alternatehistory.com

I'm not sure where this one was supposed to go, but since I think it would probably require a PoD of prior to 1900, I'm sticking it here (for now). ;)

So, how do you create a Western culture that is systematically more oriented towards the personal wants and needs of women in the marital, domestic, economic, and philosophical spheres? I'm not talking about the women's/sexual revolution that took place in the 1960s with its bra-burning, love-ins, widespread adoption of the Pill, etc. I am talking far beyond the kind of feminism that happened in OTL. Here are the sorts of social demands and desires that I am envisioning.

--Women demanding more sexual satisfaction from their partners, i.e. more orgasms, including demanding oral sex since statistically speaking women are far more satisfied by clitoral stimulation than conventional penetration. Also, women as a whole feeling no stigma from being sexual aggressors/initiators. (I don't think this is an unfeasible thing to bring about; we see this to a certain degree in very progressive European nations today, and to a lesser extent in the United States, especially in the middle class on up.)

--Larger numbers of women not wanting to be married at all and expecting no difference in treatment from it. (We see this increasingly IOTL.)

--Women feeling empowered to be in complete control over every aspect of their reproductive destiny, meaning not just legalized access to contraception/abortion. For instance, IOTL very few women will, at least openly, steadfastly refuse to have children altogether. There are a variety of religious and peer reasons that prevent most women (even in the highly liberalized west) from going through with this.

--Women that are more physically aggressive--more likely to fight back against physical/sexual assault or even to initiate aggression when angered, either against other women or men. (This might be tough considering aggression tends to be directly tied to blood testosterone, but I don't quite see it as ASB; some women growing up in gang-oriented cultures do fight quite a bit IOTL.)

--Women and their advocates demanding that girls in school not just have equal access to sports and programs (I believe that's called Title IX in the United States), but active attempts to immerse them in male-dominated fields starting from early childhood. To picture an end result of this, visualize an America in which no less than 20% of the average varsity HS football team are girls (difficult, but far from ASB) or 30% of all students in AP chem, bio, calculus, etc. classes are girls (more likely).

--An equal stigma attached to male promiscuity as female promiscuity (not terribly far-out, we are moving in that direction in the west but aren't there yet, some religious subcultures like parts of orthodox Judaism and evangelicalism are fairly close to this now).

Let's look at what this would take historically. I am thinking we would need a PoD long before the 1960s Sexual Revolution to make this happen. The easiest way to bring it about I think would be either for the Sexual Revolution to have happened during the Enlightenment in the late 1700s/1800s, or at least something roughly equivalent. It would likely have to happen in one of the very most progressive nations of the day--either Britain or France, although Russia is a wildcard. I don't see it happening in a strongly religious nation, especially a Catholic one. Here are three ways I can see it getting started.

--One of the great philosophers of the day, such as Rousseau or Voltaire, deciding to make it a personal big deal of theirs.

--A grouping of upper-class Victorian ladies deciding that they are through with getting absolutely nothing from their husbands and simply being there to suit their every sexual and personal need and "going on strike". You know, some Elizabeth from Pride & Prejudice types. They loosely band together, are able to win over some of their husbands, and gradually (probably taking many decades), their thinking trickles down to the masses.

--A very powerful and renowned female leader, like Catherine the Great, having more worldwide influence and clout than IOTL.

What are some of the tangible historical developments that occur after this mentality becomes a major movement?

--I can see large numbers of young women joining "domestic labor unions" that have arisen to ensure specific standards of treatment and financial independence within marriages.

--Sex-ed is compulsory and likely a whole lot more detailed and comprehensive than it is now and starts much earlier, perhaps beginning in early elementary years. Abstinence ed doesn't exist with the exception of extremely insular religious communities.

--In more reactionary societies (meaning the more conservative European nations and most of the non-Western world), I see a lot of potential for violence as militant "uppity" women are not discouraged from pressing their agenda by entrenched power structures. This can mean anything from increased levels of family abuse and street fights to darn near civil war in some places.

--The ERA is easily passed in the United States, and probably something like it becomes law in every Western European nation well before that.

What are some butterflies and long-term effects that I see coming out of this?

--Wars are probably fewer in number and most Western nations are fielding women in combat by the 1960s or prior. World wars and total wars in general that require 100% civilian effort either don't happen or are far smaller and briefer.

--Totalitarian regimes probably still exist but they are probably fewer, less stable, and shorter-lived.

--The green movement is probably a whole lot stronger.

--Abortion rates are probably much lower than IOTL because effective contraception is more freely available and probably subsidized. I can even perhaps see government programs offering tax credits for voluntary sterilization.

--Islamic fundamentalist movements and the like are probably much less of a problem and governments are more eager to crush them in the bud (since women are the chief victims of them).

--The birthrate in most Western nations falls below replacement level long before it has IOTL. Elder-care becomes a worldwide crisis. This leads to as much money as has been spent on HIV research IOTL being invested into aging research and we probably get some really cool medical technologies out of it.

--The world in general is probably quite a bit less religious. Religions like LDS that are highly patriarchal are either completely discredited or fail to get off the ground. Those religions that do manage to have or keep any kind of success are highly egalitarian ones, such as Unitarianism, Quakerism, and some of the evangelical sects.

--Lifespans are longer, quality life is better, especially for women. (Even today there is very little physiological understanding of the female orgasm, but from what we do know it appears to be very beneficial to womens' health. ITTL a lot more women will be having them, and more of them.) Obstetric-related diseases are a much smaller problem. Far fewer women die in childbirth. People are probably able to work productively for longer than IOTL and they may have to with a much smaller Social Security base in the working-age population.

--I can see a breast-cancer vaccine targeted to young girls being mass-produced by 2011 ITTL. Perhaps it is even mandated by law.

--The infertility industry as we know it is either butterflied away or is much smaller and less advanced than IOTL. People who view procreation as the crux of human existence, or even of married life, are considered to be ignorant and primitive.

--Same-sex marriage is probably a lot more accepted, all over the world, and it is possible that civil marriage itself is completely done away with, leaving it exclusively as a private and unofficial institution.

--National expenditures on education are probably much less, but per capita educational levels are higher.

--The space program as we know it is probably butterflied away.

So... where do we go from here?

ArmchairPhilosopher
Top