Sunday, July 7, 2013

MEN ON STRIKE – Early Men’s Rights Organization: Tibet 1928

You will be surprised to learn that, despite the best efforts of the gender censors, that now, for the first time in nearly a century, it is revealed that Gender Utopia has been achieved in reality. Read on, study the story of “gender” in remote Tibet, and learn how western society will look in 10-20 years.


Men on Strike” is the title of the 2013 book by Dr. Helen Smith (“Dr. Helen”) that explains why men are, in ever-increasing numbers, refusing to submit to the out-of-control “gender” system that continues to strip the male of fundamental rights and which reduces so many men to a lifetime of slavery.

Dr. Helen uses the phase “men on strike” as a metaphor for what is going on now, yet there have been instances in history where men have literally gone on strike, and called it a “strike,” and did it for the very same reasons that motivate today’s strikers. Here is one such instance, which took place in 1928 in Tibet.

It is recommended that another post be read in conjunction with this one. “‘A Dictatorship of the Eternal Woman Has Been Declared’: The Soviet Alimony Racket – 1927,”  describes a situation, similar in some respects, as regards to de facto system of polyandry, but arrived to on a different path, namely Communism.


FULL TEXT (Article 1 of 4): That persistent underground rumbling you’ve been hearing lately is undoubtedly caused by the turning of millions of worms down on the underside of the world, the worms in this case being the patient long suffering husbands of the haughty ladies of Tibet.

According to news that has seeped out through the tall ring of Tibetan mountains, the gentlemen of the yak country have organized a men’s rights campaign that recently culminated in a parade of striking husbands. Accompanied by charm boxes, prayer wheels and fluttering pennants that read “Down With Tyrannical Women!” numbers of married men paraded the streets of Lhasa, demanding more respect for their sex and a kind word now and then from the head of the house.

At the risk of becoming what Tibet considers unmasculine, some of the brave ones have even gone so far as to draw up a set of demands. They ask, among other things, for financial independence, a single standard of morality, only one husband to a wife, the right of widowers to remarry and equal; privileges of divorce.

“Too long have we suffered in silence, my fellow Tibetans!” cries out, in effect this mold manifestant “We, able bodied men seven feet tall, natural protectors of the so-called gentler sex, are made their slaves. We have to earn our own keep as well as supply our wives with luxuries, and they don’t even provide enough children to go around. It has got so than an ambitious woman expects a flock of husbands, just like so many sheep or yaks. Must such things go on forever? Or shall we not rather assert our manhood, even at the risk of appearing unmanlike, and protest against this irksome feminine control?”

Apparently being seven feet tall is not much of a help to the harried husbands of Tibet. For countless centuries the little women of Lhasa and the way stations have kept the masculine world firmly fixed under their yellow thumbs. The trouble is that husbands so often come in wholesale lots, few indeed being the women who haven’t more than one husband. Four is said to be a highly popular number, which is fortunate if the wife happens to be find of the Tibetan equivalent of “Sweet Adeline,” sung as a quartet.

The institution of plural husbands and the feminism seem to be due in a considerable manner to a considerable shortage of women. Percival Landon, who accompanied Younghusband’s expedition, reports that practically all commerce of the country is in the hands of the women, the men serving chiefly as errand runners, bundle carriers and bits of local color. No man is allowed to sell any of the family possessions without his wife’s permission, though, of course, no such restrictions apply to her.

Nor do the women confine their ruling to the little troop of Boy Scouts given to them by holy matrimony. Nu Kuo, a state of eastern Tibet, has always had a woman ruler, and in many of the other provinces the wife of the prince in charge is the real mainspring of the works.

One of the most powerful of the Tibetan divinities is a dark blue with three eyes who rides a mule, has live snakes for veins and drinks her cocktails out of a skull. Some 30 years ago the functionaries of Tibet announced that the current incarnation of the dreadful lady was none other than Queen Victoria. After her death they prophesied that the revered ruler would have the happiness of being reborn a Tibetan. If so, the change in home life must be rather starling to the dear English queen.

Of course, no high spirited Tibetan girl would marry a whole group if she disapproved of any of the members. If one of the younger brothers happens to lack charm, he is black balled out of the wedding party. This, in a young man, is as severe a calamity as the blizzard of 1888, and his usual reaction is is to save himself from social ostracism by becoming a monk.

There is a chance, in southern Tibet, at least, that he can make a career of  a sort by signing on as a magpa. In this section of the country ladies bored with their current group of husbands sometimes add to the ménage an unhappy younger brother who has been vetoed by someone else.

The magpa’s importance is close to the absolute zero of physics. He can leave his wife only in case she possibly mistreats him, but she, on the other hand, can give him the cutting mountain air whenever such a procedure strikes her fancy.

Polyandry is not universal in Tibet. Up near the high brim of China it is comparatively rare, and even in the midst of the many husband belt there are occasional only sons whose interest in their wives is of the shareholders type.

Yet the life of these monopolists is hardly cheery enough to justify green looks of envy among the married men of America. It is the duty of the Tibetan husband, whether singular or plural, to make all the clothes for the family, including the wife. Any man who has ever imagined being a Louise-Boulanger [a famous fashion designer] in his own house can picture the anguish of the fitting hour and the horrid strain of the day when the little woman goes out to compare her costume with those made by the husbands across the valley.

But, as the entomologists say, it’s a long worm that has no turning. Under the leadership of one Amouki, who seems to be the Susan B. Anthony of the movement, the husbands of Tibet have risen to demand an improvement in their status.

[“Husbands of Thibet Demand Equal Rights – In Mysterious Land Where Every Wife Has a Harem, Downtrodden Male Sex Organizes an Anti-feminine Movement,” The Sunday Magazine of the Milwaukee Journal (Wi.), May 20, 1928, p. 5]


FULL TEXT (Article 2 of 4):

“Fathers and brothers:

“For many years we have been subjected to feminine domination. They look upon us as cattle and horses. Their impositions are so many that it is impossible to mention them all, but here are some:

“1. A wife is provided with many husbands. If they do not please her she abandons them. Husbands dare not resist.


“2. under feminine control we work day and night in a different section of the country. We gain money by the sweat of our brow, of which we may keep nothing, being compelled to turn over all to the woman who rules us.

If we have not lucrative employment we are evicted and abandoned. What slaves we are!

“3. women are free to remarry when any of their husbands die, but we are obliged to remain widowers if our wife dies. Even if his fiancée dies before marriage


No, this is not taken from some crazy quilt, futuristic farce, nor does it describe a man-hating woman’s dream of heaven. It is surely part of the resolutions offered secretly by striking husbands of Tibet, to be exact, of the province of Ezetchouan.

This is only one of  the many communities in Asia where polyandry is the existing system, where every woman has at least three husbands plus one bronze image of a Buddist priest.

All husbands except of the favorite work for the wife, who is absolute despot over the seven-foot males. They are her playthings. If she likes them, she keeps them; if not she casts them aside. And a husband so discarded is an outcast from society.


Well, the downtrodden husbands of that one particular province decided to rebel, formed a union and marched five hundred strong on the holy city of Lhassa, appealing for “Men’s Rights.” Banners calling for “Financial Independence for Men” and demanding that “One Husband Should Suffice For Any One Woman” were in evidence.

Doesn’t it remind you of the not-so remote effects of our own downtrodden women? Yet today it is said that the only country in the world where women enjoy greater privileges than in America is in polygamous Tibet!

[Jean Newton, “What Slaves We Are, Cry Husbands – Men Of Ezetchouan, Tibet, Where Polyandry Exists, Rebel and Adopt Resolutions. – Situation Is Like Reversal Of Recent Conditions In America, Suggests Writer.” The Sunday Sun (Baltimore, Md.), May 13, 1928, Sec. 2, p. 13]


NOTE: Here’s a little background information on the Tibetan system of polyandry which precipitated the revolt of the males in 1928.


FULL TEXT (Article 3 of 4): A little northeast of Lhassa, among the mountains that cover that part of the great plateau of Tibet, the explorer Bonvalot found a large population. It is in these valleys that some of the rivers of India have their headquarters. This region, says the New York Sun, is peculiar as the part of Tibet where polyandry is the custom, and this feature of social life has given Tibet some notoriety, because there are very few parts of the world in which polyandry is practised. Bonvalot thus describes the custom as it exists in Tibet.

A family has a daughter. A young man wishes to enter the family, to live under its roof, and become the husband of the daughter. He consults with the parents, and if they arrive at an agreement in regard to the amount of property he is to turn over to them, he takes up his abode in the hut and becomes the husband of the daughter. It may be that there are other young men desirous of partaking of the same good fortune. They are not at all deterred by the fact that the girl is already provided with a husband. They present themselves at the hut, make offers of certain property, and, unless the first husband has paid what is regarded in Tibet as a very large sum in order to secure the young woman as his exclusive possession, she becomes likewise the wife of these other claimants for her hand, and the whole family live together in the same hut and in the utmost harmony.

It rarely happens that a young man thinks so much of the girl he weds in this peculiar fashion as to be jealous of others who also desire to be her husband. Now and then, however, such a case arises, and then there is likely to be bloodshed. He is a happy young man who is wealthy enough to become the sole lord and master of his wife. It is a question entirely of money. If the young Tibetan is rich enough he buys a wife and remains the only master of the household. Sometimes, also, the husband acquires sufficient property to buy out the interest? of the other husbands and then they retire from the field. They are generally content if they receive back a little more money than they paid for their interest in the young woman. The children are always regarded as belonging to the woman, and the fathers lay no claims upon them. Polyandry is not established by law, but it is a custom which probably arose at some time when the female population was less numerous than the male, and it has been continued largely on account of the poverty of the people. Polygamy is practiced as well as polyandry.

While the poorest men have only a fractional interest in one wife, the rich men of the community have several wives. The chiefs have as many as they can buy. Financial considerations, therefore, have all to do with questions of matrimony.

[“Polyandry In Tibet. - A Country "Where Women Have Several Husbands Apiece. -  Financial Considerations Rule All Matrimonial Questions in the Land of the Lama, But Jealousy It Not Popular.” Syndicated, The Piqua Daily Call (Oh.), Apr. 6, 1892, p. 4] 

FULL TEXT (Article 4 of 4): Polyandry still flourishes in Central Asia where the inconveniences of a matriarchy are solved by never having more than one husband home at a time. After spending five years in the desert and mountain wildernesses of Northern Tibet and Chinese Turkestan, Professor Nicholas Roerich, head of the Roerich American expedition, declared today that the women of Central Asia were the greatest spiritual force of that remote, wild section of the globe.

Three or four husbands are the rule in Northern Tibet. Polyandry is most common among the lower classes. The high cast Tibetans, guided by their lamas, or priests, are more inclined towards monogamy.

Among the strange lore which Protestor Roerich brought back with him from his travels is an account of a religion called Shambhala. This it strangely parallel with some of our own scientific discoveries of recent date. The Shambhala is an evolutionary theory which promises to show humanity how to master psychic energy, cosmic energy end through the these – the mystery of fire energy.

“The high culture of these people is remarkable. The lamas are really teachers, not monks. They try to keep this Sbambhala religion to themselves. It was manifested about 2,000 years ago and only few know of it or are able to understand it.

“The women look like the Red Indian. They are taught that it is immodest to attract the attention of a man. For this reason they paint their cheeks with a black powder mixed with blood. This makes them ugly – and seems to suit their purpose admirably. They pick their own husbands, thus the matter of  selectivity is no problem with them.”

Professor Roerich, accompanied by his wife and son, George Roerich, one of the foremost Orientalists, set out frost Sikhim in India, crossed over to the Soja La Pass to Little Tibet, thence to the great Karkorum Passes into Chinese Turkestan. From there they journeyed over the Altis Mountains to Mongolia, the Gobi Desert, into Tibet. They suffered innumerable hardships.

En route, Professor Roerich paused to paint pictures of the impenetrable regions around Altis and the Himilaya Mountains. He is a famous artist, philosopher and scientist for whom the Roerich Museum was founded here in 1923.

[“Polyandry Still Practised in Asia by Tibetans of tower and Middle Classes - Women Make Themselves Ugly, at It Is a Sin to Attract Men,” syndicated, The Dubois Courier (Pa.), Jun. 26, 1929, p. 8]

From Wikipedia article “Polyandry in Tibet”: Studies have attempted to explain the existence of polyandry in Tibet. One reason put forward in traditional literature is that: By not allowing land to be split between brothers, Tibetan families retained farms sufficiently large to continue supporting their family. A compelling socio-biological justification for polyandry is that it makes good genetic sense for brothers to raise one another's children since a brother possesses the next closest gene pool to their own. Another reason for polyandry is that the mountainous terrain makes some of the farm land difficult to farm, requiring more physical strength. Women take multiple husbands because they are strong and able to help tend the land.



The “Early Men’s Rights Activism” post gives links to other articles on 1910s-1930s men’s rights activism in several countries. ◄•◄


For more on this subject, see: MGTOW: 20th Century Men Going Their Own Way


No comments:

Post a Comment