Barriers to public speaking

Public speaking is one of the most feared endeavors, most of us dread the scenario of speaking in front of people. No matter how trivial the subject is or how small the gathering is, we try to avoid as much as possible speaking in front of a group of people. Why? Is this because of fear of failure, fear of being laughed at, or fear of being not good at public speaking? What does it even mean to be good at public speaking? Is there a certain specific format for being a good public speaker? Most people think that there is. We are told to emulate certain best public speaking practices. I was a member of the Toastmasters club where people get trained in public speaking skills. It was a great learning experience for me, I really enjoyed my time at the Toastmasters. However, I feel that we put barriers to public speaking by prescribing a certain format for it, it discourages many who can't or don't want to adopt it. Let me explain why.

We are told that public speakers must speak in a certain way, and use certain mannerisms, posture, and language. Good public speakers should do this and should not do that. This all makes most of us feel that the art of public speaking is difficult and it is not for us. We started buying the idea that public speaking is for a few gifted people with dynamic personalities who are great storytellers. This is far from true. It is correct that few gifted people are comfortable with their storytelling abilities, but we all have this ability, we just differ in our styles of storytelling. By stereotyping public speaking, we put huge barriers to public speaking for people who have interesting stories to tell, and want to tell, but are scared because they don't see themselves as dynamic public speakers. We miss so many interesting stories and experiences just because people with these stories think they are not qualified enough to share them. The result of all this is that only certain stories get told, only certain sections of society have a monopoly over public speaking space, and most of us are spectators trying to find glimpses of our own stories among the stories told without bothering to tell our own story in our own words. Feeling fear and anxiety about public speaking is natural and even most experts feel it, this should not be a barrier or reason for not doing it. Also, whether you are an extrovert or an introvert should not matter, as both have stories to tell and the ability to tell. The result of all this is that most of us rely on others to tell our stories, we keep searching for glimpses of our tales in others' tales. 

There is no harm in learning prescribed techniques or standard practices of public speaking. However, not learning these skills, or the inability to learn them should not stop us from sharing our stories. We all have our unique styles. People can bring diverse ways of public speaking by expressing themselves in different styles and manners. People from India don't have to follow the same style as people from Africa or America and vice versa. With our own styles and backgrounds, we bring diversity to storytelling. It is not just the diversity of stories that matters, the diversity of styles and storytellers also matters. By having diverse styles of storytelling we can expand the reach of public speaking. If more and more people see people like them sharing their views, opinions, and stories, many more will be encouraged to do the same. 

Social media has already expanded the reach of expression of ideas and sharing. Social media platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and Ticktock have already started breaking these barriers to public speaking. Many are actively engaged in storytelling without subscribing to the standard protocols of public speaking. This is great, this is the beginning of removing the barriers to public speaking. I hope this trend continues and slowly we don't feel the need to train people in the art of public speaking. We already know how to speak and share our stories, public speaking is just another incident of engaging in conversation with a larger audience using our own style and flair, let's do it more often.

Thank you for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com

Consent must be taught in schools

In one of the web series, a courtroom drama, the lawyer while defending a rape accused says that consent is a great area. This statement is not uncommon, many around us do not understand the importance of consent in a relationship or sexual encounter. Consent is an essential requirement for any sexual encounter, whether that encounter is casual or within any formal relationship like a marriage or civil union, does not eliminate the requirement for consent. Marriage or any other relationship does not give an individual the right to violate or override the consent of another individual, especially for their willingness to engage in a sexual act. So, even after consent is of such great importance, you will be amazed to know that not many are aware of it. For many, it is a gray area because they are ignorant about it. Even though there are many resources available to learn about the meaning of consent under various circumstances, very few people take advantage of it. This is the reason I am advocating that consent should be taught in schools. Like any other good habit like saying sorry, thank you, or excuse me, the importance of having the consent of another person should be part of day to day vocabulary of everyone and schools are a good place to start highlighting it.

Any sexual encounter is a private act, normally, only people involved in the act are the witnesses of that act. Therefore, if there is a dispute, it becomes difficult to decide who is right and who is wrong. Not having a clear understanding of what consent means and how to interpret verbal and non-verbal signals correctly makes things more complicated. It should be clear to everyone that not saying no does not mean yes. This is simple, a person may hesitate to say no for a variety of reasons, there are too many reasons to list, therefore, the absence of no should not be interpreted as yes under any circumstance. There must be some expressed affirmative signal and it is the responsibility of the initiator to obtain that signal to make sure it is a consensual act. 

Also, it is more important to know that consent can be withdrawn at any point for any reason. Given consent, in any sexual act, is a privilege of the person who offers it and it is their right to withdraw anytime they feel they are not ready. This should not be difficult to understand. If the person who is on the receiving end cannot deal with that withdrawal and feels the urge to fulfill their initiated sexual desire, they have other means like masturbation to quench their sexual desire. Violating the rights of another to engage in consensual sex cannot be a reason under any circumstances. Traditional institutions like marriage also do not give license to an individual to violate the rights of his or her partner. Spouses don't have the right to rape each other, if it is wrong to force yourself on another outside marriage then it must be wrong within marriage also. Marriage does not offer up any license to ignore or violate the personal rights of our partner, rather were should respect those rights.

Humans are different compared to other animals, we behave differently socially compared to other animals. The same is true for our sexual acts, they have to be consensual otherwise there is no difference between us and animals if we force each other just to satisfy our sexual urges. Our relationships will become stronger and more fulfilling if we respect each other's choices. If we respect each other's willingness to participate. This is why let's start teaching the meaning and importance of consent as early as possible. 

Thank you for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com

Right of privacy and reproductive rights

Recently the US Supreme Court overturned a 50-year-long precedence, Roe v. Wade, holding that the Constitution does not offer any abortion rights to women (Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health). Even though the holding of Roe was already narrowed by the subsequent Court judgments (Planned Parenthood v. Casey). The abortion rights were synonymous with Roe. Once the court agreed to hear the case challenging Mississippi's abortion restriction, it was expected that Roe would be further restricted. Even though recently confirmed justices, Kavanaugh and Barrett, during their confirmation hearing, said that they respect precedence, it was expected that they would overturn Roe the first chance they get. And they did exactly that. All justices confirmed to the Court are very accomplished legal experts, so, most opinions use very crafty language to justify their holdings, and the opinion of Dobbs is no exception. However, this post is not about the Supreme Court's opinion of Dobbs or the composition of the Court, the post is about the right to privacy and women's reproductive rights. For legal analysis and political arguments there are many resources on the internet, please refer to them. 

The Roe opinion used the right of privacy argument to find abortion rights. First, we should decide whether the Constitution offers any right to privacy or not. Either it does not it does not. The general consensus is that it does offer the right to privacy via the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. I don't think many would disagree that contraception and pregnancy are very personal and private matters. Every individual must have the right to decide when and how they should become a parent. If a man can decide whether he wants to use any contraceptive or not, and what can be done with his sperm, a woman should have the same rights and control over her body. It should be up to a woman to decide whether to use contraceptives or not, to get pregnant or not, and if she gets pregnant, to continue with her pregnancy or not. Reproductive rights, both for men and women, are their private matters and should come under their right to privacy, which is a fundamental right. If reproductive rights do not come under the right of privacy, then I wonder how anything can come under it. Are my letters, phone calls, my living room or bedroom, and bank statements more private than my sperm, egg, or embryo? Also, why use different standards for men and women? Why does society get to control a woman's body and her reproductive rights but not men's?  

The abortion-rights debate is mistakenly framed as a "pro-life" vs. "pro-choice" debate. No doubt, these are catchy phrases and make interesting topics for debates, but they do not offer any solutions. This issue has become a politically polarizing topic with a heavy religious overtone. The result is that abortion has become a political issue for Democrats and Republicans, it is no more about women's reproductive rights. The debate should not have been about "life" or "choice" but about "rights." If should be about as a society do we think a woman has any fundamental right to decide about her body and health? The question is that simple, it is about the reproductive rights of women, nothing more and nothing less, framing it in any other way is not only confusing but wrong. Just because an embryo is involved, we cannot divert the subject to something completely different. 

Now, a little bit about embryos. They are the result of the union of sperm and an egg. This can happen in a human body or a petri dish. This can happen during any sexual activity with or without the consent of the people involved in it. There is nothing divine about fertilization or pregnancy, it is a simple biological phenomenon. We all are the product of simple biological phenomena, all mammals are produced this way. Just because nature has given women the ability to carry the pregnancy, we as a society do not get the right to regulate their bodies. Women's reproductive rights are their fundamental rights. Also, like every other fundamental right, this right can be misused. However, we do not take away a fundamental right just because it is being misused, we put reasonable restrictions to curb its misuse. Subsequent decisions after Roe tried to do exactly this until the Court decided that women do not have this fundamental right at all. We have reasonable restrictions on all fundamental rights, so why not treat abortion rights in the same way. 

A little bit about, textualism, the argument used to argue that the Constitution does not provide abortion rights expressly and therefore, they do not exist. Even textualists interpret the Constitution, to define the scope of fundamental rights. The phrase "freedom of speech" from the First Amendment is interpreted to include modern modes of communication, including the burning of the national flag, and the word "Arms" from the Second Amendment is interpreted to include modern guns. So, why to object the inclusion of abortion rights under the right of privacy? If abortion is not a fundamental right, then is the use of contraceptives a fundamental right? Right to marry a person of their choice a fundamental right? Because the Constitution does not expressly talk about these rights as well. Already women fought long and difficult battles to get basic rights like voting, and now we are again moving the clock backward by taking away some of their fundamental rights.

Thank you for reading and please share your views on this topic.