India's problem was never her politicians

Since my childhood, I regularly hear one theme in conversations about India, everyone talks about India's potential. Everyone says that India has a lot of talent, rich history, diversity, and whatnot, but somehow can't live up to its true potential. Most Indians also keep on repeating the same lines again and again without realizing that it is they who need to help their country realize its potential, not some outsiders. However, most are happy just debating these issues, blaming each other or their political opponents, and complaining about politicians and bureaucrats. However, most Indians are okay with corruption and corrupt politicians regularly get elected in various elections. It is a common perception that politics is a dirty game and that politicians are dishonest. To be fair, India is not the only country that has this perception about politicians, but it is definitely one of those countries that blame its politicians for all problems, for example, the problems of corruption, communalism, poor infrastructure, poverty, unemployment, brain drain, and whatnot is blamed to dirty politics. However, India's problem is not its politicians, but the people who elect these politicians, again and again, from different political parties. These people not only support such corrupt, many times, with criminal background people, but idolize them, worship them, and even after that, expect their society to be just and fair. Also, in India, it is very common to change political parties, unbelievable, but people thirsty for your blood can become your die-hard supporter once you switch to the party they support. Unbelievable, but true.

Once elected people with a criminal background become lawmakers, no matter how many laws exist in the law book, how many courts function, or how many police personnel work, it is impossible to have proper law and order. This is because no elected person will allow to law to take its proper course unless it hurts their opponents. When people of any country start reacting to crime based on who has committed it, not what is the nature of the crime, that country is sure to get doomed today or tomorrow. Once people see crimes through political, racial, religious, or any other bias, they are not looking at the crime, but at the criminal's identity and react based on that. That means the reactions are not based on the nature or gravity of the committed crime but on the identity of the accused. The same crime based on who has committed it generated drastically different reactions, people either try their best to downplay or justify the crime or try to demand the harshest possible punishment possible. Politicians make very good use of this, they instigate polarized emotions within society and benefit from dormant hate that many organizations silently brew within the society. Hate is a very potent social weapon, politicians, religious fanatics, and terrorists all use it very well. People knowingly fall into this trap so regularly that one can hardly blame anyone but the people themselves for being a toy in the hands of antisocial elements. This is the point of today's post, India's problem is not its politicians but people who support these politicians and don't dare to speak when a politician or the party they elected does something wrong. Things don't change overnight, but to start any change people first should start from themselves, only complaining about the system hardly initiates any change. Once people change their attitude and demand accountability from the politicians they elect, things will start changing. Until then, the evergreen argument of India has potential, this is how things are done in India would continue for many more decades.

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

This is an attack on freedom of expression

On Friday, August 12, 2022, a  24-year-old man attacked Indian-born British author Salman Rushdie. The actual motives of this attack are not clear, but it is not difficult to guess why Mr. Rushdie will be attacked. He is an author who has written some books that created controversy in the past. Especially, his book, The Satanic Verses, first published in 1988, created controversy, and some countries like Iran issued a fatwa for his death. Various people related to this book (translators of the book in different languages) have been already attacked in various countries. This display of religious rage and hate is not new, freedom of expression is not guaranteed in many countries, even in some so-called democracies, books are banned and authors are attacked for what they write. However, the attack on Rushdie happened in the USA, a country with one of the best freedom of protection laws. Therefore, the attack is not just on Mr. Rushdie, it is an attack on the USA's core spirit, and it should be treated as such.

Freedom of expression is not an easy pill to swallow for everyone. Most people want this right for themselves so that they can say what they feel, and criticize whoever they want, but are seldom happy when others practice it, especially to say offensive stuff. Hurting religious sentiments is a timid and often-used excuse to curb freedom of expression in many countries. This is such a lame excuse. Religion is a centuries-old institution, it has survived violent attacks from each other (one religion attacking another verbally as well as physically), so, how does one more book or a speech or movie or anything expressed by anyone matter? If religions are not able to tolerate a book, movie, or speech against it how strong it is in reality? These are the questions religious people need to ask themselves, maybe they will find this post itself offensive, you never know. If we are serious about freedom of expression, we need to defend books like The Satanic Verses and authors like Mr. Rushdie. The USA has one of the best freedom of expression laws, these laws make this a special place for many like me who want to express and appreciate the expression of others. Defending freedom of expression is not easy, especially when things are being said that are offensive to us, but that's when it matters the most. If people around us only express things that we like or agree to, do you think there will be a need to protect free speech? Our commitment to freedom of expression is tested when offensive things are being said and when something despicable is said about things we revere or respect. Otherwise, why do we need such right? 

Protecting and celebrating freedom of expression is as important as defending the freedom of a country. Without freedom of expression, there is no real freedom. It really doesn't matter how old or how big of a democracy you are, it doesn't matter how old or how liberal your history or culture is, if there is no freedom of expression, there is no freedom at all. The USA has benefitted a lot due to its strong policies to protect freedom of expression. If it fails to do so the effect will be disastrous. I hope the attack on Rushdie acts as a warning to America and it acts accordingly to protect its most valuable aspect.

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

Empty nest?

Both my kids are in college now. Graduating from high school and going to college is a milestone in every student's life. The student and their parents give their best to achieve this moment. Going to college is an emotional moment for parents, they are happy to see their child graduate from high school and also a little sad because most kids leave their homes to attend the college of their choice, hence the metaphor of the "empty nest." Nests and homes have something in common, both are places where families live. Generally, nests are built to protect the eggs and newborn birds until they can fly on their own and feed themselves. However, there is one significant difference. Homes are not temporary residences, of course, people move and change their homes, but this is just a shift from one home to another. But the nests cease to be useful for birds once the newborn birds learn to fly and feed themselves. This is why I feel the metaphor of an empty nest makes sense but doesn't show the complete picture. Hence the question mark in the title.

Every phase of life changes the dynamics of our relationships. Every relationship, for example, between child and parent, friends, spouses, our surroundings, or our colleagues changes over time. Kids start their lives completely dependent on their parents or guardians, but slowly they get independent and pursue their own journeys. Parents are supposed to facilitate this process, but the journey has to be the kids' own. Unfortunately, not many parents are brave enough to allow their kids that free choice. Most instill them with their fears and insecurities, force their religious and political values, brainwash them with their cultural and social biases and prejudices, pass on their own stereotypes, and worst, use them as vehicles to fulfill their own unfulfilled dreams and expectations. Even after all this, every parent-child relationship is special in its own way as most parents do these things thinking that they are doing good for their child. 

When kids graduate high school, they are supposed to embark on their own journey. This journey is supposed to be special as they will be living out of their homes for the first time. In the US most colleges require living on campus for at least part of their four years of college as they believe that living separately from parents is a part of a student's growth. I did not get to do this, I lived with my parents until I left for the US to pursue my postdoctoral work. It had its own pros and cons. I never got to live an independent life outside the shadow of my parents until my late twenties, whereas most kids in the US start doing this in their teens, at the age of 18 or 19. Now back to the empty nest metaphor. Even though it is a beautiful metaphor, our homes don't get empty, my kids are very much part of our home, even though they stay 8-9 months of the year on campus and are busy with their friends during their vacations. So, the nest is not really empty, just relationship dynamics have changed, we have entered a different phase and it has its own charm and fun. 

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

Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com

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.

The power of being ordinary

The word "ordinary" has many negative connotations as if being ordinary is a crime or some sort of failure. We are constantly bombarded with these so-called motivational messages about how to be an extraordinary and super achiever. These messages do nothing but create an inferiority complex in some of us, beware of such unrealistic motivational messages. Most of these motivational gurus ignore one fact most of the world's organizations are functioning because of ordinary people. We, the ordinary people, make sure that day-to-day operations are performed smoothly, we perform those so-called routine tasks with utmost sincerity and care so that nothing terrible happens. Even after that, the label of the ordinary is something we feel bad about. Let's take that power back and realize the power of being ordinary. Ordinary does not mean being any less or inferior, it just means we are happy with what we have and want no more. When we are professionally or personally happy and content, we are at peace with our present, and there is nothing wrong with it.

There is nothing wrong with aiming high and pursuing our desires. People have different motivations to pursue their dreams. Some want to be a billionaire just because they love to have that much money, some are happy with whatever salary they are getting and do not wish to change their job or have any additional professional responsibilities. Both approaches are fine as long as it is our wish and we feel happy while pursuing that wish. The journey towards the final goal matters as much as the final goal. If we don't enjoy the journey then the major part of that process is not rewarding for us as the journey towards any pursuit forms a major part of that pursuit. Our achievements should match our expectations, not someone else's. We are here not to prove our superiority over others but to live our lives to our fullest potential. We need to realize the power of being ordinary. Ordinary or extraordinary, we all are unique in our own way and could be successful in our own way. We do not have to copy each other's lifestyles, but we need to live our own life in our own unique way. This is the power of being ordinary. Next time when someone tries to paint ordinariness in a negative light, remind them about the power of being ordinary.

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

Romanticizing poverty

"Poor people are happier," "There is more empathy and compassion among the poor compared to the rich," or "Money can't buy happiness." There are many such statements that either romanticize poverty or vilify wealth. I feel both, either romanticizing poverty or vilifying wealth, are gross generalizations. People who romanticize poverty or try to paint its rosy picture normally have never been poor in their life, or if they were, they are no more living in poverty. Most who tell rosy stories about the benefits of being poor definitely won't leave their comfortable life and live among the poor if given a choice. Of course, there will be some exceptions, but this is my general observation. It is true that money can't buy you happiness but it can give you access to resources and that's the whole purpose of having money and poverty robs your access to these resources.

I can tell from my personal experience that being poor is no fun, and no one stays poor by choice. Also, there is a difference between living a simple life and being poor. Living a simple life is a matter of choice, a simple person chooses not to use or exploit the resources that we have, but in poverty, there is no such choice, as there is no access to resources in the first place. Poverty not only affects your economic state, but it also affects your social and mental state. Many times it dictates your choices and makes you feel helpless, targeted, and angry. These feelings of helplessness and anger can manifest in many different ways. Poverty affects our personal choices, and it limits our personal and professional growth. At the same time, poverty teaches you how to deal with a lack of resources. How to live with limited access to critical resources like food, education, healthcare, shelter, and some basic enjoyment like watching movies and stuff like that. Poverty affects the entire family, kids get affected differently compared to adults and there are different effects on genders depending on the culture and society where we live. This does not mean that people living in poverty never ever feel moments of happiness. As kids, we had our moments of joy, but to generalize or paint them as a life of fun and exuberance would be a gross and unjust exaggeration. Among those rare and precious moments of joy, there are moments of extreme pain and helplessness. It is no fun to watch someone being addicted. There is no fun to watch daily physical, verbal, and sexual abuse. There is no fun to watch people dying due to a lack of decent healthcare. There is no fun to watch kids drop out of school to support their families. There is no fun to watch kids getting entangled in vicious circles of crime and addiction. And it is no fun to know that this vicious cycle will keep on repeating unless we as a society can take conscious and deliberate steps to intervene. 

Some think that poor people are poor because of their faults, laziness, or lack of effort. This is a very ignorant and superficial view. As I already mentioned, no one remains poor by choice, most living in poverty try really hard, to the best of their capabilities to come out of it, but their path is riddled with many hurdles that are difficult to understand for anyone who has not lived or experienced poverty. Looking from the outside, it's easy to find faults or provide some unpractical or ignorant solutions. One simple example is related to education. There is data that shows there is a gap between the academic performances of students coming from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Students coming from well-to-do families perform better compared to students coming from underprivileged families. Based on this if someone concludes that students from well-to-do families are more intelligent or more hard-working compared to students coming from underprivileged families, it will not only be wrong but also a socially devastating conclusion. Accessibility to resources is a huge factor in this. Factors like having enough space at home to study, enough quality food to eat, access to books, access to mentors, access to pay time or free time (yes, kids need that, they are not machines to study day and night), and a supportive peer group, they all contribute to the success of any student. As long as we don't understand the impact of each and every factor on the socio-economic development of underprivileged families we are neither going to understand their problems nor going to offer any viable solution. 

In many societies, poverty has a direct correlation with race or caste. This is the result of years of suppression and discrimination. This cannot be denied, historical facts and data both support this. People to refuse to accept this are either living in denial or are ignorant or are racist or casteist. This is not a perfect correlation, it's not a mathematical formula, but it is very clear. Therefore, equity and equality both matter equally. Our social and educational programs need to focus on equity as much as they focus on equality. There is no harm or shame in recognizing our privileges and acting accordingly. Being privileged is not wrong or anything to be ashamed of, but not recognizing it and behaving as if others who don't have access to the same resources should compete with us on the same level only shows our ignorance and lack of social sensitivity. Let's be more sensitive and compassionate towards each other. Let's try to understand each other's struggles, acknowledge the difficulties we all face, and try to help each other. Let's try not to look at everything from a political or religious angle. Let's try to be more compassionate humans.

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

I am a proud feminist

There are very few labels that I like to associate myself with, being a feminist is one of them. I think the feminist movement is one of the few moments that has transformed societies across the world. Feminism has revolutionized every society, every country, region, religion, and even many families including mine. This is a movement that does not have a single face, single leader, any book, or a set ideology. Feminism is about gender equality. Every feminist revolution is led by individual brave women and men of this world. Yes, you read that right, by women and men, both. The biggest misconception about feminism is that it's all about women. Mostly it is about women as they are at the forefront of this movement, but men are also an integral part of it. We men are part of the problem, so, we need to be part of the solution also. 

I agree that the label of feminism is a recent phenomenon, the fight for gender equality has been going on for decades. Many brave women tried to break barriers that tried to cage them, mostly without much success, but they all were as feminist as any of us can claim to be. No matter how recent is the label, feminism is now synonymous with gender quality, and the fight still continues as a lot still remains to achieve gender equality. Another important point is that a to of well-intentioned people who support gender equality hesitate to associate themselves with the word "feminist." This may be due to some hyperactive or radical feminists acting as if men are the origin of all the problems, the perception created in some sections of media is that feminism is about hating men. Both these things are not true. Like every movement when it spreads widely, feminism also has attracted a variety of people from different social, economic, political, and cultural backgrounds. Based on their personal experiences they shape their own feminist ideology and some of them behave like radical activists who want to bring overnight change by demolishing everything that exists today. This is neither a practical nor sensible approach, and this does not represent the entire feminist movement. For comparison, we can take the example of another widespread ideology, capitalism. Capitalism has transformed the economies of many countries, it has helped to generate and distribute wealth. However, at the same time, it has created a class of radical capitalists who believe that anything coming from socialism is evil, the market should have absolute power, the government should be only a spectator, and many more things. This does not make capitalism an evil movement per se, one can be a capitalist and still support equitable distribution of wealth, and one can be a pro-market and still support required regulations and oversight. Many times, we want things either to be good or bad, positive or negative, no matter how easy the binary view is, most things don't fit into the binary world, we now live in the world of the spectrum. Everything is like a spectrum and we need to find our match within that spectrum. 

I have witnessed gender discrimination since my young days, I know what it can do to children and how it can shape their thinking and behavior. Gender discrimination is devastating, not only for people who suffer because of it, it degrades the entire society. There are many examples around the world to demonstrate this. I have committed myself to doing my bit toward gender equality. This is how we can bring change, from one person to another, from one family to another. I invite everyone who is now aware of feminism or is skeptical about it to read more and talk with people like me to know about feminism and what can you do to bring change. What type of society will take pride in saying that they don't want gender equality. I hope no society wants to suppress almost half of its population so that it only benefits the other half. I define feminism as a fight for gender equality. If you support gender equality, you are a feminist. I am a proud feminist. I hope that you will join me in being a proud feminist and walk the path toward gender equality.

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

Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com

Body shaming and unrealistic beauty standards

Criticizing someone's appearance is not something that any of us should be doing, but we do it and it is more common than we would like to accept. In many societies, it is acceptable behavior even today. It is especially common when someone is overweight or underweight. We tend to comment about their physique casually in a joking manner, or sometimes out of concern with the intention that it will motivate them to work to improve their physique. No matter how good our intentions are, the approach is extremely negative and most of the time damaging to the psyche of the person who is at the receiving end of our comments. We don't even imagine what that person might go through because of our comments.

Body shaming is not motivating. Especially our assumption that any overweight or underweight person is not concerned about their health is ignorant and self-serving. It shows that we think we are better than them and are in a position to offer unsolicited advice about how they should deal with their body. Public shaming anyone because of their body is disgusting, but somehow we tolerate and even encourage body-shaming. If you don't believe me, watch many popular comedy shows and see how they target overweight or underweight people. This all appears harmless on its surface, but it does impact people who are at the receiving end of these comments. There are many ways to make a person aware of their personal health and well-being, but public shaming them is not one of them. Jokes and comments about the physical appearance of people are demeaning, I stopped watching some comedy shows because of their consistent body-shaming jokes. I am guilty of such behavior, I used to comment about the weight of someone thinking that it would motivate that person to work towards improving their health as weight was creating some issues. But I was wrong, no matter what was my intention, my behavior was not proper and I apologized for that. We all should learn this lesson and correct our mistakes. Just because something was or still is tolerated in our society or family for years doesn't make it right. Correcting our behavior whenever we realize our mistake is a proper thing to do. Please stop body shaming others, and if someone is doing this to you ask them to stop, no matter who they are. 

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