
  27. I feel like a lot of people missed the point of this. Like how it's satire about a real situation that arises within a real movement, not an attempt to create some new weird incarnation of gender equality. It's like people treating FSM (the Flying Spaghetti Monster) as if it's a "serious religion" in the sense of, say, Judaism, as opposed to just a satire of organized religion.
    Or am i the one missing the point?
    (PS: am i also missing the point about FSM? from what i understand, it seems satirical, but is it meant to be an actual faith - ie, do its followers literally and seriously believe that an FSM exists and has created them? if so, i apologize profusely.)

    ReplyDelete