Catalog of the Weird Parallels

[AlexanderHowl]

Amazon-5

In Amazon-5, a sexual transferred magical disease infected the Native Americans around 1000 BC that transformed all of the infected men into women (though they are infertile). One-twelth of children were naturally immune to the disease, though the immunity was not passed through genetics but was due to their date of conception (any boy conceived in October was immune to the disease as was any girl conceived in May was likewise immune), meaning that immune men became very valuable breeding stock. With a two year incubation period, during which the victim was contagious, the disease spread throughout the Americas until every human was infected. After the incubation period, the victims were still contagious, but it only mattered until around 1000 AD because it allowed mothers to pass their infection to their children.

In 1000 AD, a group of Norse fisherman from the colonies in Greenland had camped in Vinland for a month to exploit the rich fisheries. They captured a few Native American women and violated them for a month before taking them as slaves back the Greenland. In Greenland, the Native American women were sold to an Icelandic merchant in 1001 AD, who allowed his crew to violate them on the long voyage home, and he sold them to a Norwegian merchant in 1002 AD after he returned home. In Norwey, the group of women was purchased by factors representing Otto II, the Holy Roman Emperor, in 1003 AD to serve as exotic entertainers in his household.

During their continued violation, the European men who violated them were infected with the disease and, through sex, passed it to their spouses, lovers, etc. It spread throughout Europe by 1028 AD, North Africa and West Asia by 1053 AD, East Africa and South Asia by 1078 AD, West Africa and East Asia by 1103 AD, and South Africa and Southeast Asia by 1128 AD. By 1153 AD, the only uninfected areas were Australia, North Asia, and Oceania.

It is currently the year 1203 AD, and the Earth is surprisingly peaceful. Due to every adult man being outnumbered by adult women 23-1, adult men are occupied with reproduction rather than with war (fifty percent of women are infertile since they were conceived as males, though it is impossible for societies to know who was transformed unless they were one of the few men born to immune women who were infected after puberty). Because of the low population growth, there is less incentive for conflict than when there were plenty of men around. Monogamy is an extinct concept, any group that kept to it died out within a couple of generations, and the average adult man possesses twenty-three wives who keep him in relative luxury while they handle commerce, farming, governance, etc.

Amazon-5 is a Q7 world that Infinity and Centrum have quarantined because the magical infection is quite capable of spreading. Unlike many timelines, the magic of Amazon-5 depends on spiritual essence rather than magical energy, so the magical infection is capable of spreading to timelines without mana. While it is impossible to cure, even with magic, Infinity and Centrum have developed tests for it, and have been able to quarantine any infected agents.

[David Johnston2]

Peaceful because it's mostly women. <snerk> Yeah right.

[Prince Charon]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Peaceful because it's mostly women. <snerk> Yeah right.

Agreed. Women can be quite horrifyingly nasty to other women, and to men. They are not 'instinctively opposed to war' or anything like that unless the disease that caused this also makes them so. Competition over resources and other reasons for war would still happen, and thus so would wars.

[Culture20]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Peaceful because it's mostly women. <snerk> Yeah right.

Perhaps it’s a Trope-Parallel. ;)

After the commonality of what makes males immune is discovered, there would be laws or other societal pressures to make sure that people only attempt to conceive in February. The Holy Roman Empire might have an edge with its practices of Lent (starting usually near the end of February), which is supposed to be a period of abstention, Saint Valentine’s Day on Feb 14th, and the ostensible requirement to abstain from sex until marriage, which could easily be changed to “until married, and only during the Feast month of Valentinus.” Other large organized countries and/or religious institutions could achieve this too, but Roman Europe would have a head start.

[AlexanderHowl]

Well, it would be difficult for a TL3 society to figure out, since timing exact date of conception is difficult for even a TL8 society. With half of the boys being born to immune women, it would only make timing more difficult. At best, they would only be able to figure that fifty percent of the immune men were born in July. Not every boy born in July would be immune (boys born July 1st to 15th could have easily been conceived in late September while boys born July 16th through 31st could have easily been conceived in early November). And some boys born in late June could have been conceived in early October while some boys born in early August could have been conceived in late October, though both groups would be immune.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Culture20

Perhaps it’s a Trope-Parallel. ;)

t.

That's what makes it weird.

It's not the lizards that make the United States of Lizardia weird. An Earth ruled by evolved dinosaurs would just be a distant point of departure. What makes it weird is that those evovled dinosaurs speak English and have a nation called the United States. Now that's weird.

[AlexanderHowl]

And I do take issue with the idea that women are as violent as men, as I just think that it is a way that entitled and privileged men excuse the violence of themselves or their peers. When it comes to adults, men are disproportionately the dealers of violence in modern societies while women are disproportionately the victims of violence in modern societies. I have also found no archeological or historical evidence to suggest that the trend was not ubiquitous throughout human existence.

Now, it might just be a product of socialization, but the academic literature suggests that men are driven to be generally more aggressive and more violent than women. In the business setting, men are much more aggressive than women, and companies led by women are more likely to work off consensus and depend on expansion for growth than companies led by men, which are more autocratic and depend on acquisition ('conquest') for growth. You do not need to take my word for it, you can look at the social science research yourself, and you will see that the academic consensus supports my position.

Are some women aggressive and violent? Yes, but women are less aggressive and violent than men on average. Are some men passive and peaceable? Yes, but men are less passive and less peaceable than women on average. Now, there will be exceptions, but they are the exceptions that prove the rule because they are so much different than the rest of their gender.

[TGLS]

And how much of that is nurture and how much is nature?

[AlexanderHowl]

Good question, but it seems to be universal, even among the few matriarchal cultured that still exist. Now, I am not suggesting that it is necessarily biological but, even if it is, biology is not fate. Men can be taught peace and women can be taught violence, and neither seems especially good at either, just that men seem more inclined towards violence than women. In my experience though, men tend to be more cowardly when it comes to violence than women, as men tend to require a group or mob to rationalize their violence while women are quite capable of acting alone when they feel that they need to do violence, it is just easier to get a group of men to commit violence than it is to get a single man, a group of women, or a single woman.

[Infornific]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Good question, but it seems to be universal, even among the few matriarchal cultured that still exist. Now, I am not suggesting that it is necessarily biological but, even if it is, biology is not fate. Men can be taught peace and women can be taught violence, and neither seems especially good at either, just that men seem more inclined towards violence than women. In my experience though, men tend to be more cowardly when it comes to violence than women, as men tend to require a group or mob to rationalize their violence while women are quite capable of acting alone when they feel that they need to do violence, it is just easier to get a group of men to commit violence than it is to get a single man, a group of women, or a single woman.

Evidence (murder rates, suicide rates, accident rates, car insurance, etc) suggests men are on average more aggressive and have a higher tolerance for individual risk than women. There's not much evidence for a male need for a group for taking risks. Quite the opposite - even Carnegie Hero Medals are won overwhelmingly (90%+) by men. So it seems reasonable a heavily female population would have much lower rates of small scale violence.

That said, there's not a lot of reason to think wars would be less common, at least if you're defining war as state on state action. Female leaders are not generally more pacifistic and going to war is rarely an impulsive act. So I don't think a majority female world would be less prone to wars.