Sunday, July 28, 2013

Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relationships

Trigger alert:

Dear Reader: If you happen to member of either of the following communities – Toy Dog, Type 1 (mangina) or a Toy Dog Type 2 (white knight) – you should not read the rest of this post.

No Toy Dogs need apply – Big Dogs only!


FULL TEXT: Berlin, July 7. – Dr. Albert Einstein, the famous scientist, made an amazing discovery relative to America on his trip which he recently explained to a sympathetic-looking Hollander as follows:

“The excessive enthusiasm for me in America appears to be typically American. And if I grasp it correctly the reason is that the people in America are as colossally bored, very much more than is the case with us. After all, there is so little for them there!” he exclaimed.

Dr. Einstein said this with vibrant sympathy. He continued:

“New York, Boston, Chicago and other cities have their theatres and concerts, but for the rest? There are cities with 1,000,000 inhabitants. Despite which what poverty, intellectual poverty! The people are, therefore, glad when something is given them with which they can play and over which they can enthuse. And that they do, then, with monstrous intensity.

“Above all things there are the women who, as a literal fact, dominate the entire life in America. The men take an interest in absolutely nothing at all. They work and work, the like of which I have never seen anywhere yet. For the rest they are the toy dogs of the women, who spend the money in a most unmeasurable, illimitable way and wrap themselves in a fog of extravagance. They do everything which is the vogue and now quite by chance they have thrown themselves on the Einstein fashion.”

“You ask whether it makes a ludicrous impression on me to observe the excitement of the crowd for my teaching and my theory, of which it, after all, understandable nothing? I find it funny and at the same time interesting to observe the game.”

“I believe quite positively that it is the mysteriousness of what they cannot conceive which places them under a magic spell. One tells them of something big which will influence all future life, of a theory which only a small group, highly learned, can comprehend. Big names are mentioned of men who made discoveries, of which the crowd grasps nothing. But it impresses them, takes on color and the magic power of mystery, and thus one becomes enthusiastic and excited.”

“My impressions of scientific life in America? Well, I met with great interest several extraordinary meritorious professors, like Professor Milliken. I unfortunately missed Professor Michelson in Chicago, but to compare the general scientific life in America with Europe is nonsense.

[“Einstein Declares Women Rule Here – Scientist Says He Found American Men the Toy Dogs of the Other Sex. - People Colossally Bored - Showed Excessive Enthusiasm Over Him for Lack of Other Thinks, He Thinks.” The New York Times (N.Y.), Jul. 8, 1921, Section (?), p. 9]


Sunday, July 21, 2013

Mr. Belfort Bax Replies to his Feminist Critics. – Aug. 8, 1908

-- Women nowadays “want it,” not “both ways” merely, but all ways. -- 

[Belfort Bax, “Mr. Belfort Bax Replies to his Feminist Critics.” New Age: A Weekly Review of Politics, Literature, and Art, London, Aug. 8, 1908, p. 287-288]


FULL TEXT: Amid the various writers who have favoured THE NEW AGE with their views on the question of Female Suffrage, none have really traversed my original contention, as contained in my first article. That contention was, that occupying as they do a privileged position before the law – not only in itself, but still more in its administration – as against men, women have no just claim to the franchise. That the votaries of Female Suffrage feel this, is proved by the fact that their most serious efforts at arguments turn upon the iniquity of subjecting women to “man-made laws,” their staple policy throughout their agitation being, by dint of lying assertions and insinuations, ceaselessly repeated, to create the impression on the public mind that the existing state of the law and its administration not only does not favour women, but is actually unfair to “the sex.” Now, as I have pointed out, to anyone in the least acquainted with the theory and practice of the English law, there can be no doubt whatever that the latter, in theory and still more in practice, is entirely and without any exception whatever, one-sided and partial to women and against men.

The only correspondent of THE NEW AGE who has really touched the point at issue at all, while admitting the substantial truth of my remarks, confines himself to suggesting exaggeration on my part and observing that our infamous anti-man marriage laws were unjust “not on one side only.” But I must deny the charge of exaggeration, a denial that can be substantiated by illustrative cases galore. As regards the marriage laws, I insist that the unfairness is wholly and solely on one side. But I must here make an explanation. There does exist on paper one slight concession of fairness towards the husband. The divorce law, namely, ordains that an adulterous wife, owing to the fact that by her adultery she can introduce into the family, and compel her husband to support, a bastard child, can be divorced by the husband on proof of adultery alone, whereas for a wife to obtain divorce from her husband (in which case, of course, the above reason does not obtain), it is necessary to prove cruelty in addition to adultery. Now, believer as I am that marriage ought to be an absolutely free union, it is certainly not my case to defend the existing marriage laws as a system. But I do say that, given that system and our present property and family relations generally, nothing can be more reasonable or more equitable as between the man and the woman than this provision of the English law respecting divorce.

Yet when brought to book and challenged to give a concrete instance of the unfairness of “man-made laws “ to woman aboutt which the woman’s righter is perennially blathering at large, it is invariably this very innocent and natural provision of the divorce law that is trotted out, it being the solitary instance in which the law does not overtly favour the woman at the expense of the man. But I have said that this provision exists on paper merely, and so it does, since in practice it remains a dead letter. For the discrimination in question is now practically abolished, anything which the wife objects to – coming home late at night, going out to a party without taking her with him, holding her hands when she attempts to scratch or bite him – being adjudged technical cruelty by the husband within the meaning of the law. Per contra, the Act of 1895 condones expressly the adultery of the wife, providing she can successfully plead “neglect” (an elastic term) on the part of the husband. So much for this solitary case in which the Feminist, to his horror and indignation, finds that the law does not for once avowedly favour women at the expense of men. But apart from this isolated example, the whole marriage law is one tissue of favouritism to the woman and injustice to the man, as I have already shown.

And yet we find in “advanced” journals tirades like the following: “Any fool, any blackguard, any coward, is wise enough and worthy enough to be allowed a legal and a holy license to torture and insult a woman. Anything with the title of husband in his pocket may goad and stab and lash and sear the soul of the slave we call a wife” (Clarion, July 17) Unfortunately, the champion liar who can gush forth the mendacious, sentimental slush, of which the foregoing is a sample, does not stand alone. His performance is but part of an anti-man crusade of misrepresentation and falsehood carefully organised and skilfully engineered, the object of which is, and has been, to inflame public opinion against men in the interests of female privilege and of female domination. Feminists well know that the most grotesquely far-fetched cry anent the injustice of man to woman will meet with a ready ear. They well know that they get here fond and foolish man on his soft side. Looking at the matter impartially, it is quite evident that man’s treatment of woman is the least vulnerable point in his moral record. Woman, as such, he has always treated with comparative generosity. But it is, of course, to the interests of the abettors of female domination to pretend the contrary. Accordingly everything has been done to excite prejudice in favour of woman as the innocent and guileless victim of man’s tyranny, and the maudlin Feminist sentiment of the “brute” man has been carefully exploited to this end. The result of two generations’ agitation in the above sense is seen in the existing state of the law, civil and criminal, in which the “Woman’s Movement” has succeeded in effecting the violation of every principle of rectitude towards the male side of the sex-equation. The existing laws connected with marriage which place the husband practically in the position of legal slavery as regards the wife is typical of the whole.

That the present “Votes for Women” movement is only a phase of the anti-man crusade which Feminism has been carrying on for nigh two generations past with the aid of the Press, is shown, not only by the persistent efforts to represent “ man-made laws “ as unjust to women, but by the incidental remarks of Suffragette leaders in which the sex animus is shown, no concealment being made of the intention to use the suffrage for rivetting on man the chains of legalised female oppression. For example, Mrs. Pankhurst recently represented one of the functions of emancipated “Womanhood” to be the handing over of the luckless male to the Female blackmailer by raising the “age of consent” above sixteen!! The allusion made at the same time to the “daughters of the working class “ is a piece of demagogy too thin to deceive anyone as to the venomous sex-spite animating this outrageous proposal.

Again, in the Daily News for July 30 a suffragette objects to a woman being punished for murdering her child, protesting that the father, who had had nothing to do with the crime, ought to have been in the dock in her place!

In the present agitation we see merely the culmination of a Feminist campaign organised with scarcely any attempt at concealment, as I have said, on the basis of a sex-war. But this sex-war is at present one-sided, the man’s case goes by default. There is no sex-conscious man’s party to be appealed to and to engineer public opinion in favour of the claims of the most elementary justice for him, as here is a sex-conscious woman’s party to further any and every iniquitous claim of the female sex. So long as the present state of things lasts, organised determination on the one side and indefinite gullibility on the other, are likely to maintain the ascendancy of the Feminist cult and increase the sphere of female privilege.

It has often been remarked that even if the suffrage were granted, the enforcement of the laws decreed by a female majority would be dependent on the goodwill of men. This observation we are accustomed to find greeted by Feminist jeers. The jeers may be justified for the moment, but the intrinsic truth of the observation remains none the less. So long, namely, as the Woman’s Party can continue to bulldose men as they have done up to the present, so long will they be able to make men obey and enforce their behests, whether formulated directly through the suffrage or indirectly by hoodwinking public opinion as they do now. But when once men get tired of this, when once the reaction sets in and a sex-conscious Man’s Party forms itself, then Heaven help the women!! The anti-man ranting sisterhood do not seem to realise what the position of their sex would be if men took to refusing to act against their “brothers.” They think it the most natural thing in the world for women to talk and act in this strain as regards their “sisters.” The explanation, to my mind, is simple. They instinctively feel that man is more than sex, that he stands for humanity in the concrete, whereas woman stands, par excellence, for sex and sex alone. As I have often pointed out before, common phraseology recognises that while man has a sex woman is a sex. The hollowness of the sham of the modern dogma of equality between the sexes is shown by the fact that the assumption of inferiority is called into requisition without any hesitation when there is anything to be gained by it for the cause of female privilege. The dogma of equality is reserved for pleading for the franchise, for the opening up of the professions, and similar occasions. According to the current theory, while women are fully equal to men in capacity for government, administration, etc., and hence, while justice demands that these spheres should be accessible to them, they are so inferior to men in the capacity to control their actions and to distinguish right from wrong, that it is not to be thought of that they, poor weak women, should be treated with the same impartiality or severity by the law as is dealt out to men. Women nowadays “want it,” not “both ways” merely, but all ways. At least as good arguments may be produced to prove that the apparent muscular inferiority of women to men is not fundamental, as are adduced to prove that the apparent intellectual inferiority is not fundamental. There are plenty of instances of extraordinary bodily strength in women. And yet we never hear these arguments. Why? Because Feminists have no interest, but quite the contrary, in perverting the truth on this side, whereas on the other, their demands require that they shall prove equality – the aim being to ensure for women all honourable, agreeable, and lucrative occupations in life, while guarding them carefully from all rough and disagreeable work and from all unpleasant responsibilities. Hence it suits their book to admit the physical, while denying the mental, inferiority. My constitutional objection to privileged classes extends also to a privileged sex. Hence my (as some deem it, intemperate) zeal in exposing the hollow humbug on which the practical demands of the “Woman’s Movement” rest.

Turning again to the present agitation, it is noteworthy how the evidence as to the numerical strength of the Suffrage movement adduced by its advocates is about on a level with the arguments advanced in support of the general principle of Feminism. A stage army, the vanguard of which probably amounts to some five hundred, which can on occasion, from all England, be raised to ten thousand (among these, girlish youth and innocence being particularly prominent), such is all that has yet been achieved, and such it is that we are asked to regard as representing the public opinion of England. However, one may suppose that the Feminists are so accustomed to their statements otherwise being allowed to pass by default, that they have come to regard the supineness and gullibility of public opinion in these matters as a safe speculation. Hence, at the beginning of the twentieth century the figure of British Womanhood rises up before us, reeking with privilege, and, in alternate strophes, tearfully whimpering and threateningly shrieking that she has not enough, that she wants more! Such, at least is the Womanhood of the Feminist agitation. In concluding this controversy, I can only reaffirm my original position unshaken, and that is, that whatever other arguments there may be for or against “Votes for Women,” certain it is, under any ordinarily recognised standard of fairness and equality, that so long as women enjoy those privileges before the law at the expense of men which they now do, it is unjust that they should be given facilities for increasing them by the concession of the franchise. 

[Belfort Bax, “Mr. Belfort Bax Replies to his Feminist Critics.” New Age: A Weekly Review of Politics, Literature, and Art, London, Aug. 8, 1908, p. 287-288]



Monday, July 15, 2013

Ella Holdridge, Funeral-Loving Teenage Serial Killer from Tonawanda, New York - 1892


On or before Jul. 7, 1892 – several children, at Father Baker’s institution at Limestone Hill; survived.
Jul. 7, 1892 Louisa Stromer (“Stermer” “Steiner”), (7) poisoned.
Jul. 9, 1892 Louisa Stromer (“Stermer” “Steiner”), died.
Jul. 11, 1892 Louisa's funeral.
Jul. 12, 1892 Susie Eggleston; (10), poisoned, saved.
Jul. 12, 1892 Jennie Eggleston (5), poisoned, saved.
Jul. 12, 1892 Henry Garlock (5), poisoned, saved.


FULL TEXT (Article 1 of 4): Buffalo, N.Y., July 20 – The frightful death of Louisa Stormer [sic, Stermer], and the severe illness of five or six other children of Tonawanda, has brought to light the fact that 14-year-old Ella Holdridge is a murderess. Her frightful crime is the result of a morbid desire to see death scenes enacted. She was attended every funeral that has occurred in the neighborhood for several years past. Funerals have been infrequent hereabouts lately. Ella, it seems, took upon herself the duty of supplying subjects. She administered rat poison to several pupils of Father Baker’s institution at Limestone Hill. They suffered frightfully while she stood by and coolly awaited the coming of death.

The helpless little ones ran shrieking from her presence. Medical aid was summoned and her lives were saved. She claimed to have been given them hot water, and as no serious results followed no investigation was made. The Stormer girl was her next victim. The dead child never spoke after the dose had been given her, and as the physician called gave a certificate of death from summer complaint no suspicion was attached to the Holdridge girl, who saw her die and was the most interested spectator at the grave.

Only a day after Louisa Stormer was buried she fed the children of Mrs. Wallace Eggleston, who left them in her charge, liberal allowances of rat poison. Dr. Edmonds was called. He detected the evidences of poison at once. Heroic measures were adopted and the little ones now hover between life and death, little hope of their recovery being entertained. He left the bedside of the Eggleston children one hour, and the next he was called in to save the life of the 5-year-old child of Henry Garlock, who had been poisoned. The child, too, had been playing with Ella Holdridge and told of eating food prepared by her. Dr. Edmunds sent for the Holdridge girl and forced her to confess that she not only poisoned the children at the institution, the Egglestons and little Garlock, but actually murdered Louisa Stromer. She described with great earnestness and tragic effect the horrible sufferings of her victims and seemed to gloat over the death of Louisa Stormer who she said “made the prettiest corpse ever put under New York soil.” The coroner is now investigating the case. The girl is under police surveillance.

[“She Murdered For Fun. – The Morbid Passion of A Child Leads Her to Crime.” The Philadelphia Record (Pa.), Jul. 21, 1892, p. 7]


EXCERPT (Article 2 of 4): The village of South Tonawanda (N.Y.) was thrown into a state of excitement over a startling case of poisoning that has just come to light. Ella Holdridge, a fourteen-year-old girl, is charged with having given several of her playmates “rough on rats.” One child died and three others are not expected to live. The little daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Steiner was taken sick and died three hours later. It was then thought she had cholera morbus. On the following Wednesday Mrs. Eggleston went to Buffalo, leaving her little girls, Susie, aged ten, and Jennie, aged five, at home. Ella Holdridge came over to play with the children, and while there coaxed the children into the house and forced them to take the poison, which she had mixed with chocolate. She told them it was good, and that her mamma used it in coffee. The children were very soon taken ill, and Dr. Edmunds was sent for. He said they had been poisoned. The Holdridge girl was sent for and questioned. She finally confessed to having given them the poison.

NOTE: The original article discusses two separate juvenile murder case (the other not being a “serial” case).

[“A Pair of Juvenile Fiends.” The Tuapeka Times (Lawrence, New Zealand), Nov. 2, 1892, p. 5]


FULL TEXT (Article 3 of 4): Buffalo, N . Y ., July 20.— Out at Father Baker’s institution at Limestone Hill there is a girl of 14 years, Ella Holdridge, whose morbid passion for seeing death and funerals has led her to kill one of her playmates and cause the serious illness of three others by poison.

The Holdridges have lived in Tonawanda several years. While in all other respects Ella has been like other children, her parents and the neighbors have always noticed that a funeral or the announcement of a death seemed to set her wild.

She grow to be a very familiar figure at the burying ground, for almost as certainly as there was a funeral the child was near the open grave.

Tonawanda is 10 miles from Buffalo, but it might just as well be at the bottom of Lake Erie so far as the publicity of news is concerned, and thus it is that Ella’s crime did not become known for more than a week.

Her plan was to administer rat poison, which she made as agreeable to take as possible by mixing it with cocoa. When the children refused to take it willingly she threw them on their backs and forced it down their throats, leaving them to die if they would, but watching their suffering from a distance and gloating over it.

As far as can be learned this

Child Borgia’s Work

began in earnest July 7. On that day Ella had been playing with Louisa, the 7-year-old daughter of Herman Stormer. Shortly after she left Louisa was taken violently ill. The weather was hot, just the kind in which children’s complaints flourish, and the physician called prescribed for summer complaint. None of his remedies eased her sufferings, and alter two days of intense agony the little girl died.

She was buried on the 11th, and one of the conspicuous figures at the Stormer home during the days intervening between death and the funeral and at the open graveside was little Ella Holdridge, solemn and quiet, but her eyes flashing with excitement, her cheeks burning and her face full of mystery.

The doctor had given a certificate of death from summer complaint, and no thought of murder or poison entered the mind of any one until last Wednesday, when Mrs. Eggleston came to Buffalo on a shopping expedition, leaving her two young daughters at home. She had been gone only a few minutes when the Holdridge girl went to the house. The children were playing around the doorstep.

Ella took them inside and told them she would make them something nice. She looked the door and made a pot of cocoa, into which she threw a generous handful of rat poison.

One of the children didn’t like the taste, the liquid was poured down her throat. Then Ella told them both they would be all right soon, directing thorn not to tell any one.

That night both children were taken violently ill and Dr. Edmonds was called. He at once suspected poison. Questioning the little patients closely, he learned enough to nut him on the

Track of the Child Poisoner.

Ever since then Dr. Edmonds has been attending the children, and may save their lives, although the hot weather tolls against them.

While he was working over the Eggleston children it was discovered that the 5-year-old son of Mr. Garlock had been poisoned.

A panic seized the neighborhood. Every child was catechised to learn if it had eaten or drank anything given them by Ella Holdridge.

By hard work the physicians who attended the Garlock boy saved his life, although he is yet very ill. In the mean-time, Dr. Harris, who attended the girl who died, and Dr. Edmonds had compared notes, and Justice of the Peace Rogers and Coroner Hardleben were notified and began an investigation.

The Holdridge child was sent for and questioned. At first she denied having given any of the children anything to eat or drink, but when told that she had been seen making the cocoa, and that it was known she had poisoned them, she very naively and with wide-open eyes said:

“Dear me, is that so?”

Then she made a full confession. She told how she had made the cocoa with the poison in it, and how she had forced it down the throats of the little Eggleston children because she wanted to go to a funeral and thought they would look so nice dead. When the death of little Louise Stermer was brought up she frankly said:

“Yes, she’s dead. Poor Louisa! But she looked awful pretty, and her funeral was awful nice.”

Ella had given her the poison in a drink of water, she said. She told her tale in the most matter-of-fact way, without seeming to realize the enormity of her act.

At the conclusion of the confession Justice Rogers sent her to Father Baker’s for safe-keeping until the coroner’s investigation is finished.

It has been learned that after she had given the poison to the little Stermer girl Ella went home, and her mother, noticing that she seemed to be laboring under suppressed excitement, asked her what the trouble was,

“I don’t know,” she replied, “but I guess

Little Louisa is Goin’ to Die.

‘cause she’s pretty sick. The doctor is there.”

From then until the child died Ella made frequent trips to the Stermer house, tiptoed her way to a window and peeked in. Every time she ran back to her mother and cried almost joyously.

“I guess she’s most dead now.”

Finally little Louisa died. The first intimation Mrs. Holdridge had of it was when Ella ran into the house clapping her hands and dancing up and down, saying gleefully;

“I guess she’s dead now, ‘cause they’re all in there crying, and there’s a man there with a box. She’s dead, she’s dead; I know it.”

And she danced out into the street. Mrs. Holdridge is almost prostrated with grief.

“I questioned Ella,” she said, “but all I can get from her is that she thought they would look nice dead and she wanted to go to the funerals.”

“She seemed always to have a perfect mania for deaths and funerals. Every time any one died she learned of it in some way and would dance up and down with joy, clapping her hands and saying: “He’s dead! He’s dead!”

“Then if she could she would slip away and go to the cemetery to the funeral.”

“Several times when she has returned home after an absence, and I questioned her she would tell me enough to lead me to believe she had been following a funeral.

“So deeply was she interested in the death of little Louisa that she slipped away once or twice the evening before she died and went to the house. This she told me just before they took her to Father Baker’s.”

The girl was seen in the institution today and questioned, but could give no explanation of her poisoning, other than that “they looked nice dead.” When asked how she knew the poison would kill the children, she said:

“If it killed rats and mice it would kill children.”

Her mind seems perfectly free from evil, and she said, very quietly and earnestly:

“Little Louisa looked very pretty dead.”

She says she got the poison “in the house.”

[“They Looked Nice Dead. – Little Girl Near Buffalo Liked Funerals. - For This Reason She Gave Seven-Year-Old Louisa Stermer Poison. - She Was Not Suspected Till Many Children Were at Death’s Door.” The Boston Daily Globe (Ma.), Jul. 20, 1892, p. 4]


FULL TEXT (Article 4 of 4): Buffalo, N. Y., July 20. – Out at Father Baker’s institution, at Limestone Hill, there is a girl of 14 years, Ella Holdridge, whose morbid passion for seeing death and funerals has led her to kill one of her playmates and cause the serious illness three others by poison.

Uninvited, Ella went to all the funerals, and always crowded well up toward the grave, where she stood looking down the opening. Her plan with children was to give them rat poison, first mixing it with cocoa, and when they refused to take it willingly threw them on their backs and forced it down their throats, leaving them die if they would and gloatingly watch their sufferings. She began her Borgia work July 7 with Louisa, the daughter of Mr. Herman Stermer. The illness was attributed to summer complaint and treated accordingly. Death followed two days later, and conspicuous figure at the house, funeral and the open grave side was little Ella Holdridge, solemn and quiet, her eyes flashing with excitement and her cheeks rosy red.

Last Wednesday, when Mrs. Eggleston visited Buffalo, leaving her two young daughters at home, Alla [sic] visited the house and told the children she would make them something nice. She made a pot of cocoa, into which she threw a generous handful of rat poison. One of the children did not like the taste. She was pushed on to the sofa. The liquid was poured down her throat. Then Ella told them both they would be all right soon, directing them not to tell any one. These children are not yet out of danger. The five-year-old son of George Garlock was next poisoned, and panic seized the neighborhood. Every child was catechised to learn if they had eaten drank any thing given by Ella. Ella has confessed everything, and said in the case of the little Eggleston children that she wanted to go their funeral because they would look so nice dead. When the death of the little Stermer girl was brought up, Ella said. “Yes, she looked awfully pretty in a coffin.”

When the Stermer girl was sick Ella was asked by her mother what the trouble was, the reply was given, “I think she is going to Heaven.” From then until the child died Ella made frequent trips to the Stermer house, tiptoeing to the window and peeping in.

Every time she ran back to her mother and, cried, almost joyously: “I guess she’s most dead now.” Finally little Louisa died. The first intimation Mrs. Holdridge had of it was when Ella ran into the house clapping her hands and dancing up an down saying, gleefully:

“I guess she’s dead now, ‘cause they’re all in there crying and there’s a man there with a box. She’s dead, she’s dead, I knew it!” and she danced off out into the street. When Ella was asked hew she knew the poison would kill the children, she said: “If it killed rats and mice it would kill children.”

[“Young Borgia. - She Had a Morbid Desire to Attend Funerals. - To Gratify Her Whim She Poisons Her Playmates. - She Feeds Them on Rough on Rats and When One of Them Resisted She Rammed the Deadly Stuff Down Her Throat - Horrible Crime.” Daily Public Ledger (Maysville, Ky.), Jul. 20, 1892, p. 3]




The Ella Holdridge case is included in a new book: Michael T. Keene, Question of Sanity: The True Story of Female Serial Killers in 19th Century New York, Feb. 2014, Willow Manor Pub.



More cases: Serial Killer Girls


For more cases of this category, see: Female Serial Killers of 19th Century America


More cases: Youthful Borgias: Girls Who Commit Murder

[5612-1/20/19; 8031-2/18/23]

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

The Shanghai “Female Jack the Ripper” - 1930

FULL TEXT (Article 1 of 3): Shanghai, Feb. 10. – The activities of a female "Jack the Ripper" are baffling the police in the foreign settlement at Shanghai. Two child murders have been reported in the past two days. On Saturday afternoon a Japanese girl seven months old was stabbed in the neck and strangled, and last night the water police picked up a Chinese girl in the harbour, who had been strangled in similar manner.

The murder of the Japanese baby occurred in an upstairs room at its home, and the police are searching for a pretty Chinese girl with bobbed-hair, believed to be a cabaret dancer, who was seen by the mother of the murdered child to leave the premises shortly after the tragedy. The absence of any apparent motive for the crimes intensifies the mystery surrounding them. The entire staff of the Japanese Consulates is assisting the, municipal police in their endeavour to trace the murderess.

The father of the first victim is a cashier at the Yokohama Specie Bank at Kajiwara.

[“Children Murdered - Mysterious Crimes At Shanghai.” Western Argus (Kalgoorlie, W.A., Australia), Feb. 18, 1930, p. 25]


FULL TEXT (Article 2 of 3): Shanghai, Tuesday. – The Japanese, consular police, in conjunction with the International settlement police, have arrested the supposedly femaleJack the Ripper,” in connection with two child murders, which have been committed within two days.

She is a Japanese dancing girl, employed at a local cabaret. It is believed that she is insane.

On Saturday, afternoon a Japanese girl, seven months old was stabbed in the neck and strangled.

On Sunday night, the water police picked up a Chinese girl in the harbour strangled in a similar manner.

The Japanese crime occurred in the child's home upstairs. The police began the search for a pretty, bobbed-haired Japanese girl, believed to be a cabaret dancer. She was seen by the mother of the murdered child when leaving the premises.

The absence of an apparent motive intensified the mystery. The entire force of the Japanese consular police assisted the municipal police in tracking the murderer.

[“Brutal Murders - Two Children in Shanghai - Japanese Girl Arrested,” The Canberra Times (Australia), Feb. 12, 1930, p. 1]


FULL TEXT (Article 3 of 3): Shanghai, February 11. – The Japanese consular police, in conjunction with the international settlement detectives, have arrested the supposed female “Jack the Ripper.”

A Japanese dancing girl, employed in a local cabaret, confessed to the murders. She is believed to be insane. Two young children were murdered in two days.

[“Child Murders - Cabaret Dancer Confesses,” The Advertiser (Adelaide, S.A., Australia), Feb. 12, 1930, p. 17]




For more Real Life Ogresses see: Ogresses: Female Serial Killers of the Children of Others


Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Edith Ransom & the Heart Balm Racket - 1922

FULL TEXT: Miss Edith L. Ransom, a twenty-three-year-old Richmond, Va., beauty filed papers in a suit in Supreme Court for alleged breach of promise against John B. Woodward, an executive and part owner of a Chicago newspaper. He is a widower, about sixty years old, and while in New York lives at the Dearborn Apartments in West 55th Street, Miss Ransom lives nearby in the Hotel. No. 147 West 55th Street.

In her complaint filed by her counsel, Thomas J. Stapleton of No 305 Broadway, Miss Ransom alleges that Woodward asked her to be his wife while they were a dinner in the Hotel Majestic, on June 20, 1920, and that he renewed this promise in October of the same year while the were at a sanitarium in Summit, N. J. Now, she avers, that recently he withdrew his promises to marry and $100,000 damages.

Woodward was served with a summons in the suit in his offices in the Times Building on Wednesday

In a letter to her lawyer, included in the complaint, Miss Ransom writes:

“After several quarrels Mr. Woodward told me that he did not intend to marry me as he had discovered that I had a very jealous nature, and that I got on his nerves at times when I became hysterical after his quarreling with me.

“Due to the disappointment and heartache and worry over the compromising position in which I have been placed I fell seriously ill last summer in the Edgewater Beach Hotel and can secure proof from people in Chicago that Mr. Woodward introduced me to his friends and paid all my expenses while in Chicago at his fiancee.”

Among various letters submitted by tin plaintiff in her complaint is on the letterhead of a Chicago newspaper, saying in part:

“Dear Edith: You have great versatility in letter writing. In almost every letter you write you show it. Sunday you pictured me as a your big wonderful man. Tuesday I was a shrimp, not it to continue as your devoted pal, that on my return to New York  I was not to speak to you Wednesday I was to prepare for the Wedding March and on Thursday I was a cold-hearted villain who had forsaken his Princess and was rushing widows and vamps. Your letters are always interesting and I enjoy them immensely.”

Affidavits are submitted to Mrs. Margaret Ott, superintendent, and nurse, at the Esther [?] Erbach Dr. Reinie’s sanitarium, Summitt, N. J., declaring that Woodward and Miss Ransom spent ten days in adjoining rooms of the sanitarium and that she held Miss Ransom out as his fiancée and it was understood they were to be married next December.”

Miss Ransom is an orphan, her parents having died when she was an infant. She was reared in the .Masonic Home in Richmond, Va. During the war she was secretary to George Creel, Director of the Bureau of Public Information. It was while she was Mr. Creel’s secretary that she first met Mr. Woodward.

[“‘About 60’ Asks 23-Year Beauty To Be His Bride; And So Miss Edith L. Ransom Sues John B. Woodward for $100,000 for Heart Balm.” The Evening World (N.Y.), Aug. 4, 1922, p. 3]



For more on the Heart Balm Racket, see:


Sunday, July 7, 2013

An Early Men’s Rights Effort in London – Wulliam Austin’s League for Men’s Rights

FULL TEXT: The Women’s Rights movement has scored another great success. It has called forth a League for Men’s Rights to counteract it. This league, with the object of securing legal and moral protection to men against the encroachment of women, is in process of formation in London. Mr. William Austin, who resides at Blackheath, and is in a very large way of business in the City, is the founder, and he has received letters of sympathy and assurances of co-operation from, among others, two noblemen whose names during the past few years have been several times prominently before the public in cases that have attracted wide attention. Mr. Austin’s personal appearance is not in the least indicative of his deep seated misogyny. Indeed, he looks much more like a man who would run after a pretty girl, at a pinch, rather than away from one. However, the mover in an effort to secure protection from a sex which it has been a tendency of modern legislation to assist in every possible way ought to have some intelligible reasons to support his side of the case.

 “I cannot pretend,” said Mr. Austin, “to find a remedy for all the injustices on the statute books; but where there is flagrant violations of the very principle of justice, I am convinced that it is well to get together a body of intelligent people and try what may be done to find some way out of the difficulty. I have looked carefully into the legal aspect of the matter, and find that a woman has a much greater advantage when it comes to litigation about almost any matter over any man, rich or poor, than a rich man has over a poor man. I find that in an extraordinary number of cases the law discriminates in the sharpest possible manner between men and women, both in civil and criminal law proceedings. I will not consider the advantage a woman almost invariably has for the reasons of her sex the very moment she goes into court, or even makes a complaint against a man, nor will I more than refer to the bias of the Press and public opinion the moment a woman makes her appearance in a case at law. I will not confine myself to a diatribe against the silliness of juries, judges, and everybody else in breach of promise cases, where sentimental damages are sometimes assessed so heavily that the man is ruined; but will go into the matter of pro-feminine prejudice which has become transmuted into positive rules of law and legal administration, actually crystallised into statutory enactments.”

”I will begin,” said Mr. Austin, taking up a legal volume filled with copious annotations, “with the Summary Court for Separation. There is a direct proof of what I call sex legislation. A man cannot go to this court and obtain a summary separation, but a woman can. Undoubtedly, these courts were established in the first instance to protect weak women. Perhaps they were needed then; now they certainly are not. It would be much more sensible in these days of new women to establish courts of summary separation for men. Most men do not cry out when they are hurt, as women do; but can anyone suppose for an instant that there are not in London alone thousands of men who in all justice ought to have some relief from the cruelties of the women who are making life a hell for them? Then take an action for slander – that is a proceeding open to women alone. But the triumph of modern one-sided sex legislation is the Act passed in 1895, making it a duty for a husband to maintain his wife, even notwithstanding her adultery.“

”There is hardly any limit to the privileges accorded to women over men in the matrimonial, civil, and criminal law books. The balance of the scales in favour of the women in the case, through the sympathies of judge and jury, are too well-known to need calling attention to; a woman may commit perjury to almost any extent, and, although her statements may be found false, they mark the result. No one suggests that she should be indicted for perjury, On the contrary, the man, glad to escape, sometimes settles a large sum of money on her rather than take the chances of further litigation. Even the custom of bringing breach of promise suits is confined to women; a man who sought to obtain redress for a very real wrong, inflicted by a woman’s fickleness, would be laughed out of court. Another instance of the hardships in matrimonial law is that the rule invalidating marriages obtained by fraud, duress, or undue influence, have no effect as against a woman inducing a man by subtle devices or threats of scandal, to marry him. How frequently one hears of an experienced woman of the world inducing some fledgling to become her husband. And how ridiculous would be the effect to break such a contract in a court of law.”

“The law confers on a woman the privilege of support from her husband. Once, in order to secure support from her husband, a woman had to live with him and obey him. But since 1857 any attempts to enforce obedience have been given up, and, since the decision in the Jackson case, the husband cannot compel his wife to return to him in case she has left him, although sequestration and imprisonment are resorted to if he does not comply with her claims of support. A successful lady litigant in 1886 observed to her husband, ‘There is no law which compels me to honour and obey you, but there is one which says you must keep me.’”

“But no matter if the wife is rolling in wealth, she is not obliged to contribute one penny to her husband’s support, even if he is incapable through disease or accident, and even if she received her wealth from him in his time of prosperity. Even if a wife, against her husband’s wishes, leaves her husband’s house, after assaulting him and insulting him, she can obtain an order for restitution of conjugal rights, which is merely a preliminary form of a claim for sequestration of his property for her maintenance.”

“Do you believe the Married Women’s Property Act?” I asked.

“Again, consulting his book Mr. Austin said: “There is a great deal of iniquitous partiality about that Act. By this Act, while a married woman has complete control over her acquired or inherited property, she is, by cynical injustice, left with all her old claims on her husband’s property, and can enforce these by the statute of 1895, even if she commit adultery. If you come to look into the matter at all thoroughly you will find that 99 per cent of women’s property is man-earned. The wife can leave this away from the husband, even if he gave it to her, but if a man attempted to leave his property away from his wife he could be practically prevented from doing so by her suing for a maintenance order, when as much of his property as the judge thinks fit would be settled on her.”

“This Married Women’s Property Act”, Mr. Austin went on, “is responsible for a silent revolution in succession which is being accomplished. Conveyancers aver that the steady tendency is for a woman to leave property acquired from some man always to a woman. This Act has the further effect of enabling a woman to recover judgment against and bankrupt her husband for any money she may have lent him; but there is no case of a husband daring to sue his wife for a loan. There is an even more surprising effect of this Act than those I have mentioned. A married woman, even when separated from her husband, and released from all duties toward him or her children, retains her privilege of having her property exempt from seizure for debt.”

“Are there any other instances of partiality of the law toward women?” I asked.

“Oh, plenty. One of them is the responsibility of a husband for a wife’s acts, although she is not under his control. As the late Sir Frank Lockwood put it, ‘One has the deep satisfaction of knowing that if Mrs. Jackson utters slanders, Mr. Jackson can be sued.’ Lord Halsbury, in the Jackson case, declared that in English law the husband never had the right to restrain his wife. And married women are not responsible for any crime they commit when their husband is by; he is supposed to have coerced them into the act.”

“When it comes to facilities for obtaining divorces the husband is at a terrible disadvantage. He cannot procure a divorce except by an expensive process, while she can get a summary separation, with costs and maintenances out of her husband’s property or earnings, from the nearest police-station. Although the woman may be an opera singer with £40,000 a year, not a penny of it can be touched, even for the children, but every week, in the police-courts, a working man with perhaps 18s or 20s a week may be seen ordered to pay two-thirds of it for the keep of a woman who has treated him with cruel malignity. If the wife of a poor working man repudiates her duties, neglects her children, drinks to the verge of delirium tremens, pawns her husband’s clothes, disgraces him before his friends, procures his discharge from his employment, and even assaults him, he can do nothing if it be not appeal to the High Courts, at a minimum cost of £40. And it is not against the poor man alone that the way of the wife to escape from the matrimonial yoke is made clear and easy. Perjury by the husband is a frightful thing, but committed by the wife, or one of her witnesses, it is deliberately passed over. When it comes to giving the husband damages from a co-respondent, who has broken up his home, exposed him to loss and worry, as well as a certain disgrace, we find that judges and juries have actually seized on these damages to serve as a fund for endowing the adulteress.”

”I think,” said Mr. Austin in conclusion, “that you will see, without my going any further, how greatly a remedy is needed for abuses of which the foregoing are only a few instances.”

[“A League of Men’s Rights – Protection Against The Encroachment of Women.” The Weekly Standard and Express (Blackburn, England), May 14, 1898, p.7]


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