So… I think I missed the part where I was part of some kind of militant lesbian feminist police state that kills anyone who disagrees with me. Apparently, I have the power to “force” people to agree with me while not being subject myself to scrutiny. Because my impression of what I’m doing here was advocating for all people to be treated with respect, and for their opinions and ideas to be dismissed on their own merits rather than based on an arbitrary judgment of the body the person putting the ideas forth happens to inhabit.

Here’s what I believe:

1) Every person deserves basic human rights. Every person deserves the right to live in relative comfort (with shelter, enough to eat) and should be able to live life however makes them most happy, according to their personality and who they define themselves to be. No one else can tell a person what makes them happy, or who they are.

2) When any person, ever, is prevented from living life in this state through the actions of another person, this is a source of injustice. Thus, if one person’s “happy life” consists of raping, murdering, killing others, etc., obviously, the right to the pursuit of “happiness” no longer stands.

3) I, as a fellow inhabitant of this world, have a duty and obligation to speak out and attempt to do something about the situation when I perceive injustices of this sort being perpetrated, and to criticize the structures of power which I believe are responsible for them.

I don’t think any person who actually cares about other people could possibly argue with the essence of 1 and 2. The particulars vary from religion to religion, but I think this idea is at the heart of any genuine moral philosophy. Obviously, there are people who don’t care if other people live or die, and if it’s fair or not, and these people I clearly do not hold in particularly high esteem. 3 is merely my own belief, and I recognize that not everyone is willing or able to expend time and energy into trying to change the world. I respect that.

On any statement other than 1 or 2, I’m willing to accept any difference of opinion as having some possible validity. People all have different life experiences, and process these and their meanings differently. Obviously, the universe is far more nuanced and complicated than just these two statements and there is plenty of discussion necessary to determine exactly how these ideas apply to the real world. People are free not to agree with me in the abundance of gray area surrounding. All I ask is that they disagree with my opinions respectfully and address my ideas, if they seem problematic, rather than attacking me personally in order to avoid a real discussion.

The problem is that any argument justifying oppression in any form does not agree with statement 1. A person who does not believe that all other human beings are deserving of basic rights and respect obviously cannot respectfully discuss such an assertion. The fact that I’m not willing to go along with, or accept as valid, any argument which assumes people are not fundamentally deserving of the same basic equal rights does not mean I am “forcing” my ideas on anyone. It means I have principles.

Another principle I’m committed to is absolute freedom of speech. That’s why I and other feminist bloggers are free to speak our piece, on our own websites, and why we are free to ignore, delete, and not publish comments which disagree with our core principles. If you somehow can find a way to actually justify disagreeing with the concept of treating others with respect, buy your own webspace. It’s no God-given right of yours to waste my time and bandwidth in the name of your freedom to disagree.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2006 at 12:19 pm and is filed under Feminist Movement, Society, Theory.