As mentioned in a previous post, I really wonder how much of the kind of male chauvinism occurring in American society prior to the feminist movement was actually a result of advertising and Hollywood projection, rather than innate male tendencies or traditional societal attitudes.

The feminists leading their way in the Seventies would've grown up in the Forties and Fifties -- right smack in the middle of Hollywood's ever-growing movie list and also when TV was becoming popular. By 1955, half of American homes possessed a TV.

That's a pretty powerful influence.

To compound things, this Forties/Fifties generation was raised by America's first film-going generation. In the 1920s, most Americans went to movie theaters on a weekly basis, with all the Hollywood influence and cultural impact this implies.

(Just as a quick example: The heavy makeup, shorter skirts, and suggestive dance moves popular in the films had an immediate impact on the fashion and dancing of the average girl in the 1920s. The movies also influenced women toward smoking, drinking, and public displays of affection, acts that were unacceptable before.)

Because women were portrayed so badly in film and TV -- and because men were also  portrayed negatively when interacting with women -- it seems that decades of showing abusive men and exploited women as good or normal might have influenced general society, no?

The earlier black-and-white films touted as "innocent" by many today (including some frum people who should know better) were actually worse in some ways than modern films. Yes, the violence wasn't as graphic and the male-female interactions weren't as explicit and the language wasn't as crass, but the disdain for women was extremely obvious and so bad that a smidgen of it was no longer acceptable by the Seventies (even as all other aspects worsened, as mentioned).

For example, it was common in older movies for a woman to become hysterical (often with good reason, but still exaggerated compared to how normal women behave in the same circumstance). At that point, her husband or boyfriend would give her a ringing slap in the face. This was portrayed as good or necessary. (This kind of scene was no longer acceptable by around the Seventies.)

Now, in real life, how many times do you see women literally becoming hysterical? Rarely, right? Yet this was common in the movies. What further confused and disturbed me as a little girl was how, logically speaking, the woman seemed to have good reason for her hysteria: She felt genuinely frightened or threatened, sometimes she was being lied to and manipulated by the very guy who hit her for her own supposed good, and so on.

Even worse, the slapper was often portrayed as a good guy. So you had the "good" guy slapping a woman who was rightly upset.

Hmm...

In another old black 'n' white film (lauded as "progressive" for its predominantly black cast), a woman slouches on the sidewalk pining for her rogue boyfriend to take her back. Just then, he walks by with his new girl on his arm. When the lovelorn woman throws herself at his feet and hangs onto his arm, he smacks her back down onto the pavement. The girl on his arm just sniffs and they continue on with their stroll. The pining woman continues to sing of her grief over the scumbag's rejection.

Now, I ask you: Is the above scenario normal?

Yes, I know there are dysfunctional people like this. But I'm asking if it's normal.

After all, would a normal woman still want a man who just whammed her to the pavement? (And do normal woman yearn for cold-hearted abusive men who cheat on them?) And from the replacement girl's side of things, wouldn't you be unnerved if your man smacked down his distraught pitiful ex right in front of you? Wouldn't that imply something disturbing about his character?

Also, again, the women's distress was justified. All she wanted was for him to marry her, a very decent and wholesome desire. She was willing to give him everything in return, yet he rejected her. And when she showed rightful distress over this, he attacked her as if she was a disgusting bug. And rather than realizing that he was a violent miscreant whom she was better off without, she continued to warble piteously about his rejection.

The messaging there is pretty awful, yet we are supposed to accept it as normal.

Ben Shapiro has often explained Hollywood's methodology:
Hollywood creates a likeable or sympathetic character, then makes that likeable sympathetic character do something the viewer would normally find repugnant.

And that is how Hollywood changes society's values.

This is the problem in a nutshell.

On the old TV shows and movies, I also remember a couple of times when a woman was physically abused by her husband or boyfriend. Again, the husband was a popular character on the series or the lead in the film. So again, you have someone you like doing something demeaning and abusive. Even worse, it's presented as comic and the studio audience is laughing uproariously. So not only is abuse okay, it's also funny and entertaining, and judging by the woman's scripted reaction, made her like him more.

Another confusing scenario that occurred often in the old reels was how the female lead would be pursued by the ideal guy: good-looking, responsible, steady, and treats her respectfully. However, there was also a cad in the film who was handsome but without any other redeeming qualities. Yet the female lead would always fall for the cad and reject the attractive decent guy who very much wants her and wants to marry her!

I remember finding this very disconcerting as a child.

It was so blatantly disturbing and irrational that Gloria Steinem capitalized on this exact experience in her books. Tapping into this experience garnered her a following of women who remembered being disconcerted girls watching the kind of roguish man she should avoid being portrayed as the hero while the heroine makes a terrible life choice by choosing him over the truly good guy -- and this was portrayed as a happy ending.

And again, Hollywood was not portraying normal life. Traditionally, girls were brought up to AVOID this exact scenario. Since the 1700s, literature (both fiction and non) and caring relatives warned girls against falling for cads. The stable good guy in pursuit of marriage was the desirable one.

But not in Hollywood.

Both the men and women in Hollywood tended to find marriage suffocating. They found exciting and physically attractive people far more alluring than good-looking people of good character. The Hollywood stars and staff valued negative emotional drama over fulfilling life dramas, such as weddings, childbirth, family dinners and holiday gatherings, etc.

And they brought this warped attitude into their art, which they then projected onto the entire world.

As a teenager going into the 1990s, reading Gloria Steinem's description of this experience suddenly brought back forgotten memories of these films and the confused, disconcerted little girl I was while watching them.

All the more so, for women who'd grown up in the Forties and Fifties, for whom these types of films were the only fare.

Harassment and unwanted touching also appeared commonly in older films. And again, it was often the hero or the likable character indulging in it. Furthermore, it was also portrayed as funny, and not as threatening and traumatizing as it would be in real life.

For example, I was a huge fan of the Marx Brothers movies. I loved them as a child and watched them repeatedly. At the same time, it bothered me how Groucho Marx was always stringing along that older wealthy lady for her money. It was portrayed as amusing and acceptable to reject a woman merely because of her looks (even though Groucho Marx was extremely unattractive himself) and to use her just for her money and connections.

This reflects the real Hollywood moguls until today. In the latest present-day scandal, for example, you saw the repulsive-looking mogul exploiting beautiful young women who would otherwise never come near him if he hadn't been wealthy and influential.

Hollywood bigwigs have often been ugly immature creepy men who viewed women in a disturbing manner. And that's also what they portrayed in their movies.

Hitchcock, for example, described actors of either gender as "cattle" and was just plain gross with women off-set.

Hollywood screenwriters and producers were always pointing the cameras at themselves, so to speak, justifying their own immoral behavior and deplorable values.

In another scene, Groucho Marx starts mauling the cabin maid whose come to arrange the linens in his ship cabin. She looks obviously unhappy about it, but he doesn't give a hoot. I remember feeling shocked that she seemed totally resigned to his gaggle-eyed, grinning groping. She didn't seem surprised or horrified and did nothing to defend herself, didn't try to move out of the way, leave, push his hand, slap him, complain, delicately fend him off, nothing. She didn't even freeze up; it was all business as usual.

Again, the scripted behavior did not reflect a real-life response.

Note: I'm not saying that her response would never have happened, I'm saying that it wasn't a normal response to a man mauling a woman as she's carrying out her job. Many women would be shocked and freeze up, or some other kind of traumatic reaction.

Furthermore, she was his subordinate. There was an implication that as the maid, she had no power and that putting up with his mauling was part of her job.

And it was really creepy that he was so enthusiastically enjoying himself when she so obviously was not.

Yet the film portrayed it as funny. We were supposed to laugh at this and think it was cute, like an endearing little boy who caught with his pudgy little hand in the cookie jar.

Mauling a helpless maid isn't endearing or funny -- unless you are a degenerate.

But again, as the audience, you liked the Marx Brothers. Everyone did! Yet they committed immoral acts as part of the fun. And that's exactly what breaks down the viewer's inner defenses.

Children's movies didn't escape this either. I remember in Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang looking on with horror as a cackling man poured wine down the front of a protesting woman's low-cut dress. It seemed scary to the little girl I was because I wouldn't want someone doing that to me. Yet again, this was portrayed as comic and not as vulgar or appalling.

In the The Little Princess (1939), Shirley Temple recites this whole sonnet (completely unrelated to the plot) about a guy smooching a girl who doesn't want it at all, but it's presented as funny and acceptable. I also found that very disturbing as a child. For girls, it's scary to think that someone can just grab you or force himself on you in some way.

So when you have an entire generation (or more) of boys growing up watching this behavior (which was traditionally considered appalling) as merely funny and cute (something a woman will definitely tolerate), how does than affect males and their own behavior toward women?

Seriously. If you read earlier memoirs and the like, grabbing at women just wasn't considered appropriate. (It was more something that drunks did, and drinking & drunken behavior also used to be looked down on.) Novels and moral literature abounded with cautions to girls about such men and men weren't supposed to behave improperly around women.

(Remember how men used to watch their language around women, remove their hats, and say "Ma'am"?)

Of course, abuses and exploitation occurred in society prior to Hollywood.

No one can deny that.

My point is that in a society founded on the principles expressed in Mishlei/Proverbs (as America once was), all the above was not acceptable and considered very inappropriate until Hollywood came along and said that it's actually not bad at all; it's not only acceptable but it's even funny and something all the cool guys do.

In a 1940s movie, the hero was a handsome young college student fighting a Nazi spy. Yet in one moment completely out context, a demurely dressed blonde student quickly passed by the hero and his group of friends. In response, they craned their necks to make demeaning catcalls at her before turning back to a very serious conversation of national security.

And again, her facial expression (and did the speed with which she passed by them) showed that the attention was completely unwanted.

So you have the likable attractive hero suddenly harassing an innocent young woman who's obviously very unhappy with his treatment. It also indicates that it doesn't matter whether the woman intensely dislikes such treatment. It's okay anyway! Her feelings are totally irrelevant.

This kind of portrayal stamps approval on such behavior.

Another popular classic movie from 1954 had the hero leering at a dancer who lived in an apartment across the street from him and had no idea she was being spied on by the creep.

And in one of the first scenes, his girlfriend played by a particularly beautiful actress came to visit. She had everything: beauty, wealth, good manners, and high social standing. Yet she sat there knitting while he treated her with utter disdain. At one point, she showed disappointment about being kept on his string instead of him committing by marrying her.

He waved his hand at her and told her, "Aw, shut up." (This would've been considered appalling manners in the 1950s.) And in response, she just pouted, but didn't leave or even get huffy with him. Instead, she kept on sewing. (Message: Even if you have nothing to offer, you can treat super desirable women like flies, and they'll totally accept it.)

Now at this point in America, it was completely acceptable and even laudable to marry your serious girlfriend. The vast majority of American men in the 1950s married between the ages of 22-23.

And this was not just considered a good thing, it was considered the manly thing to do.

Getting married demonstrated highly regarded traits like responsibility, maturity, and the ability to shoulder weighty duties like holding down a job and making enough money to support a family. Remaining faithful was also expected and respected.

But to the men of Hollywood, marriage was like a prison. Populated by men who valued immorality and considered women playthings, their leading men had to be crass creepy cads because that's what they were too.

The other problem with this scenario was treating an extremely desirable woman like dirt. This is a common theme in older movies. The female stars of Hollywood consisted of some of the most beautiful women in the world. Most men of that time would be thrilled if such a woman wanted them and would marry them in a second.

Yet in the movies, the leading men repeatedly treated these most desirable women with appalling disdain.

Again, this is not how normal men instinctively relate to women who are beautiful, rich, refined socialites. But in Hollywood, this was considered appropriate and normal behavior because the men running Hollywood were (and continue to be) abnormal jerks.

Even when the script implied that the young beauty was breaking all social mores by giving him whatever he wanted, he still treated her like dirt. Again, this was confusing as a youngster because it seemed like these men were unpleasable. Even when she gave him everything he wanted, he still didn't like her. Yet he was the good guy?!

And as always, such behavior was portrayed as amusing and totally acceptable.

Unlike feminists, I don't believe in letting guilty people off the hook just because of their gender. This means that Hollywood actresses also share the blame. Yes, these women were usually exploited. But in their private lives, they also behaved with unrepentant immorality.

They were sort of like the Hollywood women today who complain of harassment, but did and do nothing about the child abuse rampant in Hollywood, and continue to star in roles that demean women.

Unfaithful to their own husbands and cheating with married men and producing a baby from that adulterous union, neglecting or abusing their own children, and in general behaving like horrible narcissists, the beautiful stars known as "America's sweethearts" bolstered Hollywood's lack of morals.

Even in their old age, they showed no remorse. You can find interviews with these elderly stars in which they applaud today's lack of morality, complaining that "back in those days," they needed to hide their infidelities so as not to harm their popularity. One former star said the reason she kept getting divorced and married was because in "those days," it wasn't acceptable to live with a man, so you had to marry him.

They were often awful mothers too.

So again, you had women who held no respect for real women's roles (like that of a faithful wife or nurturing mother) acting out her own decrepit value system. And rather than striving for a truly fulfilling role in real life, like becoming a doctor or a teacher, these actresses played out their real selves backstage, by using men and being used by them.

This next example has nothing to do with women, but it shows how far back Hollywood was comprised of corrupt people and was already warping traditional values.

Let's take a 1928 Laurel 'n' Hardy film. It starts off with an escaped criminal followed in hot pursuit by a comically furious policeman.

So immediately, the film encourages you to sympathize with the law-breaking criminal against the law-upholding cop. Then something heavy falls on the cop, and it's supposed to be funny and good, because the cop (who is behaving with courage and justice) gets punished and the criminal gets away.

Later, Laurel 'n' Hardy end up with hermit crabs up their trousers. Most of the movie consists of this joke, that these grown men are getting "nipped" on their rump specifically by the crabs, and keep thinking the other man is the one who's pinching him there.

Not only is the humor preschoolish, but it portrays bizarre assumptions and behavior. What grown man would "nip" another grown man in normal society? Can you imagine the men of Little House on the Prairie or Caddie Woodlawn behaving in such a manner -- even as a joke?

Who would think up this kind of scenario? (Hint: A creepy perv.)

Then Laurel 'n' Hardy needed to adjust their pants in the alley way, and when they come out together zipping up their pants, they accidentally do so in front of shocked passers-by.

This is vulgar however you look at it. If you're an innocent, you'll see it as, "Goodness, two men were caught looking like they'd been relieving themselves in a public alleyway!" But if you've grown up in modern American society, you'll see that the implication of two men coming together out of an empty alley way while zipping up their pants as...?

You tell me what the script was hinting at.

My point is that even way back in the Twenties, Hollywood was already really gross and projecting their degeneracy and vulgarity and immaturity onto the silver screen.

And it used humor, which is the best way to break down defenses.

Because then they can claim they're only kidding. I mean, what's wrong with you? Can't you take a joke?

Or they can accuse of you of having the dirty mind. I mean, sheesh, is that what YOU really think when you see two men coming out of the alley way? Get your mind out of the gutter, you family-values hypocrite.

See what I mean?

One of Hollywood's slogans is that they're merely portraying real life.

Yet again, all the above were against social norms.

The "real life" Hollywood likes to portray is its own degenerate narcissistic meaningless life.

However:

• Catcalling and harassing women was considered unacceptable in normal society, especially when the women's dress and behavior reflected ladylike propriety.
• Not wanting to marry (and especially not wanting to marry a highly desirable woman with every asset in the book) wasn't considered normal or desirable.
• Touching women inappropriately or forcing yourself on women was also not acceptable.

And this list goes on.

This doesn't mean that such things never happened--tragically, of course they did! But as long as such behaviors were frowned upon, they were limited.

Yet once Hollywood portrayed these behaviors as innocent, amusing, and even idealized, that portrayal affected the moviegoers and TV audience.

How could it not?

I remember as a teen that we spoke like the characters we watched on TV. Our slang, inflection, and attitude were all copied from our entertainment media. And we certainly absorbed their values, especially since outside of religious communities, the only values we ever encountered were the ones epitomized in our TV, movies, and magazines.

Is it too much of a stretch to imagine that a young man who has spent his life watching leading men and heroes harassing and disrespecting and even hitting women as comic relief or as a necessity or uncontrollable act might absorb this attitude?

And what about their effect on the girls and young women watching them?

Remember, these movies went on for decades.

Going to the movies was considered an innocent American pastime, like picnics and white picket fences. There was little social criticism of the content.

Sure, film and TV faced a censorship board, but they didn't censor everything and anyway, Hollywood considered it a badge of honor to do everything it could to circumvent these censors.

How must it have been for the girls who were suffering from an abusive father, a father who slapped their mother, or who were harassed or touched/kissed inappropriately by someone, to see their trauma and violation displayed on the big screen -- and portrayed as funny, endearing, or justified?

That sounds pretty traumatic to me.

So I don't think it's a coincidence that many of the leading feminists and passionate proponents evolved from dysfunctional backgrounds:

• Gloria Steinem lost her mother at very young age and her father wasn't able to be the kind of parent Gloria needed
• Germaine Greer's mother likely suffered Aspergers, which drove Germaine from the home by age 18
• Betty Friedan's mother was an unhappy housewife who mourned her loss of career
• Simone de Beauvoir's high intelligence was complimented by her father as, "Simone thinks like a man!" -- implying that high intelligence cannot be a feminine trait.
• Several suffered from philandering fathers
• Many impassioned feminists suffered abuse from men when they were young girls

Other feminists don't seem to have grown up in a dysfunctional family, but their adult behavior is so dysfunctional, it makes you wonder.

For example, the extremely popular feminist Alice Walker reports positively on both her parents and her teachers, even as she grew up in impoverished segregation and a brother accidentally shot her in the eye with a BB gun. Yet she was an appallingly neglectful and insensitive mother to her own daughter. At one point, Alice even informed her daughter that she had "chosen" to love her (implying that her daughter wasn't innately loveable, but rather someone that Alice needed to force herself to love). This deeply hurt her daughter.

Just as bad, Alice Walker published a famous poem in which she compares her daughter's birth to other "calamities" in her life.

How would YOU feel if your celebrity mother described your existence in her life as a "calamity" AND announced this to the entire world?

When her daughter asked for an apology for the years of pain caused by Alice, Alice refused and insisted she was no longer interested in the job of mother.

There is something clearly wrong with a lot of these "womyn."

(If you missed it, this previous post explains why a woman who is supposedly pro-woman & fights for women's "rights" can still be so cruel to other women, including her own female child.)

And like I said, Gloria Steinem used the disturbing Hollywood portrayals to touch women and bring them to her side. But once she had innocent women in her grasp of pseudo-empathy, she offered destructive solutions framed in pretty pictures.

Sociopaths are shockingly skilled at feigning empathy (in the short-term; over the long-term they start to sound weird because they're just faking it). They know which buttons to press and how to play the victim.

(Remember, Nazism started and continued on the fuel of a victimhood mentality. This is the way fascist movements gain and keep momentum. Communism did the same.)

In summation:

• Any chauvinistic attitudes or oppression that already existed in society was enthusiastically fanned by Hollywood and glorified as normal or desirable or funny.

 

• Rather than assuming that society was always rife with awful misogyny and that a man's natural inclination is to oppress women unless he has a feminist around to make him behave, it makes more sense to take a look at the role Hollywood played in glorifying the mistreatment of women.

 

• Hollywood embraced certain mores and behaviors generally considered immoral or unacceptable, and presented them as funny, acceptable, or even ideal.

 

• Hollywood productions were never innocent and clean. In the world of films and TV, there are no genuine "good ol' days" to return to.

______
Note: Radio, which both preceded and paralleled film, was also a problem, as was Vaudeville, on which the first films were based. Furthermore, while this post focused on American film and TV, the film/TV industry in other countries was similarly problematic.

Note: If you choose to comment, please use coded language or purposely misspelled words to mention topics that, say, you wouldn't discuss around children because my filter is fickle and can block me from seeing my own post if it picks up on certain words. Sorry for the inconvenience!
___________
For a long time, I also held the view that many frum women hold: that while feminism brought a lot of bad stuff, it also served as a conduit for some good things too.

They claim when that there were real problems within society that needed to be fixed, and we've all benefited from those positive changes that came along with feminism.

The problem is that while yes, there were real problems that needed to be fixed, it isn't actually true that feminism was the answer, and that the positive changes since the feminist movement resulted purely from the feminist movement.

The misogynist or limited aspects of society were already changing even before feminism officially bombarded the scene.

In an interesting book called Let Them Journey: Uniting the Past with the Future, we meet the British daughter of Lithuanian Jewish immigrants, Etta bat Shlomo HaLevi (her last name wasn't mentioned), who qualified as a barrister (a common-law lawyer) in 1944 while she was a married woman with 3 young children.

(She wasn't the first female barrister, but she was one of a tiny minority of female barristers.)

She was the only woman in her class and yes, she did have to put up with a snipey comment from her lecturer and active obstruction later from another barrister to whom she was apprenticed. (This type of barrister is known as "a barrister principal.")

Yet rather than indulging in flamboyant protests and slogan-chanting, she simply put her nose to the grindstone to prove her professional worth.

And it worked!

Through Etta's intelligence and competence, she turned her barrister principal around & he ended up sending her work out as his own, assuring her a place in the barristers' chambers. (Yes, I know that copping her work as his own is far from ideal, but it could be that this was the common practice with their male apprentices too, and not only acceptable, but even complimentary. It's not clear to me either way from the context.)

Anyway, as a working barrister, she argued her cases with intelligence, grace, and tenacious patience before male judges against other male barristers, winning the judges to her side.

She also developed a method for dealing with juries, which consisted of repeating her point 6 times, a method which persuaded them to vote in favor of her clients.

So as a lone woman working in a male-dominated profession, she not only became a barrister, but a highly successful barrister -- without feminism or employing feminist tactics of social change.

She became successful because she possessed innate talent and because she worked very hard, both mentally and practically.

Meanwhile, back in America: The woman feminists love to hate, Phyllis Schlafly, worked her way through a prestigious university and earned such high marks and so impressed her professors with her intellectual brilliance that Harvard Law School was willing to accept her around 1944 even though at that time, Harvard Law School was not accepting female students. (Officially, Harvard Law School did not start admitting women until the 1950s.)

Phyllis didn't know this. She assumed that Harvard Law School had suddenly started accepting women prior to her admittance, and had no idea they'd made an exception specifically for her based on her intellectual qualifications and remarkable analytical abilities. (Nonetheless, she decided to go work in Washington D.C. instead.)

Again, this exception was made for Phyllis based on her phenomenal competency, and not via the feminist movement, which hadn't even revved up yet.

In fact, opportunities and expectations for women had been changing since the 1920s.

On the other hand, even prior to official advancements for women, American women enjoyed many freedoms and rights. 19th-Century pioneer women, for example, had the right to own their own land and proved up both land claims and tree claims, same as men. They carried pistols and rifles and worked in stores and newspaper presses, among other jobs.

At the same time, no one can deny the social and official limitations women faced when trying to engage in traditionally male activities and professions. In addition, the way women were portrayed in movies, TV, and ads really was a problem, such as floor wax ads featuring a women in full makeup, set hair, an insipid smile, and heels while waxing a kitchen floor. (And those were just the more innocent portrayals of women in advertising.)

Many movie & TV portrayals of women were just awful, making light of women being groped, harassed, or disdained by one of the male leads or women being exploited or physically abused in a way Hollywood portrayed as justified or funny.

Because Hollywood had been projecting their trash and corruption since at least the 1920s, it's hard to say whether the legitimate feminist complaints were a product of society or whether such deplorable male behaviors and attitudes were inculcated into society by Hollywood.

Who was around to remember society before Hollywood? And those who were old enough to remember, did they have any way of expressing themselves?

(The post after this one will detail Hollywood's role in the mistreatment of women.)

Another friend of mine remembers female police officers (in uniformed skirts) in the 1950s. She explained that female officers were necessary for arresting female offenders because it wasn't thought appropriate for men to deal with a female offender the way they dealt with male offenders (i.e. patting them down, touching or wrestling with her in the process of putting on handcuffs and getting the female perp into a police car).

The truth is, women's journeys through traditionally male professions initially mirrored the Jewish journey of upward mobility in America. Schools of higher education placed quotas against Jews and many upscale clubs while companies rejected Jewish membership and participation.

In fact, when the intermarried Groucho Marx wanted to use a beach associated with an upscale club that did not allow Jews, he pleaded with them by quipping, "My kids are only half Jewish. Can't they at least go in the water up to their knees?"

(Ironically, his children weren't Jewish at all according to halacha and should've been allowed entrance as full-fledged non-Jews. But try reasoning with antisemites about such things...anyway, such discrimination was the wake-up call Groucho got for spitting on Torah Law.)

The point is that Jews and other minorities faced discrimination by putting their nose to the grindstone and working their way to the top. They proved themselves, first by "working twice as hard to be considered just as good," and then making a name for themselves to the point that, for example, Jews and Chinese are stereotyped as hard-working, good in school, smart, and successful. Yes, Chinese people must face down the stereotype of "being good at math," a stereotype that dogs them at every step.

What's so awful about that?

And why couldn't women have done the same?

(In fact, Yetta bat Shlomo HaLevi did so for herself. A male barrister who lost to her after a hard fight in court told another barrister, "I was Yettaed."

I realize that many women who've been traumatized by the chauvinism of yore cannot see that things were already changing and would continue to change without the official blitzkrieg of the feminist movement.

(If you've been traumatized, you want things to change YESTERDAY. The pain is unbearable and you feel like you can't bear it for another moment.)

Many also couldn't see that the chauvinism was incited and encouraged by more modern influences, like Hollywood. (Yeah, feminists criticized Hollywood, but couldn't see that men themselves weren't the innate problem, but that Hollywood was.)

The rejection and discrimination many women experienced caused profound trauma, which is why no matter how much they see their daughters and grand-daughters facing traumas of their own brought on by feminism, such as premarital wantonness, abortion, much increased violence & abuse against women & girls, a sharp upturn in brutal female violence, low self-esteem, confusion, eating disorders, marital difficulties, suicide, depression, and much more, they continue with their mantra of:

"But when I was a girl, we were told we could only be teachers and nurses rather than doctors & lawyers!"

This is despite the fact that most of them -- and most men, for that matter -- don't aim to become and indeed don't become lawyers or doctors.

But it's the principle that bothers them.

Disturbingly, this principle bothers them more than the killing of unborn babies and the effect that has on the aborting mother, or the rampant wanton behavior popular among young girls for decades now, the increased violence and violation against females and children in general, with its higher incidence of low self-esteem and depression and self-destructive behaviors among females, and the savage assaults girls commit in growing numbers.

In fact, these feminist sympathizers seem to feel that being discouraged from being a doctor (which again, most of them didn't want to be in the first place) is worse than actual hands-on abuse or violation of girls, which became much more common in the wake of feminist advancement.

(BTW, I don't deny that if you really yearn for a certain calling and you were born with the abilities to excel at the calling, that it's not devastating to be blocked from your heart's yearning simply because of your gender and societal expectations. It IS devastating! But that still doesn't justify all the abuses and harmful ideas that came along with the freedom to fulfill your own calling.)

Isn't it ironic that feminism came under the guise of wanting to stop the abuse of women and girls, and ended up at the forefront of facilitating such abuse?

Yet if you confront feminists with this, they'll merely make 2 points:

• (1) No, there is EXACTLY the same amount of abuse going on, but just that back then, it was rarely reported.

It's true that sxual abuse was vastly underreported. (It's still underreported today, BTW.) But there is nothing to show that levels back then were even close to today's levels. Furthermore, there are social realities that facilitate abuse, which weren't as common back then. Also, assault on dates happens often enough today. Are you trying to tell me that in the 1950s, "date assault" was also common? (I'm not arguing whether it happened at all, I'm asking whether it was common.) Feminists also claim there is an epidemic of male students violating female students on college campuses. Did this same alleged epidemic exist also in the 1950s?

(Yes, I realize there were far fewer women on campus back then than there are now. But were the women who were on co-ed campuses being taken advantage of while drunk and assaulted in the numbers they are today?)

And what about some serious brutal assaults and murders committed by teenage girls, something almost unheard of prior to the feminist movement? Female violence has risen 250% since 1973. Is that progress?

• (2) At least today, we have resources to treat victims -- and that's a feminist accomplishment.

This is true that today there are more official resources. Yet it seems that the plethora of resources developed due to an ever-rising need for them. (Meaning, an increase in abuse led to an increase in the need for organizations to handle it. Furthermore, the effectiveness of these resources is questionable. Some therapists do wonderful work with victims, some don't. Ditto with organizations.)

And how well did those trained professionals and resources work out for, say, the 16-year ordeal of the Rotherham girls? Or for abused Muslim women and children in these "progressive" Western countries when courts or social services side with Sharia law?

As another example: Look at how feminists scream assault about acts that sometimes aren't even actually assault, yet ignore the thousands of cases of very real and horrific exploitation and assaults on vulnerable young girls from Rotherham, England to Yazidi girls in the Middle East?

In the Rotherham case, we see that having women in professional positions doesn't automatically help females. (That was one of the big claims of the feminist movement.) This is because we need good professionals, regardless of gender. Mothers, female social workers, female councilwomen, female staff in care homes, female directors, female cops, etc. did little to nothing to protect female victims.

Yes, Rotherham was exposed and prosecuted by several female professionals (along with their male colleagues) and several mothers also took action, but the mere act of having females in traditionally male professions or having females involved at all did not automatically prevent or help the abuse and exploitation of females. Having GOOD women (and men!) in professional positions is what ultimately helped.

(In fact, even after all the facts came to light, a female MP and Jeremy Corbyn supporter, Naz Shah, retweeted and liked the following post in 2017: "Those abused girls in Rotherham and elsewhere just need to shut their mouths. For the good of diversity.")
_________
Most notable case-in-point: In response to the poisoning of a Russian double-agent, England's female Prime Minister:

• IMMEDIATELY launched investigations
• expelled 23 diplomats
• is taking measures against an entire COUNTRY

Yet her initial response to the Rotherham horror?

• Accused authorities of "dereliction of duty"
• Blamed several factors
• Promised to appoint a chair to investigate

And that was only after the whole thing went very public. Remember, the initial abuses went on for 16 years.

(And yes, I realize Theresa May was "only" Home Secretary at the initial expose of the crimes, but my point is that she still had the power to do more and could also take Prime Ministerly action now. Yet from then until now, her response toward the crimes against the girls has been weak in comparison to what she's apparently capable of.)

Let's hear it for grrrl power! [sarc]

In short, many women mistakenly credit feminism with the progress we like when that progress was already happening anyway. And as for the very disturbing casualties of the feminist movement? Well, they seem to just think it's an unavoidable pity.

And anyway, we see that the mere act of having a woman in a position of authority does nothing to help victimized women or stop the victimization of women and children, unless she happens to be a GOOD PERSON.

Just like with men.

The more I learn, the more I realize that emphasizing the "good" aspects of feminism while minimizing the bad aspects is like doing so for any fascist movement.

I know that sounds extreme, but I hope you'll read yesterday's post to understand why one might feel this way: The Only "ism" You'll Ever Need.

Likewise, I was already seeing the ravages of feminism as a pre-teen, but I was brainwashed into thinking that it was either good or that the 1950s (and all time prior) were even worse. And I can't help noticing a steady decline in female well-being since my own girlhood. The problem is that women and girls are still being fed the same slop I was, and cultishly insist that their suffering is either good or at least still better than the pre-Sixties upheaval. And like with me and the girls in my generation, they're continuously conditioned to believe that the genuine problems that did exist could only be solved by feminism, and any worsening of society is simply a necessary and unavoidable evil.

The fact that the bad stuff was already improving and the role that Hollywood actively played in increasing the mistreatment of women from the early 20th Century is ignored and even denied.

But the truth is that we've benefited from feminism the way that Germans benefited from Nazism or Communists benefited from Communism (i.e. free health care, free education, housing, and some initially poor revolutionaries achieved high status, leadership, and wealth).

NOT because opportunities for women is a bad thing (they aren't), but because those opportunities were already opening up and presumably would've continued to do so had not feminism come along to slash things open like a mega-monster jeep on spiked wheels.
____________
For specific examples of Hollywood's role in corrupting society's attitude toward women, and in polluting society in general, please see:
How Hollywood Corrupted America.

Related links:
The Relationship Between Multiple Partners & Anxiety, Depression, Substance Abuse Disorders: A Cohort Study (You can scroll down to the end for the tables and results.)
How Childhood Abuse Leads to Wanton Behavior
More Statistics on Child Abuse, Or, Why Single Moms Should Probably Stay That Way
(Clarification: I definitely think divorce is the best solution is some situations and I also have known of several superb stepfathers. HOWEVER, from a purely statistical point of view, introducing strange men into one's home -- whether it's a boyfriend or a new husband -- statistically raises the chance of abuse of one's children, and increased child abuse has been one result of the increased divorce rate -- even though practically speaking, it's not always true. In secular society, divorces often (not always, but often) occur unnecessarily or without taking the child's well-being into consideration. The increased secular divorce rate and the not-dire reasons for this increased divorce rate are a direct result of feminism.)

Myrtle Rising related links:
"America's Scary New Direction" series (for specific correlations to Nazism, please see Part III and onwards)
Breaking Out of the Big Lie about Motherhood
When a Woman's Right is a Moral Wrong
Creating the Victim Mentality: A How-To Guide

The Torah compares the Jewish people to olives.

Why?

Because the most precious aspect of an olive (its oil) only comes forth when pressed.

Olives on their own are bitter, unattractive, and not good for much.

But olive oil contains many healthful properties and contains a wide variety of highly beneficial uses.

And this segues into the heart-stirring life and personality of Janusz Korczak (pronounced "yanush korchak").

Born as Henryk Goldszmidt in Warsaw in 1878 or 1879 to assimilated Jews, Korczak later took on the pen name "Janusz Korczak" and rose to become one of the most heroic figures in the Warsaw ghetto.

Because we'll be discussing several books in the post, I've provided some images to give you a better idea:

(The words in blockquotes way below are taken from page 92 of Gutta: Memories of a Vanished World.)
_____________
The terror Korczak felt as a child upon witnessing the brutal methods common in Polish schools during his time combined with several other impacting experiences inspired him to develop more compassionate and more effective child-rearing methods.

While I haven't yet read his books, he apparently favored a gentle and mature approach with children, while still inculcating necessary values of responsibility, self-discipline, consideration of others, and emotional maturity.

Unlike the American pop psychology movement, which viewed (and still views) self-esteem as a goal rather than a result, it seems that Korczak understood that self-esteem was the result of making good decisions and engaging in mature behavior, rather than something that can be merely bequeathed to a child (or any person).

Even his books for children, praised for being able to enter the mind of a child so appealingly, were meant not only to entertain, but to inculcate important values.

Not only was Korczak raised in a completely assimilated environment, his family life wasn't ideal either. In fact, his father later died in a mental hospital.

Korczak himself became agnostic and didn't believe in forcing any religion onto children.

After attending university to become a pediatrician, he served in the Polish army, and eventually joined the staff of a Polish orphanage.

But because of their hate-filled attitude toward Jewish orphans (who weren't always literal orphans, but placed there by destitute families who'd lost one parent), Korczak went on to open his own orphanage for Jewish children where he was free to apply his own methods for raising children and did so with tremendous success, as attested to one of the last surviving orphans, Itzchak Belfer. (Link below)

Within Polish society, Korczak rose to become one of the leading pedagogues of his time, with his own popular radio show where he propagated his child-rearing theories via stories and wry humor.

With the publication of his book, Kaytek the Wizard, Korczak became the JK Rowling of Poland when his book hit enduring bestseller status, its fandom similar to that of the Harry Potter phenomenon. But it wasn't his first novel; other popular books preceded this one.

Korczak's brilliant assistant, Stefania "Stefa" Wilczyńska, was no less dedicated and heroic than he. Never married, she was viewed as a true mother by the orphans who continued to visit her after their own marriage with their children, whom Stefa related to as if they were her real grandchildren. In fact, Stefa successfully ran the orphanage on her own for a couple of years when Korczak was called into military service during WWI.

In the 1930s, Stefa visited Eretz Yisrael and worked with the children of a kibbutz where she provided the staff with good guidance and advice on how to improve their care of the children before returning to Poland.

In Korczak's orphanage in Poland, the children described the set-up as a mother-father dynamic, with Stefa as the mother who remained "at home" with the children and Korczak as the father who supervised them in the early morning and came home from his other work in the evenings to children who skipped and danced to greet their returning "father."

After the Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939, arrangements were made for Stefania to flee to Eretz Yisrael, but she chose to remain with her orphans and enter the hell of the Warsaw Ghetto.

Despite his Polish connections, his non-Jewish lifestyle, his noble Polish appearance, and the willingness of influential Poles to hide him, Korczak remained with his children when the Nazis forced the orphanage into the Warsaw Ghetto.

There, he, Stefa, and their assistants made every effort to create a normal and even thriving life for their children. Even though they too were starving, they did everything they could to provide whatever food and activities for the orphans.

In his 60s at this time, Korczak developed terribly swollen feet from entire days spent plodding from one welfare institution to another, standing in lines and begging bread or buckwheat for the children. He also suffered lung problems among other health issues.

He personally and lovingly cut the children's hair and nails, told them funny stories, weighed them, and gave them their medicine. He also checked on them as they slept, pulling a fallen blanket over one slumbering child and checking the forehead of another suffering from fever.

How was a man broken in health, rejected by the very society to which he'd given so much (including endangering himself as a doctor on the battlefield), and himself starving able to provide nearly 200 children with not only their physical needs, but the love and tenderness they so desperately lacked?

As an agnostic, he didn't even have God to lean on.

Gutta Sternbuch, the scion of a respected Chassidic family and a graduate of the original Beis Yaakov seminary in Cracow, also joined the staff of the orphanage.

Gutta taught the children blessings and Hebrew songs. She said Shema with them at bedtime and regaled them with stories of tzaddikim and miracles.

Periodically, Korczak sat by and listened to Gutta's religious uplifting, impressed by the positive impact she made on the children. Despite his own feelings toward any religion, he encouraged Gutta to continue because it made the children happy and that was all he cared about.

When Gutta wasn't able to make the curfew, she spent the night at the orphanage. During those times, Korczak asked her about her upbringing and Beis Yaakov experiences, to which he listened with a curious and open mind.

At one point, he told Gutta,

Then he implored Gutta,

She promised.

At one point, Korczak and his staff arranged a special outing for the children.

The controversial head of the Judenrat, Adam Czerniakow (who gained hot-button fame when he committed suicide rather than participate in Nazi deportations), initiated a park project. He gathered a group of Jewish artists and architects trapped in the ghetto to create a park of trees, mountains, valleys, a waterfall, cows and sheep -- all out of paper.

(They had no other materials.)

The children were outfitted in special navy-and-white uniforms for the outing, also all made out of paper.

Because of the Nazi terror and deprivations, the children were in deplorable condition despite the best efforts of the Korczak's staff. Some were just days away from death.

But they radiated joy as they visited the "park" and enjoyed every moment of the outing.

Gutta later recalled: "If I could, I would award this park the highest prize for human endeavor and creativity...I was so proud of the Jews who created this park."

Throughout the entire ordeal of the Warsaw Ghetto, Korczak struggled to find escape and refuge for the children. Until the very end, his former friends and the Polish Underground were willing to help him personally, but Korczak refused to abandon his children.

"You do not leave a sick child in the night, and you do not leave children at a time like this," he stated.

One effect of starvation is not just physical lethargy, but mental lethargy. Apathy seeps into the sufferer.

Korczak and Stefa experienced this too, but they fought it for the sake of the children, continuing to minister to them with all the love and care they could muster.

In the first week of August 1942, the Nazis decided to liquidate all children's homes in the ghetto. On that day, Korczak requested 15 minutes to ready his staff and the children. The nearly 200 children between the ages of 2 and 13 were dressed and groomed as meticulously as possible under the circumstances.

To soothe their terror as much as possible, Korczak told them they were going to the countryside where they would experience fresh air and eat berries.

With Korczak heading four neat rows compromised of the children, Stefa, and the nurses & teachers devoted to the children throughout their ghetto incarceration, Korczak held one particularly debilitated child in his arms while holding the hand of another as the heart-breaking entourage was marched all the way through the ghetto to the main boarding platform.

As they moved forward, one of the teachers bravely tried to prop up the children's spirits by breaking into a rousing marching song about keeping one's head up through a howling storm.

It was a very long way to the trains and the children suffered, but the group was not allowed to stop walking.

As they crossed over a bridge, their heartless escorts shoved the youngest ones up the bridge and then knocked them down the other side as Poles below shouted, "Good riddance, Jews!"

Upon reaching the boarding site, they encountered thousands of other Jews sentenced to cattle car transportation.

At that point, one Judenrat official urged Korczak to come with him to the Judenrat for a possible reprieve. But Korczak feared leaving the children for even a moment.

And Korczak's fears proved right.

As the Judenrat official stood there, the Nazis ordered Korczak's orphans to be loaded into the cattle cars.

At this point, the account splits. Some say that a Nazi official, influenced by a person with sway, approached Korczak with a document that would allow Korczak to return to his residence.

Others say that this officer was actually working under Nazi orders because sometimes internationally famous Jews were transported to Theresienstadt, a concentration camp with deceptively better conditions designed to mislead the Red Cross.

Still others say that an SS officer recognized Korczak as the author of his children's favorite books and offered him an escape.

But Korczak refused to leave his children.

Then they were sent to Treblinka where their final moments were lost to history.
______
Note: The shock of losing Korczak and his orphanage was so great that for years, various people claimed to have spotted Korczak, Stefa, or the orphans around the Polish countryside.

But no evidence exists of their survival.
*
Gutta Sternbuch would have accompanied them to their final destination, but Hashem had other plans for her and she survived to marry and raise a family and nurture fellow refugees, as documented in her memoir.
________

When we read of heroism, it's easy to get caught up in the jaw-dropping "What!" and lose sight of the subtler "How?"

With very few exceptions, most heroic people unknowingly worked up to their heroism via a series of smaller heroic decisions throughout their lives. The heroism of Korczak and the others stands out not only because of the ultimate sacrifice they made in the end, but also because their heroism was ongoing. It's easier to be a hero for a moment than to keep up the heroism through deteriorating health, mental lethargy, disillusionment, constant terror, and the bleakness of a truly hopeless situation.

And that's the real lesson to take away from such stories:
It's the decisions they made in the good times that affected how they responded in the bad times.
_________
Even though I'd come across Janusz Korczak's story decades ago, my discovery of Stefa was a lot more recent. Equally devoted to the children throughout their lives, Stefa refused refuge in Eretz Yisrael and also accompanied her cherished charges into the gas chamber.

And according to eyewitnesses, even throughout the terrible hell of the Warsaw Ghetto, Stefa's physical and emotional deterioration wasn't as rapid or pronounced as Korczak's.

Why?

Women's Studies devotees will certainly proclaim that it is merely because Korczak's male status earned him historical status while Stefa's gender relegated her to the sidelines.

But the truth is that Korczak was an international celebrity in that part of the world. Respected by colleagues for his military service and his education while adored by the nation for his theories, wry humor, and writing, Korczak was both the (l'havdil!) JK Rowling and the Dr. Spock of his time complete with books, speaking engagements, and his own radio show, all of which was the TV and Internet of its time.

And this likely propelled his deterioration too.

While I can't know for sure, accounts indicate that Korczak was never able to make peace with the betrayal of the Polish society he'd helped revolutionize and build. A handful of colleagues were willing to save him, but not save the children whom he treasured more than himself.

Everything he'd devoted his life to was being torn apart and annihilated.

The horrific circumstances rammed him into the wall of disillusionment again and again.

He'd invested heart and soul into propelling society to a better place, using his fame to make his world more moral, caring, wiser, and compassionate.

Yet it all ended with him carrying broken children in his own faltering arms while dragging his broken body past jeering countrymen into crate on wheels headed for a gas chamber.

I'm not sure if he ever sensed the precious golden oil that managed to seep out of the olive press in which he found himself.
__________

Itzchak Belfer, artist, sculptor, and last survivor of Korczak's orphanage

Note: Janusz Korczak achieved even more in his life than what's written here. Furthermore, his ghetto diary was saved and published, revealing much more about his life and his personality. There is also so much more good to relate about Stefa and the teachers and nurses who tended the children in the orphanage, which are available online and in books. This post is just a drop in the sea.

Even as I subscribed in my younger years to the idea of "the" parenting method that would produce ideal children (i.e. happy, well-adjusted, and frum), I couldn't help noticing that other families successfully used methods that our experts either ignored or dismissed or even opposed.

I meant to fulfill the promulgated chinuch principles to the letter, but having taken psychology in college and having been inundated with all sorts of child psychology pundits, articles, best-selling books, and methods since my preteens, I viewed with concern the obvious borrowing from pop psychology in classes claiming to teach the "authentic" or "real" or "traditional" TORAH way of raising children.

And as several of the methods either didn't work or backfired with my own children (and with no workable alternative solution from whatever chinuch person or book I consulted), I opened my mind to watching what actually worked for others, instead continuing the exhausting jig of pretty theories.

One aspect of Israeli families that struck me was how mothers seemed to actually NEED their children's help. Chores weren't merely for the sake of self-discipline or good habits, but instead, they comprised meaningful work that benefited the entire family. Even more shocking to me was how the mothers weren't ashamed to need their children.

I found that my friends and I never wanted to NEED a child's help. Furthermore, such a situation also always seemed discouraged among the chinuch experts.

Yet I was seeing this among Israeli families, particularly Sefardi families, and it seemed to be working out just fine. Children helped much more than in American families and in general their homes seemed to run better. (These are big generalizations of course, and there are many exceptions to them on both sides.) Furthermore, children seemed to do more at younger ages, seemed to feel good about themselves with regard to it, and even took the initiative to clean or cook. Even more impressive, they seemed to WANT to continue these habits when they set up their own homes.

And I never saw those rotating "job charts" so popular among the parenting experts during my childhood.

Furthermore, these meaningful contributions extended into adulthood. I saw adult children who paid attention to their parents and concerned themselves with their well-being. They also spoke of their parents differently, without the emotional distance I was used to hearing secular adults in America speak of their parents. They seemed more cognizant of their parents' feelings and viewed their parents as individuals rather than as a magazine article of behaviors.

I wondered why.

Also, I remember hearing often as a child that chores were good for children because it made them feel part of the family. However, that was definitely not how I felt about chores as a child, nor did it seem that my siblings felt that way either. In fact, while I don't remember friends liking chores, the ones who didn't try to shirk out of them tended to be those who felt their contributions were meaningful and necessary to the family and running of the home.

This included friends whose parents leaned on them in ways others considered inappropriate. For example, I had one friend who from 10th or 11th grade, was expected to prepare supper between the time she came home from school and the time her parents came home from work -- and this was a daily long-term expectation she needed to organize around her homework and other activities.

I was aghast, but she defended it, explaining how logistically speaking, it really wasn't practical for her parents to prepare supper around working full-time jobs and also how much they liked her cooking. In fact, she seemed proud of her accomplishment and not put upon. She also pointed out that she now had skills that would serve her for life, skills that weren't common among her peers, so she felt a cut above the rest.

Also, I noticed many mothers in my generation, regardless of their religious background, had very set views about children and housework, trying to make it fun and free of stress. With regard to structure in general, a great many decided that if they felt they were too tired or stressed to deal with their children calmly, then they just let things go. Tidying, bedtimes, and other responsibilities were pushed off just so the mother wouldn't end up yelling or showing any anger.

This was supposed to show children the value of overcoming anger, but (and this will come as no shock to the generations above ours) children instead interpreted this as a lack of consistency and responded accordingly.

After lots of observation and pondering, I realized several things:

Chores that have no meaning or necessity other than to teach the child self-discipline become meaningless pointless work.
NO ONE wants to engage in meaningless pointless activities (unless they're fun), including adults. And because children aren't particularly interested in self-discipline or building character, it's hard for them to help around the house unless the work actually contributes something meaningful.

If I tell you to flap your arms around "for your own good," how happily and how long will you be able to keep flapping?

But what if I tell you that by flapping your arms, you create air currents (I'm totally making this up) that cool off heat stroke victims and help asthma sufferers, particularly when the sufferer is an immediate family member?

It's a lot more meaningful.

Traditionally, parents needed children.
Yes, that is actually the authentic traditional TORAH way of rearing children -- and not just the Torah way, either. Out of necessity, everyone used to raise their children this way and still do in many parts of the world. Children who helped out in the field, assisted in the family store, fetched water from the well, or brought the cows home were performing genuinely meaningful and necessary contributions to the family.

Attitudes changed over time, possibly due to mandatory schooling keeping children away home for huge chunks of childhood and also possibly due to advanced household technology, plus smaller family sizes and a move to urban life. Suddenly, fastidious housekeepers had electricity, indoor plumbing, spray cleaners, vacuum cleaners, dishwashers, washing machines, and dryers to cut down on time and labor spent on housework and reaped a cleaner result too (i.e, a dishwasher or even hot running water and a good-quality sponge clean dishes much faster and better than wiping dishes with a soapy rag dipped in cold or lukewarm water from a bucket). They also had fewer children to contend with, so a mother didn't feel the same need for an older child's help when she's nursing or otherwise occupied.

Gradually, children became only a hindrance for housework rather than also being potential help.

Teaching children that parents have needs teaches children compassion.
Parents get tired, sick, and overwhelmed. It's perfectly fine for children to realize this. Yes, a parent who is tired, sick, or overwhelmed to the point of incapacitation for a long time may be scary or overwhelming for a child. But a child who sees that a parent NEEDS help and the child can help that parent? Well, that builds good middot in the child, particular when the parents show their gratitude and appreciation for the child's meaningful contribution.

A child who allows the mother to sleep hopefully finds a refreshed and joyful mother when she wakes up -- all in the merit of this wonderful child. A child who washes all the dishes to save the mother that chore or who surprises the mother with folded laundry will ideally encounter a thrilled and very thankful mother.

As a child in America and as an adult in Israel, I also noticed that parents who needed their children tended to produce children who were more sensitive to others. Let's face it: If your mother continues to function just fine even when she has the flu or hasn't slept properly for a month, then how are you going to respond to people who have the flu or who are tired? If you don't realize that people really need help at times -- and that you are able to help AND your contribution is meaningful -- then how will you relate to others who are struggling?

Needless to say, this can be taken to an unhealthy extreme. Needy parents wear out their children with their ceaseless demands. Such children may develop apathy to others because they assume that people who need others are simply lazy or manipulative.

So this was my big challenge: letting my children know that I needed them, and also that their contributions are meaningful and important.

As mentioned above, it is important to strive for balance:

• Needing children's contributions is good.
• Needy, demanding parents are not good.

And with Hashem's Help, that's what I'm trying to do.

Related links:
The Last 200 Years of Chinuch I: The Non-Jewish World
The Last 200 Years of Chinuch II: The Jewish World
Will the Real "Chinuch shel Pa'am" Please Stand Up?

Where was the freedom promised???!!

For those of us who opened our eyes to the reality around us, that became our heart's battlecry. Where is that all that gosh-darn freedom you all are blubbering on about? And the feeling that by exposing the "wings," that's what crushed them.

Thanks, social justice warriors!

Anyway, I kept the magazine with that poem for years, going back to peruse "Fragile Wings" until the magazine got lost and I was unhappy about the loss of the poem.

So when I discovered that there was a whole book by the author of this poem, I made sure to get a copy, if only to see my beloved poem again.

("Fragile Wings" and many other poems by Bracha Goetz also appear in the book.)

And believe me, I wasn't disappointed.

Even though the writer starts off the book with her own junior high school years 20 years before I started my own junior high experience, so much rang true and felt so familiar. Like Bracha, I also remember that whole rush to "grow up," which actually didn't contain any growth or upward progression, but instead shoved you off to this discomfiting side dimension where you were left to sink or swim (which meant that most girls simply floundered). All of the sudden, there was this tremendous social pressure that literally came out of nowhere, and no one to discuss it with.

And then Bracha describes her eating disorders, her search for truth, the people she met along the way, her struggles, and she describes it all so authentically, but modestly too. There's a hindsight-lightness to even her heavier scenes, and also several guffaw-out-loud moments for the reader.

There are also several passages which made me think, "Omigosh, I cannot believe she's admitting this in public." But interestingly, this only made me like her even more. And I don't often feel this way when a writer starts getting "confessional," but there's something about the way that Bracha does it that's incredibly appealing.

Everyone has their own issues regardless of religious or irreligious their background, but women who did not grow up FFB definitely have specific issues that are barely acknowledged. (And these issues also differ in tone from generation to generation.) And it's not always a tsnius issue either. Even the most yeshivish frum communities secretly have mixed feelings about feminism (unexpressed uneasy gratitude, which in my opinion is misplaced), and this colors how frum women relate to the issues of women who aren't FFB.

Furthermore, while every single memoir or autobiographical article by a baal teshuvah always features people from upwardly mobile families and nice neighborhoods, baalei teshuvah who were academically successful and attended top-notch colleges, and then had a successful career (if they hadn't already become frum by that time) and possessing tremendous ambition -- and I was most definitely NEVER like that -- I could still relate to Bracha's memoir.

Also, I initially wasn't sure about the journal-entry/epistolary format, but partway through, I ended up feeling like this really was the best way to write this memoir.

Finally, what I loved most about this book is how much I liked the author (whom I've never met). It was a pleasure to spend virtual time with someone who is so funny, caring, real, and idealistic. 

This book is definitely worth a read.

In a lecture by Rabbi Alon Anava, he remarked on the common idea of this generation being a lowly generation, and therefore, the expectations on us are lower, spiritually speaking.

Unfortunately, many people take this to mean that we don't need to try as hard and that there are all sorts of ideas that allow us to feel like we can indulge ourselves more, that Hashem understands and so forth.

Anyway, he commented that while this is true to a certain extent (for example, there really are people who fit the definition of a tinok sheh nishba), he feels that this is actually a very great generation. And he went on to explain why.

It got me thinking about how right he is.

If you think about it, it's amazing that there are any people who are looking for spiritual growth, who wrangle with how to apply ancient Torah wisdom to our lives and middot work today (WITHOUT watering it down with pop psychology), and who look to cultivate a relationship with Hashem when there is so much against us.

Even in the frummest communities, there are "experts" and media bombarding us with turning to therapists, medication, and other secular remedies as the ultimate solution. Davening and genuine deep-digging cheshbon hanefesh are often considered side dishes to the secular methods, rather than the main course.

(If utilized correctly, these secular-based resources can help temporarily, but the primary goal of any nisayon -- which is from Hashem in the first place -- is to turn to Hashem and develop a relationship with Him, and to allow your individual soul reach its full potential and illumination.)

Combined with that, there are so many band-aid distractions so readily available at our fingertips! Especially with today's technology, options, and accessibility, you could easily sink into novels, movies, drugs (both legal and illegal), alcohol, accumulating material positions, social media, filthy images, gossip and texting/email altercations, news, "ooh, shiny!" information, and so much more.

When I was in high school in the Eighties, I knew exactly who I could go to for drugs or a gun. (There were at least 2 boys I knew of who kept a handgun in their school lockers.) I didn't do so, but I easily could have. Things are much worse and even more accessible now.

And for women, the Internet is like an unending magazine. Women aren't as likely to go for the hard core filth, but the tiflut is definitely a pull. Sure, watching an unending stream of cooking or baking how-to videos seems so innocent compared to what other people are watching online, but is watching 8 different videos on making homemade marshmallows really the best use of one's time? When standing before the Heavenly Court (we should all live to 120!), is that going to be overlooked or will one be brought to account for not doing teshuvah or saying Tehillim during those 2 hours when practically speaking, only 15 minutes of 2 videos gave you enough to know about making those marshmallows?

You don't even feel the time go by when you're engaged in any technological pursuit (i.e., surfing, gaming, watching, etc.). For decades, studies have shown that TV/movies/videos affect your brain and lull you into an Alpha-wave state, but recent studies have shown similar effects regarding Internet surfing and phone texting. And even more recently, reports have shed light on the hijinks of Facebook to hit your brain in the most addictive way.

Video games also affect the brain, decreasing the Beta waves (which indicate liveliness and degree of tension in the prefrontal region of the brain) and increasing aggressive behavior, among other things. (They can also be incredibly addictive.)

With modern music, producers use research to determine song arrangement so that the brain is hit in a certain way (called a "hook"). The opening chords of a song and other parts of the song are arranged so that when you peruse the radio or hear the song blasting out of a passing car, it hits your brain in a way that makes you want more of that song (and just one reason why pop music all sounds the same).

They even polish movie scripts down to a science. Especially with movies produced in the past 10 years, you can time the necessary plot points down the minute. Author Eibhlin MacIntosh described how if you split a movie into 6 parts (1st plot point, 1st pinch-point, midpoint, 2nd pinch-point, 2nd plot point, etc), you'll see that in a movie that runs, say, an hour and 43 minutes, the first plot point occurs at exactly 16 minutes, then the first pinch-point occurs at 32 minutes, and so on.

Children's movies, BTW, have become appallingly violent and foul. True, children's movies always contained garbage due to the fact that the movie industry was conceived and populated by degenerates. But my son showed me the clip of one popular movie in which a male bird kept getting whomped painfully between the legs -- and that was supposed to be comic. And there's other stuff that I really can't write about because it's so vulgar, but if you've even seen the 3-minute promo of any animated children's movie today, then you know exactly what I mean.

Yet very young children watch all this.

And this is just the media stuff, which you can enjoy privately while still looking very pious and sedate on the outside. And with all the piracy going on, you don't even need to pay for entertainment any more (unless you want to or if you have a guilty conscience).

Advertisers also whittled their methods down to a science.

And what about food? Sugar and chemicals hit the brain in specific ways to make you want more of that too.

What are we supposed to do when our very BRAINS are under assault?

And then there is all the propaganda against living a life of truth. Some of it seems oh-so harmless with its light wit and superficiality ("Just kidding!"), yet Judaism considers mockery one of the deadliest forms of opposition.

Yet other anti-God and anti-Torah propaganda is packaged in the veneer of scientific objectivity. And let me tell you, sifting through that to figure out what is the chaff and what is the actual science is quite a process. You also have to be able to see what's not there, like the research and studies they left out of the article, book, or paper.

(Helpful tip: Regardless of the prestige of a particular publication or scientist, anything synonymous with the word "assume" is not scientific, but taking you into the realm of the scientist's imagination. The Greeks already did mythology; we're supposed to be beyond that.)

Do you want to settle down with a good novel? Me, too. But I can't! Have you ever read a fantasy or science fiction novel featuring God? (With maybe one or two exceptions, they are always either polytheistic or atheistic.) And what about mainstream novels for any age? Do any of them ever tout appealing characters who are also moral monotheists? Or at the very least, a Republican? You know that when frum people read any novel in any genre, they need to ignore a lot of garbage, both ideologically and practically. And that becomes part of the reading experience for frum people.

Furthermore, non-fiction has also become dicey, weaving in Leftist/Liberal secular immoral values and potty language. Even books written by religious right-wing conservatives contain problematic ideas and foul language (not to mention the turn they take into Christianity or touting as "Christian" what are essentially Jewish values.)

(This does not even begin to cover the halachically problematic Far East mysticism increasingly popular within any self-help material.)

And finally: This is so bizarre to me, but religious right-wing conservative women who pound away about traditional values also have taken upon themselves the body-baring clothing, va-va-voom makeup and hairstyles, and potty-mouthing that actually demean women and go against the civilizing genteel dignifying influence women traditionally had on Western society. Do you remember how men used to have to curb their language and behavior around women? Well, no more! Now we can ALL be uninhibited cussers!

In short, everything's a big immoral mess AND this mess is constantly pounding on our heads (literally!) with increasing force and stealth.

Yet despite all this, there are Jews who still take the time out of the busiest part of the day to rush to a minyan (if they're male) or to find a quiet spot and pick up a siddur (if female) to daven Mincha.

Needless to say, there are also non-Jews who try to make space in their lives for spiritual pursuits.

ASTOUNDING!

Here are other signs that you possess an amazing neshama (soul):

• Do you try to dress with dignity and modesty even though the entire surrounding culture (and even parts of the frum community) disdains this?
• Do you make time for Hashem (even though all the distractions -- including "kosher" ones -- are so sticky and alluring)?
• Do you make some attempt to watch your mouth (both foul language & lashon hara) even though the entire surrounding culture thinks that foul language is cool and lashon hara is virtuous (or at least, funny)?
• Do you make some attempt to guard your eyes from forbidden sights?
• What about your thoughts?
• Do you make some attempt to discipline yourself with regard to online activity?
• Do you ever scrutinize yourself to see what you've done wrong and then actually try to make amends and improve that part of yourself?
• Do you ever read mussar (when you could be reading a NYT bestseller), listen to a Torah shiur (when you could be pirating a movie), or listen to Shwekey (when you could be listening to a digitally designed secular pop song)?
• Do you do anything else encouraged by the Torah despite the fact that there so many other things (sometimes under the guise of "kosher") grasping at you like Voldemort's underwater Inferi?

Rabbi Anava is right that we are actually an exceptional generation. The fact that the soul-light is able to glint through any of this muck is the biggest indication of how exalted our souls actually are, despite how we may otherwise behave.

And the main thing is to ask Hashem to help us continue to uncover that light until we can burn through all the muck and illuminate all the darkness.

Because we can. It's definitely there within us.
______________
I think this is the class by Rabbi Alon Anava mentioned above:
Can You Handle the Truth? (H/T Shirat Devorah)

Seeing as Rosh Chodesh Adar (the first day of the Hebrew month of Adar) is on the horizon, I thought it might be interesting to look at the importance of the Moon.

The Moon plays a major role in Judaism, from determining months and holidays to its necessity for the mitzvah of Birkat Halevanah (Blessing of the Moon).

The Moon also contains profound spiritual and kabbalistic significance.

But in this post, we'll focus on just the bare scientific necessity for the Moon.

What would our world be like without the Moon?

Monstrous Tidal Waves
Everyone knows that the Moon affects tides. The Sun does, too, but to a lesser extent. The reason why the Earth bulges out at the equator is due to its pull on the Earth. This lunar pull also keeps the oceans in check. If the Moon suddenly disappeared, the oceans would flood into every continent, completely changing the map of the world. In fact, the movement of the newly liberated oceans to meet each other would cause 59-foot (the height of a 6-story building) tsunamis all over pushed from behind by the force of the entire ocean.

Every morning, Jews say the blessing "Baruch...rokah ha'aretz al hamayim -- Blessed be...Who spreads the land over the water" to show appreciation for the fact that the water usually stops at the seashore. (Well, that's one of the meanings of the blessing, anyway.) A major reason why it doesn't encroach further is because of the reining-in effect of the Moon as described above.

Heat Loss
Without the Moon, the ocean currents would slow down or stop, preventing the transfer of heat around the world.

The Earth as a Drunken Dreidel
The Moon has a stabilizing effect on the Earth. As the Earth spins on its axis, it spins at a tilt that wavers between 22-25 degrees.

Without the Moon, the Earth would swing around like a drunken dreidel, veering from zero degrees (no tilt at all, standing straight up) to an 85-degrees tilt (lying on its side, which would chill the upper hemisphere and shine the Sun directly on the South Pole and presumably cause some major warming and melting down there).

Good-Bye Seasons
Due to the crazy wobble described above, seasons would just come and go randomly. Antarctica would sometimes be the frozen wasteland we know today and other times be as hot as the tropics. Hot areas of the world would sometimes freeze and cold areas would sometimes bake.

Rotation on Steroids
Without the Moon, the Earth would spin much faster. The Moon acts as a gentle restraint on the Earth (perhaps yet another reason why the Moon is likened to a woman in Jewish allegories and Hebrew grammar). If the Earth spun faster, this would shorten the days to 6-12 hours, which would increase our calendar year to 1000 days. It would also increase the strength of hurricanes, making Category 5 storms the norm.

Of course, there are other results you likely thought of: darker nights, the absence of eclipses, nearly non-existent tides, no asteroid blocker to protect Earth, and so on.

Our Sages often emphasize that the Torah is a blueprint for the world. Before Hashem created our world, He created the Torah, then structured the world accordingly.

As you can see from the above, without the Moon, not only would we face the challenge of physical survival, but we wouldn't be able to keep many aspects of the Torah relating to time.

Of course, the monster tidal waves wouldn't occur if the Moon never existed, but only if it suddenly disappeared. However, a steady tilt, predictable seasons, and the present calendar could never have developed without the Moon. (Not to mention how difficult life would be under such conditions.)

So whether we're grateful that Hashem created a Moon (at the perfect size and the perfect distance!) or we're grateful that Hashem allows us to keep the Moon, may you enjoy a very good month and rejoice in the fact that we even have such a thing as a month!

Chodesh Tov! May this Adar see the Redemption in a sweet way.

I wanted to write a little bit about PPD (post-partum depression) because I've had it (and didn't feel I could reach out for help because of the current simplistic cheerleading attitude toward it) and I've also been labeled as having it when I didn't have it at all, and both responses were detrimental.

But both situations also taught me that the well-intended portrayal of PPD as a purely hormonal blip and the attitude people must have toward it can actually cause problems.

I think that at least some PPD therapists realize the possible complexities involved in PPD and the variants in individual situations, but this doesn't seem to make it to the public.

First, I'd like to describe what it's like to be smacked with the PPD label when you don't have it.

Years ago, we had a very difficult houseguest staying with us when my youngest was around 7 months old. (I agreed to this for reasons I cannot discuss, but the wrong decision resulted from my incorrect reasoning.) The houseguest was usually not around and came home late at night, and then I also saw him in the mornings. Overall, he had a pleasant personality, but he was too self-absorbed to live with.

Once, I found my baby with a mouth full of tobacco and hands full of chewed cigarettes in his hands (courtesy of the guest). Another time, I caught my baby just as he was biting into the foil wrapper of antidepressants (or antipsychotics? Again, courtesy of the guest.) He also used to sit up at night eating sunflower seeds and spitting the shells onto the Persian rug. Sunflower seed shells are a choking hazard and this meant that I needed to shoot out of bed in the morning before my 2-year-old climbed out of bed (the shells have a pleasant salty taste for 2-year-olds) and before I could put the baby on the rug, and thoroughly vaccuum, then inspect the surrounding floor for stray shells.

Yes, I told him to stop and I told him why. No, he didn't stop.

There were other stresses with him, but it's too much to say.

Anyway, I started feeling really frazzled and hopeless. In the course of talking on the phone with friends, they asked why I sounded so down. I said I didn't know why. And as strange as it sounds, I really didn't! Life had been stressful before the guest moved in with us, so I didn't consider that he was the cause. I thought I just needed to work on my middot and my attitude.

Immediately, I was told by every single person: "THIS is post-partum depression! It is TOTALLY normal and there is NOTHING to be ashamed of! And it can happen anytime during the first 12 months after birth! Do you want the name and number of the frum organization for post-partum depression? I'll be happy to give it to you!"

At that time, I was still strong on therapy being the answer to everything, so I appreciated their encouragement to get help. But I didn't feel this was PPD.

The problem was when I tried to tell them I really didn't feel this was PPD, but something else I couldn't figure out. I got interrupted or otherwise silenced every single time I rejected the PPD diagnosis. Why? Well, I must be in denial! Or simply reluctant to get help! That's part of PPD! (It is, BTW. A couple of the official symptoms are being afraid that people won't understand you or that your baby will be taken away.)

Pretty quickly, I started to get frustrated because I kept being told I had a problem I was sure I didn't have.

This made me feel even more frazzled and hopeless. Also, I had a tendency toward depression, so being bullied into seeing myself as depressed when I wasn't...well, it was depressing.

Finally, I decided to sit down and really think about what could be the source of my unhappiness. It didn't take long to realize that the guest was just too much for me. And despite how chessed and being compassionate is supposed to make you grow, I realized that what we were doing wasn't real chessed or compassion; it was "enabling."

So the guest was out by the next day. And I immediately started feeling better! At first, he was really angry at me for kicking him out, but then a year later, he called to sincerely apologize. He's actually a very good and likeable guy, and that period of depression and anger on his part were simply the results of his coming to terms with an upbringing that looked idyllic but was actually very dysfunctional.

But the whole thing got me thinking.

If your friend is down and isn't sure why, what ever happened to saying: "Do you want to talk about it?" or "Is there anything I can do to help?" or "I'm sorry to hear that. What's your name for davening? I'd really like to daven for you."

I know that friends can't be therapists. And how can they know what my real problem was or how to draw it out of me? They can't.

But denying a person's reality and insisting that his or her perceptions are wrong can drive a person crazy. Also, insisting that someone is depressed is also damaging. Being pressured to see myself as depressed aggravated an already desperate situation.

But everything Hashem does really is for the best and I got an insider's view of how attitudes were changing within the frum community, both in ways that were good and ways that were not so good.

Awareness is good, but simplistic thinking is not.

Yet that is what is pervading the mainstream media including the frum media: simplistic solutions to complex problems of the nefesh.

In A Secure Base, John Bowlby described a case involving a first-time mother suffering from post-partum depression to the point that she experienced urges to harm her 6-month-old baby. And she felt terrible shame and fear about this. Despite her feelings, she really loved him very much. In Bowlby's eyes, she seemed like a very nice and normal person and her feelings didn't seem to go with her intelligent and caring personality.

So what was going on?

It turned out that these urges intensified after visits with her own mother.

Now, this woman felt like she had a good relationship with her mother and felt like her mother was helping her. But really, the mother was inserted all sorts of stuff under the radar that hurt and enraged the woman, which twisted around into feelings of rage at her innocent little baby.

(BTW, this kind of relationship in very common with a personality disordered parent. If a Narcissist mother crowns you as the "golden child," then you might go around thinking that you and your parent have a great relationship and even say things like, "My mom is best friend!" But really, all sorts of unhappy stuff is roiling underneath the surface and you can come away from get-togethers feeling bad about yourself. In a nutshell, a harmonious relationship with a personality disordered person can only occur on their terms. So an adult child who has unconsciously adapted to those terms may think the relationship is harmonious when really, it's very one-sided against the child's needs.)

Anyway, once Bowlby helped the woman to see how her own mother was making things worse (and that the mother was the cause of the post-partum depression), he then was able to work with the woman on dealing with the real issues at hand and also limiting time spent with her own mother.

There were more details that I can't remember, but the story had a happy ending and the woman went on to heal from these feelings and enjoy a loving relationship with her baby boy.

(Although I can't help wondering whether, if she were treated today, the real cause of her extreme feelings would be missed in favor of a round of antidepressants. I think it would depend on the insight of the therapist.)

In fact, before I ever heard of Bowlby, I noticed that a lot of post-partum depression seemed compounded by other people, particularly the husband. Yes, of course, there is hormonal flux going on after birth. Combine that with a traumatic birth (even a normal "easy" birth can be traumatic, depending), stressful events or environment (even normal ones, like upcoming holidays or happy events or coming home with the baby to young and dependent children still in diapers or not sleeping through the night themselves), serious sleep deprivation, and so on, then it's a wonder that most women don't break down after birth!

And I want to stress that there are many cases in which the woman's surrounding family and family background is really good yet she suffers PPD anyway. This is completely realistic and as I said, it's a wonder that not every woman suffers PPD after birth!

We should not jump to condemn her family members when a woman suffers PPD.

But if you compound all the above "normal" stuff with family members who are stressed out, critical, selfish, demanding, narcissistic, or uncaring (and these could be the husband, older children, parents, parents-in-law, or adult siblings/siblings-in-law), then you could have a recipe for a serious overload on the woman's already overtaxed body and nefesh.

True Story #1
A very famous letter circulated throughout the frum community from a husband whose wife suffered PPD. It was very good that he brought awareness from the husband's side. The interesting thing is that when he described how he initially responded to his wife's difficulties, he really sounded strange. For example, 3 months after birth, a baby is usually not sleeping through the night.

Think about that: Birth is a emotionally and physically grueling event. But you don't get to rest and recover from it. Even if you go to a mother-baby rest center and sleep through the night there, it's usually only for a few days and you still need to do lots of babycare yourself (like feedings and soothing a crying baby). Then you come home (maybe or maybe not fully recovered) and deal with waking up several times a night.

Some women feel worse 3 months after birth than they do immediately after the birth.

Furthermore, the woman in this case was dealing with older children who were still very young and helpless, plus work, and so on. And the husband was actually getting angry at her for being exhausted and overwhelmed! (That's how I remember him describing himself).

I really don't think you need your wife to be diagnosed with PPD in order to behave with compassion toward a wife who is seriously sleep-deprived and overworked.

But apparently, he eventually did teshuvah and that is really good. And it's good that he publicized his experience in the letter. (My only problem with it, if I remember it correctly, is that he kept emphasizing how he should have been more sympathetic and supportive because her overwhelm resulted from PPD, and not that he generally needed to be sympathetic and supportive when his wife was going through a rough period.)

True Story #2
I personally know, just off the top of my head, 2 women who were initially diagnosed with post-partum depression, then never recovered. Both were calm, competent types, and one I always thought of as being particularly mature for her age when she was a teenager--a very good solid head on her shoulders. You know the type?

And last time I saw her (a couple of years after birth), she was still medicated and paranoid with no end in sight. Her husband seems like a very good guy and has been sticking by her, but I know that her parents are very dysfunctional people and some of her siblings are also problematic (read: mentally ill), one of whom was living with her and her husband for a few months before she gave birth...coincidence?

The other woman had a real jerk of a husband. But she kept pretending everything was fine. But everything hit after the birth of her second child. Eventually, her husband got fed up with living with a depressed wife and they're divorced now with the kids in his custody. Allegedly, he and his mother turned the older child against the mother and when the baby was five, the husband sued for (and won) custody of him too. During the that whole period, the mother lived with an elderly aunt (between hospitalizations for mental illness).

Depressing Middot
Finally, PPD can be brought on because of the mother's negative middot.

For example, if a woman is narcissistic and on the lazy side, the routine acts necessary to keep a baby alive may cause her overwhelming resentment. Having said that, babycare is stressful even with the most easy-going baby, so a normal woman can also experience resentment or overwhelm at times. But someone who is truly narcissistic and isn't up to doing much in the best of times (especially for anyone but herself), she can get depressed after birth. But it isn't hormonally induced depression (although hormones can contribute to her negative feelings). It's just that life has overwhelmed her middot. And medication will not help with that root cause.

So there is a lot more to PPD than just hormones.

Unfortunately, in the current environment of psychology, these observation are ignored in favor of relating to PPD is if it's just a virus that needs rest, chicken soup, and maybe some Prozac.

And that's where the tricky part lies.

Many people mean to be helpful. But like with all the sciences, money and personal bias/agendas tend to determine the solutions and treatment of the problems.

For example, I would say that the reason why most episodes of treated (with rest, nourishing meals, and other people taking on her household and childcare responsibilities until she recovered) PPD go away (including those treated without medication) and never recur is because the mother received the support she needed. Now it was embedded in her subconscious that she is not alone and that she had nothing to fear because the community met her needs.

I have no proof for this, but it makes sense based on my observations and reading.

I really hope we can move past simplistic thinking when it comes to anything on the spectrum of mental illness, even regarding a disorder that really is sparked by biology beyond our control, as is the case with PPD.
_______________
BTW, I am not trying to discourage anyone from getting help for PPD.

PPD is a nightmare to deal with. (The one time I had it, I hid it from my husband and children so they wouldn't know how I was really feeling.) and I'm sure there are genuinely insightful and experienced therapists who can help someone get to the root of their PPD and recover from it. (Although I emphasize the word "help." Therapy is only ever help. Ultimately, a person can't skip steps. Deepening your relationship with Hashem needs to be part of it.) The superficial attitude permeating popular culture right now (and pushed by some psychologist and psychiatrists) is not indicative of every single therapist. I wish I'd known that when I had it.

There's an interesting couple of posts over at Emunaroma (links below) that fit right into what's going in the current parshas (Shemot & Va'era).

Throughout his commentary on the Torah, the Kli Yakar emphasizes that Hashem chooses the "מעט /m'at" -- the lesser, the minor, the small one, the insignificant.

Whether it was the more diminutive Har Sinai or the younger sibling (Yitzchak, Yaakov, Moshe Rabbeinu, etc.), God chooses the m'at.

I'm mean, look at Yehudah, the progenitor of Mashiach: a middle child.

And Tamar? She comes out of nowhere, has been married twice without ever producing a child (not ideal shidduch material), and is pretty quiet. In fact, our Sages note that the whole reason why Yehudah didn't recognize her on the road (despite her having been his daughter-in-law twice) was because of her great modesty and refinement when at the home of her father-in-law...she even covered her face, so he really didn't know what she looked like.

(You're not obligated to cover your face when visiting your in-laws. The Sages just note that Tamar chose to of her own accord, which later proved advantageous.)

Further down the line, you have Ruth. Again, her refined modesty and reluctance to stand out are what actually make her stand out. Her refinement and concern for modesty is even more startling considering that she comes from a particularly brazen nation. Furthermore, she's a convert from a nation despised (with good reason) by the Jews. To make things even more complicated, she looked different. Apparently, the Moavites had a distinctive look, making Ruth identifiable at first glance.

In other words, she was an ethnic minority of one from a most unpopular ethnic group.

(Note: I looked up Moavite archeology to get an idea of what the Moavites might have looked like, but found very little. Almost nothing remains of that once-powerful nation.)

Yet very quietly and unassumingly, Ruth swept up all the Moavite sparks of vitality with her when she left and elevated them with her conversion to Judaism.

And that was the beginning of the end for Moav.

Later, she married the great Boaz and their great-grandson ended up being King David...again, the direct line of Mashiach. Ruth also merited to have her story written out and an entire megillah named after her.

In Shemot and Va'era, we have Moshe Rabbeinu, the baby of the family and a stutterer. He actually spends significant parts of his life undercover:

• He's born in secrecy within a closed home to hide his light.
• He's hidden in a floating box in the Nile (while his sister hides herself to watch over him).
• He's locked up in an underground prison for several years.

Moshe Rabbeinu actually tries to get out of the leadership position Hashem has chosen for him. After his first official meeting with Pharoah leads to increased suffering for his beloved people, Moshe Rabbeinu tells Hashem: "Perhaps I was the cause, since You sent a stutterer like me to him?"

Moshe Rabbeinu is definitely not engaging in any self-promotion here. In fact, he thinks he's the wrong man for the job and is not afraid to tell this to God Himself.

Also, it's worth noting that Aharon Hacohen shows absolutely no jealousy over the fact that his younger and less silver-tongued brother is chosen as the great redeemer. Due to Aharon's profound humility and willingness to play second fiddle his entire life, his descendents are rewarded with the eternal priesthood.

Devorah Haneviah led the nation to military victory, but first she tried to avoid doing so.

There are many, many examples throughout Tanach of the lesser person, the one trodden upon or ignored, being chosen by Hashem for an exalted role.

Here's one of my favorites: Gidon.

The story of Gidon in Judges has always been one of my favorites. When I finally studied it with the commentaries, I found even more to love.

We come across Gidon during a downturn in Jewish history. Gidon is born to the Jewish nation as it's oppressed by the camel-riding crescent-bearing Midyanites (the precursors of today's Arabs).

Initially, Gidon is a member of the smallest tribe, Menashe. Furthermore, his family is one of the smallest and least significant of the Menashi families. And within his immediate family, Gidon is one of the younger brothers.

In other words, in terms of external status, Gidon is about as unimportant as you could be within the trodden-upon Jewish people at that time.

Gidon is working away in the threshing house.

Unbeknownst to Gidon and his father, an angel is invisibly waiting outside in the courtyard under a tree.

Knowing that discovery means death, Gidon tells his father, "Abba, you are old. And if the the Midyanim will come, you will not be able to flee. You go, and I will thresh."

That's according to Rashi. According to Radak, Gidon tells his father, "My father, you are old. Enter into your home and I will thresh because if the Midyanim will come, you don't have within you the strength to flee."

That's when the angel said in the name of God, "You have upheld the mitzvah of honor [honoring your father] and you are suited to that all of my children shall immediately be redeemed by your hand."

The angel became visible and declared, "God is with you, mighty one of valor."

(Please note that Gidon did not tweet, "Dude! Angel just appeared to me and declared me 'mighty one of valor'! Please follow me!" Nor did he upload a selfie of himself and the angel to Instagram. Nor did he update his Facebook page with the new twist of events along with a request to "like" the "angel 'n' me" post. In fact, he was rather hesitant about his newfound status. Okay, I'm kidding about the social media. I know there was no such technology back then.)

Both Radak and Malbim state that Gidon's mesirut nefesh for kivud av (putting his father's safety and well-being above his own) ignited the merit which caused the angel to make itself known and everything else that followed.

But there was one other reason why Gidon was chosen.

Radak explains that the night before was Leil Haseder of Pesach. Gidon said (in addition to the text of the book of Shoftim), "Last night, we read the Hallel and my father read me, 'When Yisrael went out of Egypt' -- If our forefathers were tzaddikim, then perform a miracle for us in their merit. And if they were reshaim, then just as you performed for them, perform a miracle for us too."

(Again, Gidon said this privately to God and the angel. He spoke quietly from the heart; he did not pass it on to the town crier.)

And Hashem said, "By your life! Because you acted as a defender [sanigor] for my children, you are worth Me speaking with you immediately."

VERY powerful stuff, as you can see.

Just the quiet self-sacrifice for his father and then arguing with God to perform a miracle not just for himself, but for the ENTIRE Jewish people...Gidon was suddenly catapulted from oppressed insignificant little Jew to prophet and national redeemer.

Not bad for a boy from a small tribe, eh?

There was no audience for Gidon initial actions. Just his father and an angel.

But Gidon's vocalized care and concern for everyone else apparently went viral in Shamayim.
____________
To sum up:

• Traditionally, our greatest Jews (regardless of gender) tried to avoid the spotlight.
• No need to go looking for attention; Hashem knows exactly who and where you are.
• The absolutely most powerful act you can ever commit is to care about others and to vocalize that care and concern to Hashem.
• Plead for redemption on behalf of others, whether they're good or bad!

Finally, I just want to say that as always, this is a process. Obviously, I have a public blog. So I am not exactly hiding myself under a bushel, am I? And sometimes, I feel more like gnashing my teeth than finding merits in my badly behaving fellows.

But the main thing is to try.

Knowing the goal and at least turning your face in that direction is a big part of achieving that goal.

Who knows if there's an angel waiting outside for you?

Emunaroma posts:
Does God Really Want My Face More "Out There"?
Two Sides of the "Images of Frum Women in Media" Debate
(Please see Miriam's comment in particular.)

The sparks Ruth's conversion swept out of Moav:
The Powerful Secret of Sincere Conversion

Today, when many women think of prayer, they think of praying from a book.

It could be Tehillim, Perek Shirah, a siddur, or anything else. This is all VERY good and truly powerful. As per the psak of many gedolei hador, I also daven some form of Shacharit every day, and Mincha usually too. And like many others, I've also seen much blessing and received great comfort from Tehillim and other types of techinot and tefillot.

But that hasn't necessarily been the traditional way for Jewish women to bond with Hashem. (Even when women were literate, formal prayers accompanied personal outpourings, they didn't replace heart-to-heart talks with their Creator.)

Yet many women today seem to have lost the ability or desire to connect with Hashem in a personal manner.

However, as you'll see, women were gifted with the perfect qualities for creating a powerful bond with their Creator.

Women tend to be very good at relationships.

And even when we're not good at relationships, we're still very relationship-oriented.

We love to bond with our friends (in fact, even the slang "BFF" definitely has a female association), we love to bond with our family members, and even our material possessions. We crave a feeling of connection with our husband and children.

As mentioned, inanimate objects can also be the source of a relationship.

For example, many women have an object, jewelry, certain articles of clothing, or furniture to which they feel a strong emotional attachment...in other words, they have a relationship with that article.

Books, certain prayers, appliances...a Yerushalmi woman once told me that her washing machine and dryer were her best friends. It's completely normal for a woman to speak this way. Rebbetzin Esther Baila Schwartz once enthused in all sincerity that the sefer Netivot Shalom was her new best friend.

My mother-in-law told me about a widow in Morocco who used to visit her recently niftar husband at his grave. What's a grave? Just a marker and some dirt. Yet she sat there for hours every day telling him about her day, how her life was going and how much she missed him, who'd been nice to her, certain that he could hear her. She had no problem keeping up a one-sided conversation with her dearly departed soulmate.

Of course, when a woman puts too much of her ego into her relationships, that's the negative side of this otherwise useful and enjoyable attribute. If she feels that her home must always look perfect (because it reflects her and her need to seem perfect) or that her children or husband must fit into a narrow box of her choosing or if she feels closest to her friends or her mother when they're gossiping, etc., then that's a negative investment in relationships.

But Hashem made women with this orientation toward relationships. He wants us to be this way.

Why? Because it's so wonderful!

When channeled properly, it spurs women on to great things, which is why women tend to be the force behind chessed organizations (in addition to unofficial personal acts of chessed) in every frum community.

It's also the secret to being a good mother and a good wife.

A woman's innate orientation toward relationship is also why Jewish women have always played such a key role in our national salvation: our relationship with God.

Just as one example: The prayers of Leah Imeinu changed human history.

Just her prayers.

Nothing else. Not talking to the "right" people, not manipulating things (the one manipulation of marrying Yaakov without his knowledge was forced upon her by her father), not being assertive ("I'm NOT marrying Esav and that's that!")...just davening.

If you can have a relationship with an inanimate object (whether it's a holy book or your favorite childhood doll), then you can certainly have a relationship with Hashem.

And this is where a woman power and influence really lie.

Countless jokes have been made over the fact that out of the 10 measures of speech, 9 were bequeathed to women. (Kiddushin 49b)

But like anything else, this gift can be used for the good as much as it can be used for the bad. Sure, extra speech can mean more verbal abuse, verbal passive-aggression, well-aimed barbs, gossip, slander, rumor-mongering, and just plain aimless meaningless blather.

But it can also mean more verbal support and encouragement, verbal comfort, eloquence and articulateness, more compliments and praise, the ability to teach and explain, to uplift people with funny or inspiring stories, and more.

A woman's voice is made for positive speech. Sure, it can also be shrill and sharp. But think of the happy shriek of a woman when her child does something good or her husband brings home just the right gift. Think of the welcoming singsong tone many women use to greet their children or wake them up. Think of the soft sympathetic tone many women use to comfort others or to deliver unwanted yet beneficial truths to their friends or family members.

Think of the low, soft tones of a mother singing her child to sleep.

And yes, most women tend to talk a lot more than men. A lot more.

Which is absolutely perfect for hitbodedut!

Because of a woman's innate ability for relationships and speech, women have exactly what it takes to open up in conversation with her Creator.

In a sense, women were created for prayer. So many of a woman's innate tendencies and life experiences lean toward the greater ability to forge an intimate and sincere connection with Hashem.

Because so many women haven't seen their mothers or grandmothers talk straight to Hashem as if He was their One True Good Friend, because they often haven't been encouraged to turn to Him in their own words and develop a relationship with Him in their own unique and personal way, many women today find it hard to do this.

It's okay to find it hard. It's quite understandable.

And it's also important to remember that the Geula (Redemption) is supposed to come in the merit of righteous women. And based on everything I've learned, I'm sure that  forging a relationship with Hashem via heartfelt discussions paves the way to the upcoming Geula.

If Hashem created women with the ability and orientation for relationships, plus the greater need for verbal expression, then this must mean He really loves us.

After all, He imbued us with the exact qualities most conducive for having a relationship with Him.