As explained in a previous post, one of the most powerful tools of the Yetzer Hara is "New!"

Some of the most harmful ideologies have used this.

Nazism promoted itself as a new solution to old problems. Combining nationalism with socialism was presented as the best way to achieve equality in society -- at least for those deemed Aryan, anyway. 

New cars! New vacation opportunities! New laws for factory works!

In reality, Nazism derived much of its ideology from pagan occult traditions. Even its infamous swastika is just the old Buddhist symbol for death and decline.

And its hatred of Jews was nothing new either.

Communism also touted itself as a new solution to old problems. But it turned totalitarian fairly quickly. "Rob from the rich and give to the poor" is not a new concept, nor is the idea that the government owns your stuff and can parcel it out according to whim.

The problem comes when new gets mixed with old. 

For example, in the above example of Nazism, the VW bugs produced in Germany were indeed a new kind of car. (Cars in general were newer to the scene.) And the idea of parceling out cars to citizens was technically a new idea.

But the foundation for Nazi ideology was pretty old. And the idea of catering to a chosen populace over another populace is also pretty old and overdone.

Thus, the means for carrying out these ideologies and methods were new, but the ideologies and methods themselves were not new.

Likewise, feminism presented itself as "New!"

They peppered their propaganda with persuasive words related to "new": "Remarkable! Revolutionary! Discover! The New Woman!"

("Self-discovery" was and still is a big hit with them.)

Yet much of what they presented as new wasn't actually so new. It was old with a new twist.

Women & Housework
For example, the idea of "freeing" women from domestic chores? Women who could afford it have been doing that since time immemorial.

The modern twist was that rather than being born or marrying into such financial capability, feminists wanted women themselves to earn it.

Women & Paid Work
Likewise, there have always been working women. There have even been women were the main breadwinners, either because they were widows or for some Jewish women of yore, because they wanted their husbands to learn Torah full-time.

The modern twist was that feminists wanted this for all women.

Women & Respected Professions
Throughout the ages, you can find women who fulfilled professional jobs of authority. There were ruling queens, doctors, lawyers, sailors, soldiers, storekeepers, printers, teachers, and more.

Massachusetts midwife Martha Ballard would be called a "healer" in today's lingo, but back then, her ability to also treat disease was simply part of what a midwife did -- and something she did quite successfully. According to what she writes in her diary during the years 1785-1812, she was clearly considered a respected medical professional & colleague by the male doctors who knew her. 

And the modern twist?

Feminists wanted access for all women to any profession they desired -- and this included access to the education necessary for the desired profession.

This coincided with increased opportunities for males, BTW. Unless they hailed from the "right" class, many males throughout the ages never managed to achieve professions, education, prestige, or other opportunities outside their limited station. 

So the expansion of opportunities for women actually coincided with expanding opportunities for men, and wasn't just a feminist thing nor just a feminist accomplishment.

Women & Childcare
And since time immemorial, women who could afford to hired others to care for their children. Yes, the mothers and caretakers and children remained on the same property, often in the same building together. But wet-nurses, nursemaids, nannies, and governesses often fulfilled the roles that mothers otherwise fill. Even today, many women who can afford it do hire a nanny or two.

In Dov B. Lederman's remarkable book, These Children are Mine: A Story of Survival and Rescue, Lederman remembers his childhood governess and their walks to the park. He also remembers kindergarten as a "newfangled invention," recalling that children generally started school at the age of 7.

In fact, Lederman recalls overhearing his mother speaking to someone about "the horror of taking a child away from his parents and sending him to kindergarten at a tender age." 

(But please note that even as Lederman's mother opposed kindergarten, the responsibility for her child did not rest on her alone 24/7; she hired a governess to lighten that responsibility.)

And that's the modern twist.

Many working women couldn't (and still can't) afford to hire a nanny to their home. So they searched outside the home for babysitting and daycares and preschools (which didn't exist in the quantities and quality they do now). Nowadays, these are popular options in modern society. But having your child physically far away from you -- even an hour's traveling time between mother and child -- is the norm. No longer under the same roof, the child is part of a group and hopefully receives the necessary care and attention as one of several.

​So none of the above is "new" as in "Never before seen!" or "Unprecedented!" or "Revolutionary!" or "Breakthrough!"-- which is how the above is presented to society.

What's new is the following:

• Breadth (widespread; the above is embraced by most women in modern society)
• Acceptability (Female lawyers, for example, are no longer an oddity.)
• Opportunity (Women - and men, for that matter - can access opportunities previously available only to upper-class white men.)

Acceptability & Opportunity also mean that discrimination is down. It's down for everyone at this point (except for white males). In fact, some companies and departments actively seek out female students and employees.

• Long-distance separation between mothers & children (although even this occurred in some areas during certain eras, such as British colonists in India sending young children to boarding schools in England or widowed parents placing their children in orphanages to meet the children's physical and educational needs, even if the parents made regular visits)
• Group care (although, again, children in boarding schools or orphanages received group care)

Therefore, certain attitudes and methods common today are different, but the actual ideas (women investing time and energy in something other than domestic responsibilities or hiring another person to carry out specific maternal responsibilities) aren't new at all.

The problem for frum Jews in all this is that when something is presented as completely new, it appears that there isn't any precedence for it.

Therefore, it gives the impression of not being covered by Chazal or halacha or mussar.

And if it appears to not be addressed by Torah sources, then where does the frum Yid feel he or she should look to for guidance?

To psychologists. Consultants. Researchers. Teachers.

Secular professionals, in other words. (Or frum professionals taught secular theories.)

​This is a problem, though it doesn't look like one at first.

The more something is "new," the less likely it is to be found in Torah sources...because it's new, right? It wasn't around during the composition of the Shulchan Aruch. It's not there, so we just have to come up with stuff on our own!

But as stated in a previous post, Chazal do discuss working mothers and this idea is even mentioned in Mishlei/Proverbs.

It's very important to hold out against the flood of "New!"

It's not good (or even true) when we think we're outside or above Torah.

I heard of a chassidish family in the Sixties who lived in an area in which feminists demanded the right to become firemen. The chassidish teens watched in fascination as these feminists raced around town in shiny red fire trucks.

The news outlets raved about it and it all seemed very exciting.

So the kids ran home and enthused about it to their old chassidish grandmother, who'd lived through 2 world wars and survived a death camp before finding refuge in America.

She'd seen all the "modern" movements come and go and she knew just how to handle them. (She also knew first-hand how extremely destructive these things tend to be.)

So Bubby said, "Well, I don't know about female fire fighters. So let's go look it up in the Shulchan Aruch."

That immediately set things into an interesting perspective. What could the Shulchan Aruch have to say about female fire fighters? After all, this was new!

At the same time, that immediately took some air out of the feminist sails. Maybe it wasn't actually so new?

Let's go see!

So Bubby opened the book and read the appropriate passages, then said, "You know, all I see here is that if there's a fire, then anyone who can needs to help put it out. It doesn't matter if you're male or female. If there's a fire and you can extinguish it, then you're obligated to do so."

Oh.

Well then...it's just another halachic obligation. 

Put into that perspective, then the modern twist is NOT the idea of a female fire fighter, but the idea of a fire-fighting force at all. In fact, the trucks and sirens themselves are suddenly "new"! (They weren't around in the time of the Shulchan Aruch either.)

Except that they aren't so new because the kids had been born into the existence of a fire department and indeed, horse-drawn fire engines had preceded trucks by decades.

Meh.

Then Bubby commented that she didn't see the point of racing around town in fire trucks with the sirens blaring if you're anyway obligated to put out a fire if you can.

And maybe there was concern whether these women had the physical strength to deal with the high-pressure fire hose, climb the ladder wearing cumbersome equipment, drag heavy people or more than one person at a time to safety.

There was possibly even concern about the danger to life and property if a fire emergency occurred while the trucks were already occupied with these feministy non-fire-emergency purposes (which also makes the trucks low on gas, etc.).

And that just took the wind of out the sails completely.

It's not new, it's not that big a deal, so...who cares? What's all the hype?

So instead of seeing them as remarkable or glorious, the chassidish kids were able to see these fire-truck feminists for what they actually were: useless show-offs wasting time and vital community resources. 

So when something is promoted as "New!" (or any synonym thereof), it's a good idea to look behind the hype and discover whether it's merely the same old Yetzer Hara trussed up in a new disguise.

Related Posts:
The True History of Women's Work
New-Age Nazis

Recently, I came across a section in the Kav Hayashar that describes the 10 consequences that will happen to those who oppress the Jewish people, just as these 10 consequences happened to the ancient Egyptians who oppressed Am Yisrael.

​Symbolized by the 10 pieces of chametz placed around the home the night before Pesach on Bedikat Chametz (they also symbolize the 10 Plagues), the Kav Hayashar explains the following in Chapter 89:

It occurred to me these judgments seem to be happening now.

True, we're not seeing them in full, but perhaps we are seeing the beginning of this process.

Our enemies, though they also attack us, mostly fight each other, eradicating each other. They're uprooting each other and shaking each other out, so to speak.

​Earthquakes (a definite form of shaking) have been occurring all over, but it can't be denied they've also happened in places that contain they who oppose Israel, whether for religious reasons or political (Leftist) reasons.

And in fact, the above list strikes those who oppose the core VALUES of Yisrael, whether they politically support the State of Israel or not. And many places stricken by the above definitely reject Torah values.

​Furthermore, with gender-change surgeries on the rise, we are certainly seeing a rise in the literal uprooting of the male part.

And the people who opt for these radical surgeries are people who oppose Torah values with all their might, with leaders bent on coercing the rest of society to think like them.

​"Confound them" -- society is certainly becoming more and more confounded, isn't it?

​Shocking things happen and no one on either side quite knows how to respond.

Just as one of many examples, President Trump's rapid ascendancy certainly confounded a great many Leftists to the point that we've seen the rise in something coined "Trump Derangement Syndrome."

And look at how many people are on psychotropic medication, especially children.

Drinking has been a problem for decades, but now there's also what's called an "opium epidemic."

People feel they can't manage life on their own.

Suicide is up among youth in America, one of the world's best places to live. 

​It all fits the above, except that instead of getting hit by a storm of hail, locusts, or frogs, people are doing it to themselves. (Although yes, the wildfires and volcanoes and earthquakes aren't being caused by humans.) 

While those on the political right in support of traditional values (some of whom are also Jew-haters and despise our pure monotheism) view the above as a type of persecution (as I do) and a war on traditional values, I'm starting to wonder whether maybe it's not so much an attack on us, but Heavenly Judgement being carried out against them.

True, we're affected by their meshugas, but it seems like they're actually suffering more, even if they don't realize it. Or even if they misidentify the source of their suffering.

​For example, those suffering from gender confusion point to society's nonacceptance of their dysphoria as the source of their suffering, but the truth is that the source of their suffering is their own dysphoria and their unwillingness to take an honest look at what really needs to be healed.

At least we have the Torah. We have Hashem. We have emuna.

​What do they have? 

Nothing.

As things start shaking up, confounding, uprooting, shattering, abandoning, destroying, we have the unbreakable Cord of Emuna on which to grasp tight.

They have nothing.

And this Cord of Emuna is available to anyone who wants to grasp on to it.

Anyone. You just have to grab it.

Ashreinu! Mah tov chelkeinu!

Have you ever noticed how Jewish women never try to take on the mitzvah of a beard?

Despite the powerful segulot of an untrimmed in beard described in Torah literature, women do nothing to try to grow a beard. They do nothing to even sport a fake beard.

In fact, many women invest money and time in efforts to eradicate any facial hair!

Furthermore, when perusing literature that glorifies a Jewish beard, you never hear a peep from women, like the following:

• "But what about us? Don't we matter?"
• "If Judaism prizes a bushy bristly face over a smooth-skinned one, then that innately discriminates against women."
• "As a woman, what can I do to compensate for a lack of beard? What are MY mitzvot?"
• "I feel bad every time I come across yet another Chazal praising the deep kabbalistic importance of growing a beard. It makes me feel like I'm worth less than a man."
• "In Judaism, the beard symbolizes the 13 Attributes of Mercy. Also, I read a Chabad article that emphasized how the beard represents the flow of ideals and philosophies of our minds to our everyday lifestyle. As a woman, how can I access all this too?"

In fact, I don't see that women focus on the beard issue at all or wrangle with it in any way.

What woman discusses her struggles to accept her beardless self the way it is or to internalize that a smooth-skinned face is a desirable part of sheh asani k'rtzono - that her lack of hairy jaw is simply Hashem's Will in His creation of women?

I've never a seen a woman give a class on how covering her hair or raising children or getting ready for Shabbat is on par with growing a beard.

Women don't seem to dwell on the whole beard issue at all; they just go on with their lives and their avodah.

It's also interesting to note that women don't fight for the right to have payos (a Torah commandment). In fact, when some married women try to make arguments for not covering their hair, they never bring up the issue of displaying payos. Everyone just seems to accept the fact that the mitzvah of payos is for men.

Nor is there any feminist movement for brit milah, despite the incredible benefits (both medical and spiritual) Jewish men received from this mitzvah.

(And don't say it's because women lack the necessary appendage; both the Yishmaelite and African cultures found a way around that obstacle, horrifically enough.)

I'm not trying to make fun of women who struggle with certain attitudes within in Torah Judaism. I struggled with several myself.

And BTW: If you do happen to struggle with your biological inability to grow a beard or fulfill brit milah, then you need to deal with that head-on just as any of us need to deal with any issue that Torah attitudes and Laws bring up within us.

I just thought that the beard attitude might shed some perspective on where women are coming from when a particular halacha or tradition makes them feel excluded or diminished.

It's often worthwhile pondering why you feel one way about one issue, but a totally different way regarding a similar issue.

With regarding to last week's contemptuous parading of severely anti-Torah ideologies, it got me thinking:

What if people decided to hold a demonstration in favor of lashon hara?

What if they decided to plaster posters around Yerushalayim in favor of lashon hara?

After all, we've spoken lashon hara before, whether we realized it at the time or not.

Or maybe we knew it was wrong, but we got overwhelmed by negative emotions and the lashon hara just spewed out.

Furthermore, you could make a emotionally compelling argument for the benefits of lashon hara:

• freedom of self-expression
• need for validation
• I feel SO much better after I've gotten stuff off my chest.
• I've got the Constitutional right to say what I want.
• The Torah says I'm forbidden to hold grudges in my heart, so I need to release my grudges out into the open.
• Restraining my true thoughts and feelings is like lying. I refuse to be dishonest!
• Other people need to know what that person is REALLY like - I'm performing a public service!

And in SPECIFIC cases according to HALACHICALLY DELINEATED guidelines, halacha does allow us to vent (to ONE person and within specific guidelines) or to warn others of another's nefariousness (again, within specific guidelines) -- but not with abandon and certainly not to glorify lashon hara or to proclaim it as a civil "right."

And the same can apply to any transgression.

Furthermore, many transgressions actually feel good -- that's why people commit them.

That's exactly why people struggle.

Maybe you really like pepperoni pizza. Maybe you hate waiting 6 hours just to have a latte after you ate noodles (technically pareve, for crying out loud!) that happened to be cooked in a pot that was definitely fleishig (meaty). Maybe you're stuck in a miserable life and the only thing that really makes you feel better is super-fashionable immodest clothing or flirting with the opposite gender or dance club songs.

Maybe you enjoy sniping a particularly caustic barb at a weak target. Maybe screaming at people when you're angry feels cathartic.

All over Chazal and mussar writings, we keep running into the same idea:

Hashem Himself receives tremendous nachat when we restrain ourselves.

In fact, restraint from committing specific transgressions (like lashon hara, for example) creates tremendous unimaginably glorious light in the Upper Worlds, with a beautiful reward waiting for us.

Hashem knows how much we want to give in. He understands the strength of the pull of certain transgression.

That's why we create so much powerful yet unseen good each time we restrain ourselves.

It's called gevurah.

And being your own gibur (or gibburah) is a beautiful construct to aim for.

We, the undersigned Jewish bloggers, hereby protest – in the strongest terms possible – the parading and glorification of an “alternative lifestyle”, one that is classified in the Holy Torah as an abomination, especially through the streets of the holy city of Jerusalem. 
 
The Torah demands that we live by a certain code of sexual morality, and as such, we are forbidden from certain relationships that a moral society cannot tolerate.  These include incest, adultery, bestiality, and homosexuality.  All these are considered grave sins in Judaism and incur the punishment of Karet, or excision from the Jewish people.  An act performed with witnesses during the time of the Sanhedrin would incur an even worse consequence – namely, capital punishment. 
 
And this is only on an individual level.  When the sin is committed on a societal level, it is much worse.  The Torah and our sages record how these acts were catalysts for both the Great Flood during Noah’s lifetime and the destruction of the Five Cities of the Plain.
 
As such, we consider any attempt to glorify acts that the Torah vehemently forbids by parading any such lifestyle through the streets with horror and utter disdain.  Such parades in New York and San Francisco would be bad enough, but through the streets of the Holy Land of Israel is a thousand-fold worse.  The Torah specifically warns us not to act in sexually abominable ways lest we be vomited out of the land.  One can only imagine how it is viewed in Heaven when people brazenly display to G-d how abominable one can be.  And if the Land of Israel cannot tolerate such acts of utter gall, all the more so in the holy city of Jerusalem, a city that is overwhelmingly religious. 
 
We in no way wish to minimize the struggles in temptation some may have in this area and view with positivity those who have such inclinations and bravely overcome them.  But those are not the people irreverently parading through the streets with rainbow flags, who show utter contempt for the Holy Torah and all we hold dear.
 
We therefore vehemently protest the “Pride” Parade in Jerusalem and everywhere else in the world where they may occur.  We hope and pray that those who take part in such parades do a complete Teshuva for their actions, and may we see a rebuilt Jerusalem, speedily in our days, Amen.
 
Signed,
(in alphabetical order)

Alizah from Alizah Teitelbaum
 
CDG from Hava HaAharona
 
Cosmic X from Cosmic X in Jerusalem
 
Dassie from Myrtle Rising
 
Devash from Tomer Devorah
 
Dov Bar Leib from End of Days
 
DS from Israel Truth Times
 
Goldie ZP from Geula613

אורנה ניצבת from Orna Nitzevet
 
Rabbi Lazer Brody from Lazer Beams
 
Yaak from Yeranen Yaakov
 
Yakov Butterfield from Jerusalem Cats: Jerusalem is not San Francisco

Yechezkel Hirshman from Achas L'Maala V'Sheva L'Matta

Yehudi Yerushalmi from Yehudi Yerushalmi

When talking to Hashem a couple of weeks ago, I was trying to reconcile my dislikes about my home. Certain things were really bothering me and had been bothering me for years.

But then He reminded me that He didn't even have a home.

His House had been destroyed.

And while I don't like how shabby or cracked my home has gotten, and I don't like a lot of my furniture (a lot of it I had little or no choice in because of circumstances beyond my control, so it's not my taste or what I find comfortable to live with, AND much of it is no longer in good condition), and I'm feeling frustrated and helpless about certain aspects of it, He pointed out that I don't have confused people led by harridans who hate me and even deny my existence, yet who label themselves the representatives of my home, and charge into my home, shoving aside the people who really love me while chanting offensive slogans and imposing a bad influence on my family by encouraging them to do things they shouldn't.

He pointed out that I don't have pigeons nesting in my walls and casting their droppings on the heads of my children.

He noted that I have more than one wall standing - unlike His House.

Foxes and other small animals do not scurry across my floors. (Well, not usually anyway.)

And He also pointed out that I don't have Yismaelite urchins treating the holiest part of my home and the most sanctified place on Earth like an abandoned soccer field, nor do I have a mosque in the most important part of my house (with all the noise and crowds that entails).

After mulling this over, I said, "You're right, Hashem. You win. I have no right to complain about my home's flaws when Your House is in ruins. Furthermore, if You don't have a House, then how is it at all fair that I have one? And even more Kind and Selfless of You, Ruler of the Universe, is that You've granted my home electricity and indoor plumbing. You're spoiling me with an entire apartment and modern amenities while You make do with just one Wall."

May Hashem's House be speedily rebuilt in our days.

Here's wishing everyone an easy Tisha B'Av fast.

May Mashiach come now in a sweet way and may we never experience anymore sorrow.

In my penchant for finding proofs to support my belief that American culture is cult-like and that the mainstream media is backed by evil people and bad agendas that cannot be relied upon, I decided to look up the actual numbers, statistics, and percentages of a popular race issues to see what they reveal.

This post starts off by describing and summarizing issues, then delves into listing the actual numbers. (If you just want the hard-core numbers, then feel free to scroll down to "A Look at the Real Numbers.")

And just for knowing, LOCD stands for "leading cause of death."

Note to Europeans: This blog uses "Asian" in the American way, which refers to people from the Pacific and the Far East (like Japan, China, Vietnam, the Philippines, etc). I never refer to Indians, Pakistanis, or Nepalis as "Asian."

Okay, here we go...

So let's just look at one subject of lies and distortions propounded in America, and that's the claim that America is a racist society where women and minorities are being limited by discrimination and oppression, and that white males are "privileged."

Just to be clear: I'm not arguing whether racism exists; it does exist, unfortunately.

My problem is that it doesn't seem to be as a big a problem or as debilitating an obstacle as the mainstream media likes to promote.

So if you imbibe the mainstream media, you might start to think that white cops are one of the most prominent threats to non-white communities, especially to black communities.

You might think that racism in general and the "microaggressions" of white people are debilitating obstacles for the non-white communities.

However, as even the mainstream media admits (although it tries not to discuss it), the top killer for black males between the ages of 15-34 is another black male of the same age group.

This means that despite the Left's mantra of racism in America, a black male would actually be safest if you put him in an all-white neighborhood.

In fact, this statistic implies that if you would put every young black male in a solely white neighborhood, you would immediately halve the death rate of young black males.

And despite the attention spotlighting Black Lives Matter, an organization screaming against the racism (of which there is very little) of white police officers, the actual numbers are as follows:

• 1 in every 65 deaths of a young black male is caused by a police officer
• Around 60 out of every 65 deaths of a young black male is caused by another black male

Hm. 1 versus around 60.

Oh yeah, I would definitely focus on the 1 killer, not the other 60.

Especially since the cop was mostly likely defending himself or someone else, and not killing for revenge or anger or while drunk or high, I would definitely focus on that 1 cop.

Yeah, sure. That totally makes sense.

I can tell that the BLM adherents really care about black lives because they focus on the 1 black life ended by a cop as opposed to the other 60 black lives ended by non-cops.

Yeah, I totally believe that BLM cares about black lives. This totally proves it.

[sarc]

A lesser known but more alarming statistic is that homicide is the second leading cause of death for black children aged 1-4 (representing 15% of male deaths and 12% of female deaths) after unintentional injuries, which is the leading cause of death for this age group.

In contrast, the homicide rate for white children in that age group is half that for black children, while the homicide rate for Asian children aged 1-4 ranks as the sixth LOCD for males (2.7% of all deaths) and the fifth LOCD for Asian females (4.1%).

We all might want to analyze the Asian community to see how they manage to protect their little ones from homicide so much better than every one else.

Oh, wait, no. Instead, let's just keep analyzing why they're so good in math! Yeah, that's so much more important than preventing the murder of small children!

Interestingly, if a black male can make it to the age of 45, he's highly unlikely (or not likely at all) to be murdered or to kill himself. In fact, suicide doesn't rank at all for black men over age 45.

Yet that isn't true for other groups.

For example, there is a suicide rate (albeit a low one) for white males aged 45-64 and for Native American & Hispanic males aged 45-54 and for white woman aged 35-64, and for Native American women & Hispanic women aged 35-54.

In contrast, neither homicide nor suicide ranks at all for black females above the age of 45.

So if white males are so privileged, why are they killing themselves more than black males or black females?

Why are they so unhappy and so despairing despite the "privileged" color of their skin and their "privileged" gender?

And did you know that the second leading cause of death for male Native Americans aged 10-34 is suicide. Age 10?! Do you think that might be preventable? Maybe someone should create an organization to deal with that.

I also think that someone should take a look at the high percentage of death by homicide against Native American girls aged 1-4 (15% of all deaths, as high as for black males in that age group). Combine that with suicide as the #1 leading cause of death for teenage Native American girls (almost 40% of all their deaths result from suicide!!!).

But no, let's just fuss about how to refer to Native Americans (by their individual tribe? American-Indians? Native Americans? First Nations? Not Redskins, for sure!). Proper nouns are for sure more important the murdered babies or suicidal girls...

Right, mainstream media?

Let's look at Hispanics:

• The leading cause of death among Hispanic males aged 1-44 is "unintentional injuries."
• The second leading cause of death among Hispanic males aged 14-34 is homicide.
• The third leading cause of death among Hispanic males aged 15-34 is suicide. 

WHO exactly is killing and depressing all these Hispanic males?

And are you wondering about the statistics for the much accused privileged white males? 
Well,

• the leading cause of death for white males aged 1-44 is "unintentional injuries."
• Yet the second leading cause of death for white males aged 10-34 is suicide.
• Homicide is the third leading cause of death for white males aged 15-24.

Who is murdering or depressing these young men? White cops?

It's shocking that homicide and suicide rank above cancer, heart disease, and most illnesses. We hear so much about cancer-prevention and helping children suffering from diseases or disabilities, but the statistics show we should be equally concerned about children of all races and ethnicities either being murdered or murdering themselves.

It seems that America is a nation of misplaced priorities, and it's those misplaced priorities are being set by Leftists and civil rights groups under the guise of being oh-so passionately compassionate and concerned.

In contrast, the second leading cause of death (after unintentional injuries) for white females aged 15-24 is suicide. Homicide comes in far after white males, with it being the 4th leading cause of death for white females aged 1-9 and 15-24, while it's the 5th leading cause of death for white females aged 10-14.

For black females aged 1-34, the leading cause of death is again, "unintentional injuries." (For black females above the age of 35, it's either cancer or heart disease.)

Disturbingly, homicide is the second leading cause of death among black females aged 1-4 and aged 14-24, a more common cause of death than disease, birth defects, or suicide.

As stated above, for Native American females, suicide is the #1 leading cause of death between the ages of 10-19.

• Suicide comprises 30.3% of deaths of Native American girls aged 10-14
• Suicide comprises 39.4% of deaths of Native American girls aged 15-19

Meaning, Native American teenage girls are more likely to die by their own hand than by disease, accidents, or anything else.

Does that bother you at all?

It bothers me.

Yet when do you hear people talking about this?

Then suicide decreases to the 2nd leading cause of death (16%, after unintentional injuries) for Native American females aged 20-24 and then ties for 2nd place with chronic liver disease for Native American females aged 25-34 with 8.7% of deaths resulting from either one. (The ranking of chronic liver disease is unique to Native Americans compared with all the other groups.)

In contrast to the other groups, cancer makes an appearance as a leading cause of death for Hispanic females, which it doesn't for other races or genders. Hispanic females aged 10-14 or 35-44 are most likely to die of cancer, and not than unintentional injuries or anything else. Suicide becomes the second leading cause of death for Hispanic females aged 15-24 and the 3rd leading cause for the ages 10-14 and 25-34.

What does that mean? I don't know.

Furthermore, despite the hype about white privileged males, the above statistics show that young white males are killing themselves as much as or even more than reputedly disadvantaged groups of the same age, like black or Hispanic females.

Why is that? What's going on? And why is no one talking about that either?

It's been said several times on this blog that American culture is basically a cult nowadays. If you just rely on mainstream media, you will think that black males are in urgent danger of being killed by white cops.

And yes, you may also hear that the leading cause of death for a young black male is murder by another young black male. At least they get that priority right.

You will also hear lots of stuff on racism and worry about the self-esteem of teenage girls, their body image, general self-image, depression, rights, and eating disorders.

You will also be under the impression that white males are "privileged" as if they live on Easy Street and can be dismissed or ignored. Even more, media propaganda gives the impression that white males need to make way for less advantaged groups -- like females and all non-white groups (in other words, literally everyone else in the country).

In other words, we don't need to worry about white guys.

But do you ever hear that the second leading cause of death in young white males is themselves?

There is a lot of propaganda going on and a lot of distraction to keep us from looking at real problems.

So for example, if I wanted to look at the lives of American teenagers and how to help them, I would start by looking at the 4 LOCD (leading causes of death) within genders and racial/ethnic groups.

The following is based on a much more extensive breakdown along genders, ages, races & ethnicities, which you can see at this link:
https://www.cdc.gov/healthequity/lcod/index.htm

And the initial breakdown looks like this:

So just looking at the ranking, I'm concerned that suicide is one of the top 3 leading causes of death in all groups, and even the top 2 or the leading cause of death in the case of Native American females.

Why on earth are young people in one of the best places to live killing themselves?

And because the 2nd and 3rd leading cause of death among white males is suicide and homicide (the same ranking, though not the same percentage, as for the truly underprivileged male Native Americans), I would immediately remove the classification of "privileged."

Unless, of course, you think it is a privilege to hate and despair of yourself and your future so much that you end your own life or you think it's a privilege to be murdered.

I'm also wondering what "unintentional injuries" are?

It's the leading cause or 2nd leading cause of death in all groups.

Does it mean that teenagers are clumsy? Living with irresponsible people? Driving badly or living in areas where people drive badly? Are they swimming irresponsibly? Engaging in daredevil activities? Sports? Eating spoiled food? Accidentally drinking bleach that someone stored in a water bottle?

Let's see what "unintentional injuries" kill teenagers in the USA...

You can read the full article on this subject and see all the graphs here:
https://www.childtrends.org/indicators/unintentional-injuries

Unintentional Killer #1: Vehicles
It was a bit difficult to get details on exactly what kind and how much of "unintentional injuries" kill teenagers, but motor vehicle accidents are the leading death by "unintentional injuries" in this age group. Now, motor vehicle deaths have gone down quite a lot for children and teenagers (perhaps due to safety features and improved medical treatment), but this still remains the highest cause of death for this age group.

Unintentional Killer #2: Poisoning
"Poisoning." It's not what you might think.

The 2012 statistic shows that 85% of "unintentional injury" of teens through "poisoning" is from drug overdose or alcohol poisoning (which I'm assuming means that the alcohol didn't poison them like drinking a bit of hemlock would, but that they drank too much alcohol at one time).

Now, you might think that drug or alcohol overdose is suicide (after all, it's self-inflicted and easily controllable), but it's only considered suicide if the person meant to commit suicide. If he or she only meant to get high or drunk, then the resulting death is an "unintentional injury."

Death by "poisoning" has actually increased in teenagers.

Because so much of it has to do with alcohol or drugs, it's a wholly preventable death.

And since there is no need to drink or take drugs (while there is a need to use motor vehicles), one wonders why teens are engaging in such self-destructive behavior.

I would also look at this "unintentional injury" in conjunction with the suicide rate and wonder why American teenagers are feeling so unhappy and so hopeless.

Unintentional Killer #3: Drowning
Knowing American teens as I do, I can't help wondering how many of these unintentional drowning deaths are alcohol-related.

Unintentional Killer #4: Other
What does this comprise? I'm not sure. Yet it ranks out above unintentional death by fire, suffocation, and other transportation (planes, trains, etc).

Cancer & Disease
I'm also concerned about the ranking of cancer in teenagers. While no one is sure about the exact causes of cancer, there are interesting theories.

Many studies show a correlation between cancer and lifestyle & diet.

Yet newer and more probing theories suggest a correlation between cancer and one's inner world. People who eat themselves up with envy, resentment, bitterness, and hatred (of themselves or others) can find the cancer eating up their own body.

Just off the top of my head,  I can think of at least 2 people I knew who died of cancer that seemed to come from rage and helplessness. One repressed her negative feelings, but one admitted not long before she died that she "knew" her illness came from an maddening situation that seemed to have no end or resolution in sight.

Even seemingly cheerful or serene people can repress such emotions while these negative traits eat them up inside without them realizing the existence of these feelings.

And heart disease in such young people? What's going on?

Pregnancy Complications
I'm also concerned about death from pregnancy complications.

The percentage of teenage deaths resulting from pregnancy complications are as follows:

• Native American: 3%
• Black: 3%
• Hispanic: 1.1%
• White: 1%
• Asian: Doesn't even make the ranking

I'm assuming most of these girls aren't married and that these are irresponsibly conceived pregnancies.

And I'd look to Asian teens to see what they're doing, to learn why they don't die of pregnancy complications. Maybe discovering that can help the girls in other groups.

Homicide
What percentage of teen deaths result from murder?:

• Black males: 49.5%
• Hispanic males: 20.2%
• Black females: 17.9%
• Native American males: 14.2%
• White males: 8.6%
• Hispanic females: 8.5%
• Asian males: 6.6%
• White females: 4.9%
• Asian female: 2%
• Native American females: 1.5%

Oh, gosh.

This means that half the time you're looking at a dead teenage black boy, you're looking at a murder.

With Hispanic males and black females, around one out of every 5 or 6 teen deaths is a murder.

Who is killing these kids?

We know that young black men are the prime killers of other young black men, but who is killing all these black females and Native American males?

Do anyone really believe it's white cops or President Trump's rhetoric?

(It's not.)

Also, while the percentage of male Native American deaths via murder is high, the percentage for female Native Americans is lowest. But why? Is the reason reassuring or disturbing? For example, is it because Native American teenage girls are killing themselves before anyone else can?

It's all extremely disturbing and I don't understand why it's not being discussed more widely and frequently.

Also, please note that a larger percentage of white male death results from murder than Hispanic, Asian, White, and Native American females and Asian males.

Also, a white teenage male is twice as likely to be killed by a cop than an Asian teenage male.

What a tremendous privilege!

(Question: If white cops are racist, then why are they more likely to kill a white guy than, say, a Chinese guy?)

Suicide
What percentage of teen deaths result from suicide?:

• Native American females: 39.4%
• Native American males: 33%
• Asian males: 27.3%
• White males: 25.5%
• Asian female: 21.8%
• White females: 18.7%
• Hispanic males: 16.1%
• Hispanic females: 15.7%
• Black females: 9.2%
• Black males: 8.8%

This is so bizarre and disturbing.

This also leaves a lot of questions.

For example, is the percentage of black male suicide the lowest because black teenage boys are happier and more hopeful than everyone else or because other black youth kill them before they can kill themselves?

It also looks like, despite their "privileged" skin color and gender, white males are more deeply unhappy and despairing of themselves than white females, Asian females, Hispanics, and blacks -- some of the very groups generally considered underprivileged and disadvantaged.

Why is that? Why isn't their much-lauded white male privilege working for them?

It's all very disturbing with a lot of unknowns. (Unknown to me, at least. Likely, someone else knows.)

After reviewing all this, it's impossible not to be extremely concerned about Native American teenage girls.

As shown above, nearly 40% of Native American teen female deaths result from suicide. (And don't forget that the following cause of death is "unintentional injury," which includes a lot of self-inflicted drug and alcohol overdose.) The suicide rate for preteen Native American females is also whoppingly high at 30% and the homicide ranking for Native American females aged 1-4 is one of the highest (around 15%, the same as for black males aged 1-4).

Yet we don't see anyone blaring: "Native American Girl Lives Matter!" even though I really think that someone needs to tell Native American girls that their lives actually matter a lot because they don't seem to be realizing this on their own.

The Asian male suicide rate is also alarming, especially taking into account that the next Asian male age group of 20-24 ranks suicide as the #1 leading cause of death, making up 34.6% of the deaths in that age group, which is not so different than Native American female teens.

Why is that?

Perhaps we need to approach Asian males on college campuses and hand them a "Your Life Matters" sticker.

Anyway, someone might want to look into that.

But I think none of this information will gain any mileage because it doesn't fit the agenda of the people disseminating the propaganda.

I don't think they care about anyone's lives.

Okay, you know how Mark Twain said, "There are...lies, damn lies, and statistics"?

All the above represent percentage of deaths, but another important indicator is percentage of population. And that's missing from all the above.

For example, if black male teen death was super low, then the fact that half result from murder means something different than if black male teen death in general is very high.

Also, within that abstract and varied category of "unintentional injuries," it matters a lot what percentage of the fatal injuries resulted from motor vehicle accidents caused by the other driver and also what percentage were drug- and alcohol-related.

So the above numbers tell a lot and are very disturbing, but they are far from being the whole story. A lot of information is still missing.

Also, there is a lot of background information missing.

Cultural background plays a huge part in the above statistics.

For example, Native Americans endure an exceptional status in America and many live on reservation where they are given the impression of self-governance, yet are really at the mercy of non-Native American bureaucrats. Many reservations endure dismal conditions and offer dismal futures.

Because they're nations living within a nation, they experience differences in lifestyle, identity, and status compared to other American minorities. For example, many tribes attempt some form of self-governance on their reservation. (The strength and success of this attempt varies from place to place.) And there are hundreds of treaties made by the American government with different tribes, which are still considered in force today (even though they've all been violated at least once, usually by the American government).

As another example, the Kickapoo tribe was able to travel back and forth over the Mexican-US border using their official tribal enrollment card instead of an American passport like every other American citizen. In 2011, Pascua Yaqui & Kootenai tribes issued Enhanced Travel Cards that can be used between the Mexican-US border and on US domestic flights. In fact, the Iroquis/Haudenosaunee tribe has their own passport (but this is not honored globally). Many feel like they possess dual citizenship with their tribal nation and the USA and lack trust toward the American government (even as many are reliant of US government programs).

Finally, different tribes don't necessarily like each other, so it's difficult to create "the" best plan for Native Americans as a whole. Just like Native Americans have a history of war and broken treaties with the US government, they also have a history of wars and atrocities between different tribes. To this day, for example, there is animosity between the Lakota Sioux tribe and the Crow tribe.

Other background factors are that some Asian cultures view suicide as the acceptable or even honorable option in certain situations, so that may impact the high suicide rate among Asians.

Those are just 2 examples.

I can think of a lot more questions and possible contraindications and contradictions by looking at the above, but this post is long & convoluted enough as is.

But anyway, it seems to me that people fed by the media will continue to badly misunderstand and misprioritize the real problems in America and will assume that the problems can be solved by shouting slogans, wearing nonsensical symbols, ignoring facts, focusing on their own group while ignoring the hardships of other groups who may be suffering a lot more, protesting against Ben Shapiro speeches, and heaping blame on President Trump & white cops.

Anyway, we see that the issues of concern in society are complex and take a lot of research, and are horribly misrepresented or underrepresented in the media.

But it's clear that white cops are not a major problem in these issues.

Neither are President Trump's tweets or Ben Shapiro's presence on college campuses.

And black people are not the only people deserving of our care and attention.

So why all the distraction from real problems and their roots?

Also, it seems that racism is not the core of today's worst problems, but self-hatred is, along with a lack of hope or meaning in life, a lack of respect & appreciation for oneself and for others.

It seems that this is a result of an increasingly Godless society, where values such as realizing that everyone (including yourself) is made in God's Image, and that Godly values like compassion, forbearance, humility, perseverance, and emuna are considered naive, superstitious, or inapplicable.

Related Post:
Why No One Needs BLM; We Just Need God

I'm a bit late to the game regarding the toeva march in Eretz Yisrael; I've been paying a less attention to the news lately.

But it bears saying that if Hashem so opposed something, then it must be really bad.

If He calls it an "abomination" ("toeva"), then it must be REALLY bad -- and not just that uptight boors think it's bad, but that it actually hurts people, it hurts society, and it harms even at the simplest level in that it hurts just the two people people who are willingly involved.

Whenever Hashem declares something REALLY bad, then you can find compelling reasons in the natural world why that thing is bad, especially if it's also incumbent on non-Jews and included as a mitzvah or prohibition within the 7 Laws of Noach. Just as with polytheism, God expects us to know better.

(For the serious problems with polytheism, please see:
If the Torah is So Adamant, Then That Must Mean Something: Why Polytheism Really is So Awful

So what's up with toeva relationships, especially the big prohibition between 2 men? It's portrayed with so much compassion and naturalness in secular society, and there are some really nice people who happen to be attracted to their own gender. (Britain's Douglas Murray seems to be one, for example.)

So why is the Torah so adamant against it?

What's so bad about it?

First of all, the people who are behind the whole push to accept toeva relationships and toeva marriage are evil, corrupt people.

The whole push for this started in Hollywood. And even news outlets and book publishers are owned today by entertainment conglomerates.

An as has been an open secret in Hollywood for decades now, Hollywood bigwigs abuse children.

And the entire #metoo movement basically ignored this child abuse, even though these ladies certainly know about it.

Reports of assault on child actors by top movie stars or "grooming" parties in which pre-teen boys are invited to, say, a swimming pool by Hollywood moguls have been discussed for a long time now in the media (although it's never given the lengthy spot-light it deserves).

Corey Feldman in particular has been vocal about this abuse, his courage spurred on by the self-destructive behavior and eventual suicide of his close friend and fellow child actor, Corey Haim. Feldman never lost his conviction that Haim's penchant for self-destruction emanated from the profound pain he never managed to escape, the pain brought on by the abuse from Hollywood's heroes and idols.

Research points both to sxual abuse and the father-son relationship as being major influences on a guy's orientation.

No, it doesn't mean that every boy who lacks the paternal relationship he craves or who endures abuse will develop a taavah for mishkav zachar. Some never will and could never imagine being attracted to anyone but a woman. And some will develop an attraction to both genders.

To put it in oversimplified terms, it's like the potential is there but it's not activated until the abuse or relationship flip that orientation-switch, so to speak.

Many people refuse to accept the above, yet it's impossible to ignore the huge percentage of males attracted to their own gender who suffered abuse and/or a poor father-son relationship.

(I also want to point out the correlation between, say, an absentee, neglectful, or scary father and sxual abuse. Abusers prey on vulnerable children. If a predator senses that a child lacks protection, that the child's father is either not there, uninterested, weak, or conversely, so scary that the child will not confide in the father, then that is an ideal victim in the eyes of a predator. This goes for daughters too, BTW.)

And the Hollywood moguls want to keep feeding this lie because if orientation is entirely genetic and "born that way," then that lets them off the hook. The generally false theory of genetics and being "born that way" discourages people from digging further.

Also, these Hollywood creeps are not exactly family men, so they don't want to acknowledge a father's role in the well-being of his children. If father's aren't necessary to child development, then men can keep doing whatever they want and needn't commit to or invest in their children.

Furthermore, with the rise in single-motherhood (whether unwed mothers or divorced mothers), we've seen a rise in men attracted to their own gender.

Correlation does not prove causation. But when we add up all the correlations together, it creates an arrow that points at causation.

(And yes, I realized that some divorce and of course widowhood cannot be prevented. At the same time, what I keep seeing and hearing from the secular world and the reasons for many -- though not all -- divorces lack conviction. Widowhood is no one's fault and unfortunately, Hashem sometimes sends hard challenges our way, yet He also helps us at the same time. There's a difference between facing a challenge purely from Hashem -- like widowhood or a truly unavoidable divorce -- and facing a challenge brought on by your own bad middot, which are also from Hashem, but still.)

But the main indicator is this:
If the Torah condemned such behavior in such strong terms, then that means something.

It means that something about this behavior is extremely harmful.

Throughout human history, evil always appears in the guise of compassion.

Pharaoh portrayed himself as merely concerned for Egypt; all those Hebrew foreigners breeding and multiplying -- what's a pharaoh to do? (And most of the Jews got carried along with this propaganda and decided to prove their loyalty by volunteering for work.)

The Communist claim was simply a cry for rights and equality. The poor must be fed and cared for! Who can argue with or oppose such a compassionate and noble cause? Yet Communism became the impetus for millions of deaths, the impoverishment of millions, and slow torturous dying in Siberia. Even today, Communism is synonymous with government corruption & kangaroo court trials.

Nazism also came under the guise of caring for the poor and the disadvantaged. It opposed dangerous work conditions in factories and stopped class discrimination in schools. The first people sent to concentration camps were mostly not Jews; they were habitual criminals and corrupt people that no one wants in their society (plus some inconvenient political rivals). The first Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses was ignored by the German population. In fact, the only businesses successfully boycotted that day were enforced my Nazi brownshirts; otherwise the German people would've patronized those businesses too.

Shocking but true, here is a DIRECT quote from the fiendish fuhrer (yemach shemo) himself in 1943:
"We want a society with neither castes nor ranks…we want this people to be peace-loving, but at the same time to be courageous...both peace-loving and strong.”

In 1943, the Nazis were rounding up and executing the anti-Nazi White Rose members, liquidating the Krakow ghetto, burning alive all 156 inhabitants of Khatyn Belarus, fighting the starving Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, rounding up the Roma people for extermination, invading peaceful countries, and appointing Mengele as chief medical officer in Auschwitz. Horrifically, the Auschwitz gas chambers and crematoria of 1943 were fully functioning and in use, decimating the Jewish people.

Does any of that sound peace-loving to you?

Does that sound like a society free of castes or ranks?

Didn't think so.

Yet as the Germans enjoyed their improved working conditions, their sharp reduction in debilitating unemployment, their new VW bugs, their newly affordable vacation resorts, their new equality regardless of class, the humane new laws for animal protection, and their new glorious self-image...the Nazis insisted that "racial purity" was the answer and therefore, the Jews must go.

So the same people who cared so much about the poor and underprivileged ended up burying babies alive and pushing toddlers in gas chambers.

Evil always presents itself in the guise of compassion.

So the people behind the scenes who are feeding the public with all sorts of propaganda regarding same-gender attraction to the point that if you disagree with one word they say (no matter your own observations and scientific studies and Torah Law), then you'll be shouted down and smeared.

But the ones pushing this agenda onto society, the ones hiding behind the scenes don't care about real freedom or fulfillment or love or compassion or any of those nice-sounding ideas.

All those pretty rainbows don't mean a thing; it's just pretty paint over a dark idea.

They just want to be able to keep abusing little boys.

And no matter how good and sincere your intentions may be, if you support same-gender marriage and the toeva march, and if you oppose any kind of reparative options, then please understand what you're really supporting and opposing.

Just for knowing, I stand against violence (including verbal harassment), except for cases of self-defense.

Anyone can do teshuvah and toeva is no exception.

No one is perfect and everyone has the right to try and even fail -- and then try again.

But approval? Never.
_______________
If you want to see the actual numbers, studies, and stories, you can start here:
Part I: What's So Bad about Adam and Steve?

For more about evil's guise of compassion and general deception, you can go to this 12-part series: America's Scary New Direction. Feel free to click on whatever part interests you, no need to read it all or go in order.

Although it has become very popular in America for American citizens to attack their own country as an evil bastion of racism, it's just not true.

Furthermore, decent people do not need to be bullied into treating other races and ethnicities fairly.

And bullying or thought-and-speech policing nasty people will not change them.

Furthermore, regarding people who aren't decent, we have the law.

And yes, sometimes even the law isn't enough. Sadly, some criminals get away with their crime, whether motivated by racism, financial gain, power, taavah, or just plain sadism.

BLM (Black Lives Matter) and similar groups and their followers who attack others do nothing for their communities, especially since the top killer for black males between the ages of 15-34 is another black male. (A lesser known but far more alarming statistic is that homicide is the second leading cause of death for black children aged 1-4 & 10-14, after unintentional injuries, which is the leading cause of death for those age groups. So BLM might want to look into see who's murdering black one-year-olds. Helpful hint: It's not white cops!)

The fact the BLM and other groups posing as protectors of racial minorities refuse to even address what actually destroys black lives - and it's not white cops - demonstrates their total lack of caring and compassion for the very people they claim to protect.

So let's look at some historical examples of people who WEREN'T racist, even when it was legal to be racist.

And they did so without BLM or civil rights thugs threatening them.

Born in Massachusetts in 1735, Martha served her community as midwife and general medical practitioner who treated the ill and delivered over 800 babies in 27 years until her death in 1812.

Among the women she treated, there were free blacks who received the same dedication and care as Martha's white patients, even if it meant that Martha (along with a neighborly assistant) had to sit up all night in uncomfortable conditions. Also, Martha's diary records her interactions with a little Native American girl who used to come out of the forest to Martha's home, and Martha freely gave her foodstuffs.

Needless to say, Martha did all this without any pressure to be politically correct or culturally plural.

She was a profoundly religious woman who simply cared about others.

Harriet Jacobs was born into slavery in North Carolina in 1813. Taught to read by her her first lady owner, she eventually made her way to Massachusetts and published her memoir Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl under the pen name Linda Brent in 1862. 

But before escaping to the North, Harriet hid out in the plantation home of a white woman who refused to sell her slaves for any reason. The white woman hid Harriet for several days, despite the danger to the white woman's reputation, legal penalties, and the generous reward offered for Harriet's return.

In fact, Harriet's greatest threat was a fellow black slave named Jenny.

The other black slaves labeled her as "naughty."

Described as "always got the devil in her" by her fellow slaves, Jenny suspected the house hid a fugitive and wanted to flush out Harriet to return her to her slave owners.

Yet after the other female slaves informed the white mistress of Jenny's interference, the white mistress kept Jenny busy in the kitchen until plans were made to go spend the day in the country, taking Jenny with her, and allowing Harriet to find a better hiding place.

Considering travel in those times, this day-outing was a big inconvenience and likely the devil-inhabited Jenny wasn't an enjoyable person with whom to spend the day.

Yet the white mistress did so anyway.

Not because BLM told her to, but because of her own sense of decency and compassion.

In fact, many white people helped Harriet along her journey to freedom - again, out of decency and compassion, not BLM thuggery.

(Although BLM might want to have some words with Jenny...)

It's worth noting that the Underground Railroad that helped black slaves and the freedoms black people eventually enjoyed could not have and did not happen without the dedicated participation of good-hearted white people.

The full memoir of Harriet Jacobs is available online and makes for some fascinating reading:
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper/JACOBS/hj-site-index.htm

Until 1836, black orphans (unwanted in white orphanages) were housed in alms houses with all the homeless adults and received no nurturing, education, or protection.

So 3 white Quaker ladies decided to open an orphanage to care for the black children.

It was quite an undertaking because no one would rent out a building for black children, so the ladies were forced to buy one. As soon as they managed to get it up and running in 1836, these ladies headed straight to the almshouse and immediately collected 11 orphans to bring them to refuge in the new orphanage.

The orphanage grew to accept more and more black children, and also accepted Native American children in need of better care.

They also provided work for the brilliant black doctor, Dr James McCune Smith, who traveled all the way to Glasgow to receive his medical degree due to the racist restrictions of that time in American medical schools. He was appointed the orphanage's medical director.

Both the black doctor and the white matrons encouraged the children to make the most of themselves and to succeed in life.

The Quaker ladies did all this despite the fact that slavery was still legal in the South and blacks suffered limited rights in the North.

When the overflow of the Civil War draft riots turned into a racist mob (comprised not of Americans, but of Irish immigrants) and attacked the orphanage in 1863, one of the white matrons risked her life to lead every single one of the 233 orphans to safety.

Two Irish firemen also risked their lives to fight the terrible fire, endangering themselves to save the black children from both the mob and the raging fire.

While the people in the mob were obviously evil, I'm not sure that waving posters proclaiming "BLACK LIVES MATTER!" or Antifa could do to change their minds or stop them. (This is despite the fact that, unlike BLM's target of a mostly non-racist police force, the above incident was actual violence with deadly intent against a purely innocent populace and motivated by genuine racism.)

Also, it would probably shock Leftists today to learn that white people are capable of such courage and compassion on behalf of black children, with no ACLU or BLM or thought police to bully them into it.

Jewish pioneers of the Sante Fe Trail of New Mexico, Levi Speigelberg arrived with his brothers from Germany, then sought out a nice Jewish girl from afar and brought over the pretty 29-year-old Betty in 1860. (Betty was a classy version of a mail-order bride.)

With few women in the area, Levi's pretty new wife stuck out to the point that a buggy drive past army headquarters caused the soldiers to sit up and take notice, with one saying, "By Gingo! What a beautiful woman in these war times. A fellow might be tempted to kidnap her."

Upon hearing a report of these words, Levi forbade his wife to even look out the bedroom window (for fear of her being seen) while his 3 brothers slept in an adjoining room with loaded shotguns to defend Betty from any potential abduction.

Yet one day, Betty heard a female voice crying out and moaning from under her bedroom window: "For God's sake, help me! I'm starving and bleeding to death!"

Afraid to approach her window, yet unwilling to ignore the young female's desperate situation, Betty ran across the yard to her husband's store, but he was trying to hold off all the rowdy soldiers fighting and shouting for provisions.

Rushing back to her room, Betty listened to the piteous cries for help until she dared to look out the window and saw a young black girl, still begging for help.

With assistance from Betty's Mexican maid, Betty succeeded in dragging the girl into her house where she washed, fed, and listened to the girl and sent for a doctor.

Soldiers had snatched the young black girl from her plantation, then assaulted and abused her until she managed to escape and make her way to Betty's bedroom window. If she was "starving," the assault and abuse must have gone on for at least a couple of days.

Going out for the girl must have been terrifying for Betty, who saw on the battered and bleeding girl what had been threatened to Betty.

Yet Betty did it anyway.

There's no record of Levi Speigelberg's initial reaction to his wife's daring heroism, but Levi allowed the girl to stay while he and his brothers pooled their financial resources to buy the girl's freedom.

And not only did the Speigelbergs help this particular black girl, but also a black male slave and they rescued a Native American girl captured by soldiers.

I want to point out that it's unlikely that the Spiegelbergs had encountered non-white people before coming to America. And regardless of your own race, if you didn't grow up with people of other races, then people of other races often look strange until you get used to them.

(Case in point: A friend of mine went to a village in Ghana where white people hadn't been before, so she and her friends were the first white people the children had seen. After being faced with a trio of pre-teen boys who walked backwards so they could stare at the 3 white people who were walking along, one of the boys quipped, "Man, you people sure are UGLY.")

Yet good-hearted people respond with compassion and courage anyway.

The Spiegelbergs didn't need anyone shouting out them "Black lives matter!" or "Black is beautiful!" in order to risk their lives or put forth serious financial resources to help black people.

Then there's the story of my grandpa, who rescued a black man falsely accused of murder. It happened in New York, in the 1930s or 1940s. You can read that here:
Values: When People Want to BE Good & Not Just Feel Good

This black man could have been executed for a crime he never committed, but Grandpa intervened to save his life.

It's worthwhile noting that the above heroes did not use politically correct terminology.

For example, my grandpa used the term "colored" and "black," but I never heard him say "African-American." "Negro" was common for a while in the USA, and even the "n-word" was common and not considered innately racist. (Actually, it's merely a corruption of the word "Negro," which is just the Spanish word for the color black with no secret evil meaning.)

Just as an amusing digression: I have a copy of a book of poems written by a Southern family member who was born just 2 years after the end of America's Civil War. In the book, she references black people by using the n-word, but she usually describes them sympathetically or even admiringly. It was quite a mind-bender when I first read it to see a sympathetic or admiring portrayal of a black person using the n-word! But a Southern friend explained to me that the word's usage wasn't then what it is now.

In fact, the above-mentioned orphanage for black children was officially called "The Colored Orphan Asylum." In today's language, that paints a picture of a building full of mentally deranged little black kids, but in reality, the children nurtured by The Colored Orphan Asylum turned out well, both morally and practically, and had good memories of their stint in the orphanage. One former charge even expressed concern that today's foster care system is a step down from the group home environment she experienced in The Colored Orphan Asylum. 

I personally do not use derogatory language to describe my fellow human beings' race or ethnicity, but as long as you are using acceptable terms that aren't inherently racist and you don't have racist intent when you use them, then what is the big deal?

So I prefer a person who innocently calls black people "colored" and will risk being burned to death to save black children from a fire to the thought-and-speech police who are makpid to use whatever politically correct language is in vogue (and fanatically correct the speech of others), but do nothing for humanity.

And I think that's right.

My point isn't that there hasn't been racism (there has) or that there isn't racism (there is) or even that laws can solve everything (they can't).

The point is that all of the above people were familiar with the idea of every human being being made in God's Image with some familiarity of verses like: "Justice, justice, you shall pursue" and "Do not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor" and "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Even though my grandpa wasn't a religious person, he'd been raised with Torah Judaism (albeit practiced and understood on a superficial level). I don't know how religious the Speigelbergs were, but the Speigelberg brothers were connected enough to Jewish values that they waited until they'd saved up enough to go all the way back to Germany to marry a Jewish wife.

So this is the running thread through many of these acts of courage and compassion by white people toward disadvantaged minorities.

And yes, I realize that there are people who read the Bible and claim to be religious, but are racist.

What can I tell you? Some people refuse to internalize Hashem's value system.

My point is that the key to fighting racism is imbuing ourselves with the idea that every human being really is made in God's Image.

Also, it's up to us to emulate Hashem's Ways, to respect and embrace how HE views the world.

And as stated in Tehillim/Psalms 145:9: "Tov Hashem l'kol v'rachamav al kol ma'asav - Hashem is Good to all and His Compassion is upon all His creations."

Violence, ranting, witch-hunting, self-righteous mobs, and reverse racism can't do that.

In fact, such people may want to read about Joyce Gladwell here:
Anyone Can Talk to the Big Master

It's only about Hashem and getting back to Torah values.

For more stories like the above, please see:
More Examples of People Who Opposed Racism

One of the obstacles for women to reading original sources is their discussion of women. And at some point, the Sage will mention women's daat kalah.

I think a lot of women don't know quite how to respond in their own mind to this, and I think there is trepidation or a lack of skills in looking it up. So a lot of people (including men) fall back on apologetics or trying to pretend it's not there or trying to understand it superficially (with all the negativity that implies).

But first, here's an explanation of daat (or daas, if you prefer):
Daat is very hard to translate because it means different things in different contexts. In some contexts, daat means “knowledge” or “mind,” but neither of those definitions relate to daat in this context.

In Kiddushin 80b, Rashi explains daat kalah as being more "easily swayed/influenced/seduced” by subjective factors.

So there you go.

And yes, men are also swayed by subjective factors, like their physical needs (which is why some men can "forget" really important things or behave irresponsibly and selfishly when they are tired or hungry or worse), but an observant person will see that it's still different than the way in which women are swayed and influenced.

For example, it's easier to convince women to act against their own interests or values or integrity or knowledge than it is for men IF the women are not firmly anchored in emuna.

This is why history is replete with out-of-wedlock conceptions and women functioning as "ladies of the evening" and more recently, the feminist movement and the female pro-abortion stance and joining military combat units. It's immoral men and immoral women taking advantage of such women's daat kalah for their own evil agendas.

In contrast, Chazal heaps praises on women's steadfast emuna and loyalty to Hashem, praising women for keeping the halachot they know more faithfully than men.

So steadfast emuna counteracts any downside to daat kalah.

The prime daat source—Chazal—imbues every person with a center of spiritual gravity to hold him or her securely in place. The more one learns AND internalizes Torah, the more daat he or she has.

Women don't completely lack daat, we are just daat-lite. Men have both daat and binah, but women are lighter than men on daat and heavier than men on binah, baruch Hashem.

And here is the truth with which many modern women understandably struggle when reading Chazal:
If you are female, you are innately light on daat.

Yes, you are.

But it doesn't mean that you can't achieve personal greatness.

Sara Imeinu was a higher-level prophet than her husband, yet she still had daat kalah.

Beruria was a screaming genius and a baalat emuna, yet she still had daat kalah.

Chana merited to birth Shmuel and is the prototype for tefillah, but she still had daat kalah.

Hashem set things up like this for everyone's benefit. Men are supposed to provide women with daat. It's part of the innate giver role with which Hashem imbued men.

A lot of men refuse to access their own daat, let alone let it overflow onto others, which is one of the major reasons why things have gotten so wonky in the frum world.

If women are lucky, they have fathers or husbands who are a healthy source of daat. This is a significant part of the male role in family and society. Unfortunately, many men don't know to fulfill this role properly and many women don't understand the importance of being receptive to this male contribution.

If you are a woman and you don't have the appropriate men in your life, or the men you do have are either amei haaretz or namby-pamby misers about providing you with your rightful quantities of daat, then you can turn to learning mussar on your own, learning a halacha a day, consulting with a rav (if he's right for you), or just turn straight to the Source Himself: Hashem (which is exactly what smart Jewish women have done for millennia, actually.)

But it's vitally important to note what daat kalah is NOT.

Daat kalah is NOT synonymous with being:

• stupid
• pathetic
• hysterical
• unworthy
• deserving of disrespect
• blindly obedient
• inconsequential
• an excuse to denigrate women (including a self-denigrating woman)

It CAN be the root of or exacerbate the above negative qualities, but it doesn't NEED to.

And again, this can't be said enough:
Daat in this context has nothing to do with intellectual IQ.

You (ladies) can have skipped 2 grades in elementary school, achieve early entrance to Harvard medical school, and graduate at the top of your class...and still be controlled by your daat kalah. (Yep. I've seen it, and it ain't pretty.)

On the other hand, you can be a regular student and get married out of high school and balance keeping house while sitting pregnant at your part-time desk job...and be wise beyond your years, a fountain of good middot, wisdom, and brilliantly applied binah. (I've seen this too and believe me, it's something to aim for.)

Please remember that in the same breath (or quill) that Chazal mention a woman's daat kalah, they also mention her extra binah, an ishah chachamah (a wise woman), an ishah maskilah (an intelligent woman), female prophetesses, along with the great emuna, fidelity, mesirut nefesh possible in women.

The Torah itself is compared to a Woman of Valor (Eishet Chayil), and other exalted holy female characterizations are:

• the holy Jewish neshamah
• the Shechinah
• Eretz Yisrael
• the Jewish people
• the Sabbath (Shabbat Kallah/Bride)

So in a nutshell, you can have daat kalah and still become:

• a prophetess
• a woman of great wisdom
• a woman of profound intelligence
• a holy woman
• a tzadekes (a completely righteous woman)
• the best adviser to your husband (so says Bava Metzia 59a)

On the other hand, a man has normal amounts of daat, but he can still be an evil pig.

So to sum it all up:

Women who allow their innate negatives to control them are a pain in the neck and damage society.

Men who allow their innate negatives to control them are a pain in the neck and damage society.

Women who use properly what Hashem gives them become a merit for the world (as the Kli Yakar says in Chayei Sara, that righteous women are as vital to the world as the rotation of the Sun).

Men who use properly what Hashem gives them become a merit for the world (like the 36 tzaddikim in whose merit Hashem allows the world to exist) 

So everything depends on what you do with it.

Chazal doesn't denigrate women, it states a fact for the benefit of both men and women. (And really, since they mostly expected men to read their words, they mostly wanted men to understand this IN ORDER for men to take proper responsibility.)

Well, if this was your issue (as it was mine at one time), I hope this helped.
__________
Related post:
Halacha: The Best Boost for Daat Kalah

May we all complete our tikkun in this lifetime without trials or tribulations.