What POD would you need for homosexuality, aborgion, and contraception to remain illegal in the Western countries?
homosexuality contraceptkon and abortion remain illegal.
- Thread starter joeyanonymous
- Start date
- Status
Well.....TBH, it *will* be *really* tough to pull off, even if the POD is at 1800, let alone damn near impossible after 1900: It's actually a lot more likely to see gay marriage and abortion *totally legal* everywhere, or almost everywhere, by 2015, than the opposite.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Oh come, it's not that difficult. Honestly, the legalization of abortion, decriminalization of homosexuality, and availability of effective contraception are all generally tied to the advancement of women's rights, no? So we need to stagnate or regress feminism as much as possible, and the rest should follow. For a couple examples, it's not gonna happen with a1960 PoD, but it might stand a decent chance in an Axis Victory TL.
Last edited:
I did consider mentioning an Axis Victory myself, but I honestly thought that was actually way too obvious: of course the Nazis wouldn't tolerate homosexuality, or contraception, or abortion, etc.: but barring the rise and success of the Nazis, or a similar group or groups, or some other extreme circumstance, even homosexuality, let alone contraception and abortion remaining totally illegal in all or even most Western countries as of 2015 will prove to be highly difficult to pull off plausibly with a PoD of even circa 1800.
I can see some delay is possible, particularly, perhaps, in the Catholic countries of southern Europe. That I don't deny-but the West isn't exactly a monolithic construct.
Again, I just can't see the particular scenario, as originally laid out by the OP, quite playing out to it's entirety without an Axis victory or some other truly radical circumstance, even with a PoD going back to even the American Revolution, let alone at any time after 1850 with the birth of feminism.
It's
Banned
Communists weren't exactly fans of homosexuality, either, and they didn't have any Ernst Roehms
It's
Banned
And, though it might be even more unpalatable to some of the contributors to this site, soviet culture wasn't particularly feminist either- "barefoot, pregnant AND in the factory" was how one female journalist described it.
It's definitely possible if you use a PoD that changes the dominant social and political philosophies of Europe. You could, for example have a different system than capitalism emerge, or negate the rise of liberalism in the 19th century. To do that, I'm not sure what you could change but I have to think the end result would be a dystopian TL.
Which is why I didn't say it was totally impossible. It can theorectically be done, but, without an Axis Victory, it requires a radical POD, or quite probably, a whole slew of them, for these things to be totally illegal in every Western country, or even most of them (especially if including America) in 2015, at least after ~1775 or so.
I will concede, however, that it would certainly become less difficult the further back you go: if you can blunt the impact of, or possibly even largely prevent, the Age of Reason, that might provide a rather plausible spin in that direction.
Alcsentre Calanice
Gone Fishin'
Homosexuality was legal in France since the revolution and in Bavaria since 1813!
Not among *Germans* of course. But in the states they conquer, they may actually want to keep the population down...
Last edited:
Pangur
Donor
If you have a massive disaster hit Western Europe and the US - Nazi victory, yes or have Cuba go nuclear, up shot for WE, back to dark ages with the title of this thread all to likely to happen. Have the US take a few lumps as well, nuked Boston or New York and they go the same way.
jahenders
Banned
I think it's possible with some pre-1900 PODs and not all tied to feminism, but probably quite a bit pre.
I think the biggest thing would be a different course of the Reformation. Basically, keep church stronger longer in everyday people's lives and in relationship to the government. There could still be protestant faiths but they could retain those tenants more strongly than some of the protestant faiths did. That would keep most of those things more or less taboo and illegal.
Then, when you have the Great Awakening in America, a similar concept needs to apply. New churches are formed, but the vast majority retain those taboos as important tenants and things evolve so that federal/state/local governments are influenced by them (perhaps they work together better to exert influence).
I think that would keep strong prohibitions against all three through the 1900s, a stronger taboo in people's minds, and more religious influence in government after 1900. After that, I think feminism needs to take a different path, or society respond differently, so you can have suffrage and so forth, without those taboos going.
I think the biggest thing would be a different course of the Reformation. Basically, keep church stronger longer in everyday people's lives and in relationship to the government. There could still be protestant faiths but they could retain those tenants more strongly than some of the protestant faiths did. That would keep most of those things more or less taboo and illegal.
Then, when you have the Great Awakening in America, a similar concept needs to apply. New churches are formed, but the vast majority retain those taboos as important tenants and things evolve so that federal/state/local governments are influenced by them (perhaps they work together better to exert influence).
I think that would keep strong prohibitions against all three through the 1900s, a stronger taboo in people's minds, and more religious influence in government after 1900. After that, I think feminism needs to take a different path, or society respond differently, so you can have suffrage and so forth, without those taboos going.
I think that you could certainly have criminalisation lasting longer, unfortunately, but all three are going to be decriminalised eventually at some point in at least some countries, since a) it'd be ridiculously hard and expensive to enforce, and b) it actually enables crime (criminalising abortion enables back-street doctor types, criminalising homosexuality makes life very easy for blackmailers...)
Here: if we assume technological advancement as OTL - and by extension the growth of comparatively easy travel across the globe - this world could have a lot of better-off Western LGBT individuals upping stakes and heading for the Far East. After all, its never been actually illegal in China, Japan or Vietnam, even if societal attitudes are somewhat mixed...
From a personal point of view, I'm damn glad I don't live in such a world - at least four good friends of mine from college would probably be in jail about now...
Here: if we assume technological advancement as OTL - and by extension the growth of comparatively easy travel across the globe - this world could have a lot of better-off Western LGBT individuals upping stakes and heading for the Far East. After all, its never been actually illegal in China, Japan or Vietnam, even if societal attitudes are somewhat mixed...
From a personal point of view, I'm damn glad I don't live in such a world - at least four good friends of mine from college would probably be in jail about now...
Seriously, increased Catholic influence=/=increased repression. Early Protestant sects were anti-establishment, not socially (or even economically, since Protestantism was often used to push greater capitalism) liberal. People just conflate these things because of the slew of recent movements that have been both liberal and anti-establishment. Protestantism in its OTL form actually is largely responsible for giving Christianity a new sense of attachment to the Old Testament, including its schizophrenic views on persecuting women and homosexuals. Sola Scriptura paved the way for Bible fundamentalism, which is used to this day to justify condemnation of homosexuality.
Protestantism and Catholicism have both had conservative and liberal elements, some shared and others not, but in the modern world it's mostly defined by location. In Western Europe both groups are predominantly liberal, in Africa very conservative, and by and in the Americas by and large Catholicism is centrist, organized Protestantism is liberal, and evangelical Protestantism is Conservative. Dragging up old stereotypes based on myths is offensive and counterproductive.
Last edited:
jahenders
Banned
I never suggested anything remotely equating Catholicism with repression.
My point is that the growth of different branches of Christianity, coupled with the explosion of new branches in the American Great Awakening, created lots of different branches. These branches could then, over time, evolve differently -- some liberal, some conservative, as you say. In some cases, new sects formed specifically against certain teachings of another sect.
If, these groups broke off less aggressively, were closer in doctrine, and downplayed differences to work together, they could collectively have more influence on both a political and personal level. In that case, they probably could have (and in this scenario likely WOULD have) kept some, or all, of the those illegal and somewhat taboo for at least quite a while longer.
Again, after WWI or so it becomes harder. With the above assumptions, I think homosexuality and abortion could have remained illegal, but contraception is harder.
Actually, as far as abortion, all that would have been required was a somewhat less activist court in Roe v. Wade and abortion WOULD still be illegal, at least in most states.
My point is that the growth of different branches of Christianity, coupled with the explosion of new branches in the American Great Awakening, created lots of different branches. These branches could then, over time, evolve differently -- some liberal, some conservative, as you say. In some cases, new sects formed specifically against certain teachings of another sect.
If, these groups broke off less aggressively, were closer in doctrine, and downplayed differences to work together, they could collectively have more influence on both a political and personal level. In that case, they probably could have (and in this scenario likely WOULD have) kept some, or all, of the those illegal and somewhat taboo for at least quite a while longer.
Again, after WWI or so it becomes harder. With the above assumptions, I think homosexuality and abortion could have remained illegal, but contraception is harder.
Actually, as far as abortion, all that would have been required was a somewhat less activist court in Roe v. Wade and abortion WOULD still be illegal, at least in most states.
PhilippeO
Banned
an earlier sex-selection technology that lead to males overabundance ? disease that afflict women more than men ?
if number of women is lower than male, then women status AS MOTHER would rise. feminism where women working would be discouraged, abortion and contraception would be seen as betrayal of mothers duty, and homosexuality would be opposed because marriage would be held in high status (but might thrive among poor males illegally)
if number of women is lower than male, then women status AS MOTHER would rise. feminism where women working would be discouraged, abortion and contraception would be seen as betrayal of mothers duty, and homosexuality would be opposed because marriage would be held in high status (but might thrive among poor males illegally)
Stagnate electrical developement.
The rise of an electric consumer market for home appliances starting in the early twentieth gave women more time to ask for more privileges and freed them up from 16 hour days of drudgery. Without that change women's roles in the home except for the upper most classes are very socially defined. Women work in the home to allow men to be men.
The rise of an electric consumer market for home appliances starting in the early twentieth gave women more time to ask for more privileges and freed them up from 16 hour days of drudgery. Without that change women's roles in the home except for the upper most classes are very socially defined. Women work in the home to allow men to be men.
- Status