New findings in how to survive stress

Time  Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) experts Dr. Steven Southwick and Dr. Dennis Charney investigate the power of resilience in their new book, Resilience: The Science of Mastering Life’s Greatest Challenges.

Recovering from a natural disaster takes physical and psychological strength, and as those attempting to rebuild their lives in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy are learning, it doesn’t hurt to have help. To better understand which tools help us to bounce back from trauma and cope with stress, Southwick, a psychiatry professor at Yale University, and Charney, a psychiatry professor at Mount Sinai Hospital, studied Navy SEALs, rape survivors, prisoners of war and others who overcame highly stressful situations with only minimal mental hardship. It turns out that these survivors share critical skills that can support anyone, even those who haven’t been professionally trained or naturally endowed with resilience, to better combat trauma. [...]

Another surprising factor involves being true to your own morals…
DC: It’s to embrace a personal moral compass,  develop a set of beliefs that very few things can shatter. That’s really important. It was very important to the POWs. They were being tortured, but their own set of beliefs about what was right [could] not be touched

SS:  I don’t think I was expecting that to be as powerful as it was. [But] one of the things often happens in highly stressful situations, particularly if someone else is injured or killed is that there’s a tremendous tendency to develop survivor guilt.

We’ve interviewed some medal-of-honor winners.  They are the bravest of the brave. There are only some 200 of them in the U.S.  No one could do more.  But the few we interviewed in depth, they have survivor guilt. They felt that they should have done more. [So] that’s going to happen no matter what you do and you don’t want to add to that if you violate some principle you think is important.

What role do religion and spiritual beliefs play in resilience?
DC: That comes under a moral compass. Some develop strong beliefs independent of religion and others find it very helpful. It’s not important for everybody but for some people, it’s very important. When we studied [those in poverty] in  DC, who were largely African American, religion was very important. Going to services was very useful for establishing social networks,  in addition to the core beliefs. It adds to the other elements.  Some of the POWs found religion to be very important,  but not every one of them.[...]

What can parents do to help their children become resilient?
SS: [As a parent] you are affecting and molding the way your child’s stress hormones and nervous system will respond in the future. It’s very plastic and you are, by the type of stress you’re exposing them to and the way you respond, [helping shape] the degree to which they will master it or not. This  affects how the stress response will work in adulthood.

The problem is either neglect or over-parenting. You want to be the helicopter swooping down and fixing it, but then the child doesn’t learn how to meet these challenges. You have to really know where is ‘out of the comfort zone’ and where they flip into an inability to [cope] and become overwhelmed. And people are so different and so unique. I love the term ‘Good-enough Mother’ from the [child psychiatrist] D.W. Winnicott. You just need to be good enough.

Arayos: Why prohibit marriage of relatives?

Ramban (Vayikra 18:6): Concerning all near of kin to him, he should not approach them to uncover their nakedness The reason for prohibition of sexual relations with certain relatives is not stated explicitly. The Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim 3:49) says it is to reduce sexual activity and to make it less attractive and that he should be satisfied with little. These types of women which are prohibited by the Torah are those that are more likely to be present and available to him. And this reason the Rambam applies to all of them. The Ibn Ezra writes something similar that since the lust of a man is like that of an animal therefore it is not reasonable to prohibit all women. What is prohibited were those women who are present all the time. However this is a very weak explanation to say that the Torah makes a person liable for kares simply because they are with him on occasion and at the same time permit a man to marry hundreds and thousands of women. Why should it be harmful if he just marries his daughter as is permitted to non-Jews (Sanhedrin 58 :) or two sisters like Yaakov did? In fact there is no more appropriate person to marry than his daughter to an older son and then they will keep the inheritance in the family and will have children in his house in order that the land not be waste and the lust will quieted. The fact is we don’t have a traditional explanation concerning this. However according to logic there must be a deep secret of creation regarding his soul and this is included in the secret of incarnation which has already been alluded to. You should know that sexual intercourse is something which is disgusting and despised in the Torah – except for the purpose of propagating the species. If the relation doesn’t lead to children it is prohibited. Similarly that which doesn’t preserve the species and isn’t successful is also prohibited by the Torah. This is the reason for the Torah views on intercourse with relatives... Thus later on in verse 17 it says that intercourse with relatives is wickedness. In other words it is not properly marriage because it won’t be successful but represents simply evil lustful thoughts. In fact sexual prohibitions are included as statutes which are things which the king decree. And the decrees are things which occur to the king who wise in the conduct of his kingdom and he knows what is needed. And that which is beneficial he commands and he doesn’t reveal to his people except for his wise men and advisors.

Rav S. R. Hirsch (Bereishis 2:24): This verse – according to our Sages – alludes to the halachos of arayos for Bnei Noach (Sanhedrin 57b). The verse says, “Therefore a man should leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife...” This can be understood to mean that a man should distance himself from his father and mother – in other words when chosing his wife he should not seek a wife amongst his closest blood relatives. Perhaps if we examine this verse in the context of what preceded it – as suggested by its opening with “and therefore” - we can have at least a partial clarification of the reasons for the apparently inexplicable laws of arayos. The role of the wife is to be the helper (ezer) to the husband and as a result she must be compatible with him (kenegdo) and that means that she needs to complement him and therefore she must have different characteristics than her husband. In fact if they are too similar that would mean they would not only have the same virtues and but also the same faults. Thus if they got married it would only serve to reinforce the characteristics of both – whether for the good or bad. But marriage would not lead to perfection since they do not complement each other. Thus the possiblity of perfection through being complementary is only if they are not too similar and in fact have distinctly different characteristics. It is only due to having different characteristics that their joining together has the potential to produce perfection. Thus not marrying blood relatives increases the likelihood for finding a complementary mate. However this explanation of arayos only is relevant for the arayos of Bnei Noach which are based entirely on blood relatives. In contrast the arayos for a Jew are also based on kinship through marriage. Such arayos requires a higher level of explanation.

Kli Yakar (Vayikra 18:6): The reason for the prohibition of arayos according to the Rambam is in order to reduce the amount of sexual intercourse. Since these prohibited women are relatives of his and thus they are always with him. The Ramban refutes this view by noting that the Torah in fact allows a person to have thousands of wives. Therefore the Ramban concludes that the reason is a secret. Perhaps that is why the verse concludes “I am G‑d.” In other words G‑d says that He is the only one who knows the reason for this matter while to humans it is a statute.

3 accused of swindling millions from government

YNet   Police and Tax Authority officers raided the homes of three haredi men Monday, who according to suspicion swindled the State out of millions of shekels.

The three are suspected of defrauding the Education Ministry into funding their fictitious association, supposedly schooling several hundred girls. 

The fictitious association listed students who were actually attending another school, which never applied for financial support by the Education Ministry, as it does not recognize the State's authority.


An indictment in a similar case was filed with the Jerusalem District Court on Monday, against 10 suspects. The men are accused of laundering NIS 48 millions (roughly $12.2 millions) through fictitious haredi associations.

Is love an obligation: Rambam vs Yevamos (62b)

updated 11/11/12 In the discussion about the nature of marriage - the prime question is the role or necessity for love between husband and wife. It is important to note there is an apparent contradiction between the language of the Talmud and the language of the Rambam and subsequent authorities. The Rambam clearly states that the obligation to love  one's wife as oneself is rabbinic. However if he is basing himself on Yevamos (62b) - which the commentaries state is his source - there is no assertion of a rabbinic obligation. It simply says that if one does love one's wife as oneself and a bunch of other things  - there will be peace in his tent. At most it is a wise suggestion. An additional problem is that the Rambam in his commentary to the Mishna (Kiddushin 2:1) clearly states that the obligation is from the Torah command to love your fellow as yourself. That is the language of the gemora Kiddushin 41a. So is the Rambam basing his  obligation of love on a Torah command or rabbinic? Is he basing himself on Yevamos 62b or Kiddushin 41a? Are there two obligations of love as Rav Zilberberg suggests below? Finally it seems from the following sources that love is refering to caring or not hating or not doing negative things to another person . It is not referring to the emotion that we call love.

Yevamos (62b): Our  Rabbis taught: If a man loves his wife as himself and honors her more than himself and guides his sons and daughters on the straight path and has them married close to the age of puberty - the verse (Job 5:24) is applied to him, And you shall know that your tent is in peace.

Rambam(Hilchos Ishus 3:19): Similarly a man should not marry of a child nor should he marry a woman until he has seen her and she is acceptable in his eyes. That is because if he doesn’t see her first it might turn out that she doesn’t find favor in his eyes when he does see her.

 Kiddushin (41a): Rav said that it is prohibited for a man to marry a woman until he has seen her because when he does see her he might notice something which disgusts him and the Torah (Vayikra 19:18) has commanded, “You shall love your fellow as yourself.”

Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 15:19): Our Sages have commanded that a man should honor his wife more then himself and love her as himself.

Rambam(Commentary Kiddushin 2:1): It is correct that each man marry directly rather than through an agent, since we have a general rule that a man should not marry a woman until he has seen her. That is because we are concerned that she won’t find favor in his eyes and yet he will remain married to her in spite of not loving her. Such a thing is prohibited since there is a rule, “You should love your fellow as yourself.” Therefore it is important that the man marries directly rather than through an agent.

Aruch L'Ner(Kerisus 28a): This that the Beis Shmuel says that a man should honor his wife – we do not find that this means an obligation. In fact in Yevamos (62a) and in Sanhedrin (76b) it says that if a man honors his wife more than himself... the verse You shall know that there is peace in your tent is applied. This language implies that it is only a act of piety (midos chasidus) to not be insistent on one’s honor against her. Nevertheless according to the straight law she in fact is obligated to honor him more than he honors her

Eliyahu Rabbah (#16): One who fulfills the wishes of his wife and directs his children properly and marries his son before puberty before he comes to sin – about him it says “you shall know that there is peace in your tent (Job 5:24).

Pele Yoetz (Love between husband and wife): The love between a husband and wife must be a passionate one. We will begin with the love of the husband to his wife for the declaration of our Sages (Yevamot 62b) is known, "That the husband is obligated to love his wife as himself and to honor her more than himself."

Pele Yoetz (Love between husband and wife): The primary love is the love of the soul. It is incumbent upon the husband to admonish his wife with pleasant words, to guide her in the ways of modesty, to distance her from slander, anger, cursing, the mention of G-d's name in vain, and similar things in the Orders of Nashim and Nezikin. He should caution her in regard to the details of mitzvot – especially in the areas of prayer, blessings of benefit from this world, the observance of Shabbat, etc. How good and how pleasant it would be for him to teach her ideas of ethical improvement and to share with her words of the Sages in all matters that are relevant to her and their severity.

Yad Rama (Sanhedrin 76b): The braissa says that if a man loves his wife as himself – that means that he should have mercy on her as he is merciful to himself but more than himself is not relevant. That is because love is something which is in the heart and a person is not able to love another more than he loves himself. However regarding honor that is something for which it is possible that he can honor her more than himself with clothing which is nicer than what he gets for himself.

Kiddushas Levi (Bereishis 224:67): And Yitzchok brought her into his mother’s tent and she became his wife and he loved her. What was the reason that the Torah tells us that Yitzchok loved Rivkah? A possible answer is based on the fact that there are two types of love a man has for a woman. The first type is the physical lust that a man has for a woman because he wants to satisfy his desires. Because this type of love is solely concerned with what he wants,  it is actually not love for the woman at all but entirely love of himself. The second type is the love which is not concerned with satisfying his physical lusts but rather is because she is an instrument that enables him to fulfill the commands of his Creator – thus he loves her just as he loves the other mitzvos. This is called love of his wife. That is the meaning of “And Yitzchok loved her.” He had no thoughts regarding physical lust but only loved her because she enabled him to fulfill the mitzvos of G‑d.

Ramban(Bereishis 24:67): What was the reason that the Torah mentions that Yitzchok loved Rivkah and was comforted? This alludes to the fact that he was very distraught at the loss of his mother and could not be comforted until he was comforted by the love he had for her. Because otherwise what could possibly be the reason it would mention that a man loved his wife?

Rav Chaim Paltiel (Bereishis 24:67): And Yitzchok loved her This statement of the Torah is surprising – does that mean that originally he hated her? A possible answer is when he had the first sexual intercourse with her - he did not find signs of virginity. That was becasue she had fallen off the camel when she first saw him and this caused her to lose the signs of virginity and therefore she had the halachic status of one was lost the signs because of a physical blow (muchas eitz) – not because of intercourse. As a result of not finding the signs of virginity he hated her because he suspected that she had had relations with other men. She protested that she had done nothing wrong with any man. Eliezar also defended her innocence of wrong doing. She explained that when she fell of the camel, the force had caused her to lose the signs of virginity. She added, “Perhaps G-d will do a miracle and I will find the signs of virginity.” They went to the field where she had fallen and they found the signs of virginity on a stone and a dove was sitting on them in order to preserve them from the sun.

Rabbeinu Bachye (Kad HaKemach – Ahava): ... The attribute of love is great but the attribute of desire (cheshek) is even great than love. That is because love means loving the person in all his actions whether they are open or secret. However there are times when the love disappears and he forgets about her – such as when he is eating or drinking or sleeping. In contrast desire (cheshek) is when the person’s thoughts are constatnly attached in great and powerful love and there is no interruption at all in his desire. An example is Bereishis (34:3) where it says that Shechem soul clung to Dinah and Bereishis (34:3), Chamor said that his son Shechem’s soul desired (cheshek) Yaakov’s daughter. When someone has desire then he thinks of nothing else. Even when eating or drinking he doesn’t stop thinking about her. In fact sometimes he will lose his appetite and not eat at all. Even while sleeping that which he desires will appear to him dreams and will speak to him... Shir HaShirim is based on this attribute of desire (cheshek) which begins with (Shir HaShirim 1:2), Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth....

Rav S. R. Hirsch (Bereishis 24:67):... A man’s love for his wife grows with time. An example is the marriage of the son of the first Jew. This is the way it is with the majority of Jewish marriages. They are not built on the basis of lust (cheshek) but rather on careful deliberations. The parents and relatives make the decision as to whether these young people are compatible with each other. As a consequence of this objective compatibility, love grows with the marriage as the couple spends more time together. In contrast the majority of non-Jewish marriages in the world are based on what they call “love”. One has only to look around to have clear proof that there is a great chasm between the “love” prior to marriage and that which exists after the marriage. One sees how quickly things change after marriage and are so different than what people imagined they would be. This “love” is blind and false. In contrast the Jewish marriages are described by this verse, “And he took Rivkah and he married her and he came to love her.” The Jewish wedding is not the result of the flowering of love but is the cause of it.

Rav Yitzchok Zilberstein (Chashukei Chemed - Yoma 2a):  Question: It says in Yevamos 62b) that one who loves his lives as himself and honors her more than himself....will have peace in his tent. The Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 15:19) writes that the Sages commanded that a man should honor his wife more than himself and love her as much as himself. But this requires an explanation as to why they gave such a command since we already are commanded to love our fellow man and a person's wife is obviously included in this Torah command? Answer: I asked this question to my brother -in-law Rav Chaim Konievsky and he replied that it was because there are times when a person is not obligated to show love from the Torah command of "love your fellow as yourself." For example it says in Nida (16b), Rav Shimon bar Yochai said there are 4 things that Gd hates and I don't like. 1) A person who suddenly enters into his house and surely into the house of another person [because person they are involved in intimate matters - Rashi]. The Maharasha writes, "G-d hates them because these are matters of pritzus (immorality) but regarding himself Rav Shimon just says I don't love them. That is because it is possible that these things are not pritzus that would justify violating the prohibition of hating another." Consequently in such a case if the wife suddenly enters into the house then at that moment there is no obligation to love his wife from the aspect of the Torah law of "love your fellow as yourself." However in regard to the command that is derived from "you will have peace in  your tent"- there is still an obligation to love her. Furthermore there is a question regarding what the halachais when a wife sins. There is no longer an obligation to love her from "love your fellow" - in fact the opposite is true and there is an obligation to hate her. Is this rabbinic command "of peace in your tent" still applicable? It would seem that even  if there is  no mitzva to love her there is still a mitzva to honor her. That is because the obligation to honor her is because of gratitude because she raises the children and saves him from sin. This gratitude is still obligatory even if she sins. Therefore it is correct to honor her and to buy her appropriate clothing - even though she sins. Rav Shmuel Arvah gives an additional answer why there is a special verse to love his wife. It is based on the Maharsha (Shabbos 31a) which explains the answer of Hillel to the goy who wanted to learn the entire Torah while standing on one foot and  Hillel replied that what is hateful to you do do to your fellow. The question is why he worded in a negative way that he should be good to his fellow as he is to himself? He answers that the Maharsha says that the verse of "loving your fellow as yourself"  only applies to negative commands such as not taking revenge. However not to the positive commands of the Torah to do good to others.  That is because your life always comes first. Consequently we can say from the obligation of loving your fellow as yourself - there is no obligation to be good to your wife as to yourself. However from the obligation to honor your wife - there is an obligation to honor [sic] her as yourself.

Hurricane Sandy Reveals a Life Unplugged

NYTimes   BLANK screens. Cellphones on the fritz. Wii games sitting dormant in darkened rec rooms. For a swath of teenagers and preteens on the East Coast, the power failures that followed Hurricane Sandy last month represented the first time in their young lives that they were totally off the grid, without the ability to text, play Minecraft, video-chat, check Facebook, or send updates to Twitter. 

If they wanted to talk to a friend, they had to do it in person. If their first post-storm instincts were to check a weather app, they resigned themselves to battery-run radios.

As the full scope of the storm’s damage became obvious, it was clear these inconveniences were hardly grave. And because most children, and adults, eventually found some kind of connection via an unaffected neighbor (or Starbucks), the withdrawal was often more of a tech diet than a total fast. 

But the storm provided a rare glimpse of a life lived offline. It drove some children crazy, while others managed to embrace the experience of a digital slowdown. It also produced some unexpected ammunition for parents already eager to curb the digital obsessions of their children.

Rav Wolbe: Psychiatry and Religion

Hebrew Books בשבילי הרפואה  #5 page 59-90 5742  

Living with convicted sex offenders in your community

Haaaretz   In 2006 the Knesset passed the Public Protection from Sex Offenders Law, the first of its kind in the country. Its main provisions were to mandate an assessment, prior to parole, of the threat posed to the community by each convicted sex offender, and to establish a monitoring unit. This year an amendment providing for treatment and rehabilitation of sex offenders was passed. 

Plant's whereabouts became public knowledge when his wife registered their children for school. Last Friday morning dozens of neighbors gathered outside their building and prevented the family from going into their apartment. Plant charged at the group and made it very clear that he had no intention of backing down. Police officers who were dispatched to the scene explained to the residents that they could not prevent Plant and his family from living in the building, but in the end the Plants moved once again. 

Plant, 49, has served six separate prison terms for the same number of convictions for sexual offenses against minors. In the most recent, in 2006, he was sentenced by the Rehovot Magistrate's Court to seven years for performing indecent acts on nine underage girls while pretending to be an instructor of Capoeira, a Brazilian martial art that combines dance and music. 

The sex-offender monitoring agency established under the 2006 law and known as the Tzur unit, has broad powers that can include surveillance operations, surprise visits, frequent phone calls and visits with parole officers, as well as almost around-the-clock supervision and approval prior to an offender's hiring at a new place of work. 

Israel maintains a registry of convicted sex offenders, to which all of them must report their home address prior to their release from prison. But in contrast to many countries, most notably the United States, Israel's registry is classified. The authorities oppose moves to make the records public, in part out of fear of widespread violence against offenders living in the general community.

תשובת רביד נגר לאישה שנפגעה מהתעללות חוללה סערה

kikarhashabat        הרב רביד נגר, מחזיר בתשובה מוכר, מחולל סערה כשהוא מתבטא בצורה שנויה במחלוקת

בתשובה לאישה שסיפרה בפורום אינטרנטי על אירוע בו התוקפה בנערותה על ידי גבר זר, ענה הרב כי מדובר בעניין של תיקון "העולם הזה הוא עולם של תיקון" אמר הרב

.

"אני לא מבינה איך ה' יכול היה לעשות לי כזה דבר. כששאלתי רב באמת גדול ע"כ הוא אמר שזה התיקון שלי. אני כועסת על ה'. איך אפשר להגיד שזה התיקון שלי" שאלה האישה

.

הרב נגר, בתשובה ארוכה מאוד, הגיב לשאלתה של האישה, אולם חלקים מתוכה הצליחו לגרום לסערה בכלי התקשורת.

הרב רביד נגר שפתח ב'אני ממש מצטער בשבילך', כתב לאישה: "למה ילד צריך להיוולד עם מום? למה יש תינוקות שנולדים מוגבלים? עיוורים? חרשים? למה? מה ה' אוהב להתעלל בילדים? אני בטוח שלא ! התשובה פשוטה ! העולם הזה הוא עולם התיקון ! עולם שבו אנחנו מתקנים את חטאי העבר , את החטאים שלנו בגלגולים קודמים , מי יודע מה את היית בגלגול הקודם? אולי היינו אלימים? אולי פגענו באנשים אחרים? כל זמן שאין לנו מושג מה היינו בגלגול הקודם , אין לנו שום זכות לשפוט את בורא עולם ! ה' רוצה שנתקן כדי שנזכה לגן עדן לנצח ! במקום שנסבול שנים של צער , ה' נותן לנו זכות לסבול כאן בעולם הזה כמה שנים בודדות וע"י כך הוא מציל אותנו ממאות שנות סבל בעליונים".

Obama’s Campaign Diminished the Presidency

Time  by Karen Hughes former counselor to President George W. Bush

Like many Republicans across the country, I woke up this morning deeply depressed, my mood soon matched by the falling stock market. I’m distressed not only by the outcome of the presidential election, but also because of the way it was won.

In stark contrast to the hope and optimism he stirred in 2008, this time, President Obama won ugly. During his first election, although I didn’t agree with his proposals or philosophy, I was among those who found myself inspired by the president’s call for our politics to be higher and better. Unfortunately, the way he has governed and the way he conducted this campaign undermined that central and hopeful promise.

I felt that I was watching a shrinking presidency as the campaign unfolded, with President Obama getting smaller each day. He often came across as peeved, petty and not presidential. On stage during the first debate he looked as if he wanted to be anywhere else, and his comments about his opponent were cutting and deeply personal. The final blow came with his comments in the final days to his supporters that “voting is the best revenge.” The mindset that comment reveals is deeply disturbing:  an election as a weapon to be wielded against our fellow Americans.

At its core, the central message I took away from the President’s re-election campaign was: Stick with me, we are inching forward and things could be a lot worse. Not exactly a hopeful agenda on which to build.

Nachalot abuse - case of hysteria & moral panic?

Times of Israel  This post is a response to “Nachlaot, where pedophiles roam free,” by Elana Kutscher. In it, I examine the main points made by Elana and analyze their validity.

Elana claims that there are pedophiles in Jerusalem’s Nachlaot neighborhood and that this was reported to the police over a year ago, but that the pedophiles are still there. The implication is that the police did not really do enough about the problem.

On the contrary, the police took immediate action as soon as they were notified about the initial suspected pedophile in November 2010. Afterwards, when neighborhood residents reported more suspects in the summer of 2011, the police again took action and arrested a group of suspects. If anything, the police were overzealous in their pursuit of potential suspects. They arrested several more individuals in January, 2012, simply because of public pressure, even though there was no substantive evidence.

She states that the police say this is the largest pedophile ring in the history of Israel, and that over 100 children have been abused.

In fact, the position of the police is that there is NOT a pedophile ring in Nachlaot at all – and there is not a ringleader. The police DO believe that there were pedophiles molesting children in Nachlaot, but that each one acted on an individual basis, and not as part of an organized group. The concept of a pedophile ring was the figment of the over-active imaginations of worried parents. They also claimed that this imaginary pedophile ring was producing movies of pedophilia for financial profit. No such movies were ever found. No forensic evidence of any sexual molestation was ever found either, even for those suspects who were indicted. The indictments were based entirely on the testimony of the children.

Not all the children who gave testimony were actually abused. Though more than 100 children testified that they were abused, much of that testimony was corrupted by the improper methods the parents used to obtain it. Some mothers went door to door, trying to convince as many parents as possible that their children were molested. The children were also shown pictures of the suspected pedophiles. [...]

Principal convicted of violating mandated reporting law

San Jose Mercury News   In a verdict hailed by child-abuse experts, a jury Monday found a principal guilty of the extremely rare charge of failing to report suspected sexual abuse to authorities, despite being told by an 8-year-old girl in vivid and explicit detail about a possible sexual act a teacher performed on her.

The conviction of former O.B. Whaley Elementary School principal Lyn Vijayendran was only the second time in two decades that Santa Clara County prosecutors had brought such a misdemeanor charge -- and the first time they'd won.

Vijayendran, 36, dabbed at her eyes with a tissue while the clerk read the guilty verdict.

She later wept when Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Deborah Ryan took the unusual step of immediately sentencing her.  [...]

In the end, the strongest evidence against the principal were her own notes from interviewing the child. The girl told the principal that Chandler blindfolded her in a room with no one else there, made her lie down on the classroom floor, told her to open her legs, touched her feet with something that felt like a tongue, inserted something gooey in her mouth and then wiggled her head around until she tasted a salty liquid. Chandler told Vijayendran that he called the girl into the classroom to prepare a lesson on Helen Keller, which he had been using for years.

Vigilantes protect Egyptian woman against abuse

NYTimes   The young activists lingered on the streets around Tahrir Square, scrutinizing the crowds of holiday revelers. Suddenly, they charged, pushing people aside and chasing down a young man. As the captive thrashed to get away, the activists pounded his shoulders, flipped him around and spray-painted a message on his back: “I’m a harasser.” 

 Egypt’s streets have long been a perilous place for women, who are frequently heckled, grabbed, threatened and violated while the police look the other way. Now, during the country’s tumultuous transition from authoritarian rule, more and more groups are emerging to make protecting women — and shaming the do-nothing police — a cause. 

The attacks on women did not subside after the uprising. If anything, they became more visible as even the military was implicated in the assaults, stripping female protesters, threatening others with violence and subjecting activists to so-called virginity tests. During holidays, when Cairenes take to the streets to stroll and socialize, the attacks multiply.

But during the recent Id al-Adha holiday, some of the men were surprised to find they could no longer harass with impunity, a change brought about not just out of concern for women’s rights, but out of a frustration that the post-revolutionary government still, like the one before, was doing too little to protect its citizens.

Divorce is no longer fashionable?

NYTimes   That a woman who has been divorced should feel such awkwardness and isolation seems more part of a Todd Haynes set piece than a scene from “families come in all shapes and sizes” New York, circa 2011. But divorce statistics, which have followed a steady downward slope since their 1980 peak, reveal another interesting trend: According to a 2010 study by the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, only 11 percent of college-educated Americans divorce within the first 10 years today, compared with almost 37 percent for the rest of the population. 

For this cross section of American families — in the suburban playgrounds of Seattle, the breastfeeding-friendly coffee shops of Berkeley, Calif., and the stroller-trodden streets of the Upper West Side — divorce, especially for mothers with young children underfoot, has become relatively scarce since its “Ice Storm” heyday. 

For every cohort since 1980, a greater proportion are reaching their 10th and 15th anniversaries, said Stephanie Coontz, author of “Marriage, a History.”[...]

The experience of being a divorced woman has changed, along with the statistics. “The No. 1 reaction I get from people when I tell them I’m getting divorced is, ‘You’re so brave,’ ” said Stephanie Dolgoff, a 44-year-old mother of two elementary-school daughters who was separated last year. “In the 1970s, when a woman got divorced, she was seen as taking back her life in that Me Decade way. Nowadays, it’s not seen as liberating to divorce. It’s scary.”  [...]

“What happened?” asks the writer Claire Dederer in her memoir, “Poser,” which examines life as a new mother in Seattle. In the 1970s, “the feminists, the hippies, the protesters, the cultural elite all said, It’s O.K. to drop out.” In contrast, “We made up our minds, my brother and I and so many of the grown children of the runaway moms, that we would put our families first and ourselves second. We would be good, all the time. We would stay married, no matter what, and drink organic milk.”

Changes in marriage:Tragedy of Seridei Aish

I met Rav Nosson Kaminetsky tonight at a chasuna and asked him for some leads regarding changes in the nature of marriage. He reminded me of the following quote regarding the tragic experiences of the Rav Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg that he had written about.

Making of a Gadol by Rav Nosson Kaminetsky page 819:

page 816 - When describing the disaster he entered into, he wrote, "This shiddukh was forced upon me by the Alter of Slabodka and the heads and members of Yeshivath Kneseth Yisrael (emphasis added)./'' An article in ... reveals the background of the misatch between the Chekhanovtzer 'Iluy, R' Weinberg, and the simple, orphaned daughter of the Rav of the small Lithuanian town of Pilvishok. R' Weinberg had been "dabbling with the idea of leaving the yeshiva world for the world of the Haskalah. (R' Finkel) sensed that (R' Weinberg) was at a crossroads and aranged the shiddukh which would bring him the dowry of that town's rabbinic post" and thereby bind him to the Torah world. Weinberg Obituary cites the following from R' Weinberg's letter: "Being young, I submitted to [their guidance], and by that, I ruined the course of my life [...]. During my tenure as the Rav of Pilvishok, the Alter of Slabodka established in Pilvishok a kibbutz of select bahurim in order to enable me forget my pain and my travails through the toil of delivering shai'urim." R' Weinberg's reference to having "ruined... (his) life" goes beyond his personal happiness because, with his talents, he could have developed into the greatest Torah leader of his generation, as discussed in the fourth paragraph of the following excursus.

page 819 - It is possible, too, that the Alter, though expert in understanding what made people, especially the young, tick - in my father's opinion, he understood people better than Freud  - was out of step with the change in the relationship between mates which modem trends had wrought in Jewish society as a whole, even the Torah world, by the time R' Weinberg married. We may speculate that the Alter's own domestic arrangement, which my father from his latter-day perspective described as "terrifying '', could not have endured even among bnei Torah 40 years later. Shades of the generational dichotomy in outlooks on this matter may be found in a report of an exchange between the Alter and R' Weinberg which was reported by R' Shmuel-Hayyim Domb in the name of R' Yehiel-Yankev's talmid R' Pinhas Biberfeld: When the Alter tried to convince R' Weinberg not to separate from his wife, he responded, "Where is the drugstore which sells a potion for love?" It may be assumed that R' Weinberg's purpose in repeating this conversation to his talmid was to convey this very idea - that by making the attempt to get him to stay with his wife, the Alter had demonstrated that he did not grasp what degree of compatibility was expected between couples in the new times. Even the extreme forbearance that the Alter knew R' Weinberg was possessed of could not hold a relatively modem marriage together.

page 826 - Based on what R' Hayyim Sarna heard from his father, the Alter held that R' Weinberg would become the gedol hador (greatest[Torah leader] of [his] generation); "And he would have become that, but for his unfortunate marriage, ,'' R' Sarna said °. He explained: "In Lithuania only teamsters (...) got divorced any person of standing would, as my mother would say, 'eat nails (... [suffer])' and stick it out." [Rachel Sarna used another idiom, viz., "any person of standing would 'bite into the quilt [...,,, (probably meaning, clench one's teeth under the covers, in privacy)]'". The interviewee said further that R'Weinberg "had to leave Lithuania because of the divorce"...