If Cassandra had found the right words...

The apparently contradictory combination of curiosity and gregariousness in humans do not only requires us to constantly provide credible explanations about the phenomena that we experience every day, but also demands that these explanations are reasonably worthy of the support of our peers. The combination is contradictory because it would effectively negate any possibility of change, since anyone coming with a new idea would systematically be rejected by the rest of society and the innovation stymied. However, the contradiction is only apparent because, as the social environment evolves so do the opinions of the individuals, so that ideas which would have been absolutely unacceptable in the past become bearable or even attractive for the most progressive members of the society and eventually turn mainstream.

The problem, as usual, is for those who happen to live ahead of their times, who see the change coming from miles away but do not have the means to make it possible, so their only chance is to sit tight like bored Cassandras (if you see a theme with the classics, it is because it is there), disenfranchised by the lack of vision of their families, friends and colleagues. Without any intention to pat ourselves on the back, already in 2004 Karen was pointing out (I could only concur) that the housing bubble would eventually have to burst because housing prices were growing much faster than wages but the construction was not slowing down, so developers will find themselves with a surplus of housing units and the debt they had acquired, and they would have to file for bankruptcy. It took more than three years of hearing that "Housing is always a safe bet" and "There is now way house prices are going to go down", but in the end history proved her right, even if no one acknowledged her prediction.

Photo: Ajax and Cassandra by Johann Heinrich Wilhelm Tischbein, 1806

Beside the need to explain the way world is, those with an inquisitive mind will try to understand why it is the way it is. Primarily, because it is easier to explain the situation if you know the reason, but also because sometimes, when you scratch under the surface to fully understand the problem, you find out that the impression you had is only a semblance, and that the real situation has more nuances than apparent at first sight. I am affected by this inclination, which is the reason why I read a lot, trying to find explanations in the ideas of other people, but also why I write this blog (I have to admit that it stopped being about my PhD program weeks ago).

Having wide interests necessarily means that I only have sparse knowledge in many of these fields (you might say that I spread myself too thin), so I find myself quite often lacking the concepts I need to express intuitions that I have held, in a non-verbal way, for years. Then occasionally I find a way to fill many of this conceptual gaps and it is a real pleasure, like the time when, after years of self-learning in the realm of computing, I enrolled the School of Engineering and I was forced to follow an established program, which included several subjects that I had never even set my eyes on, like discrete math or data structures; but the moment I started to study them in a systematic way I suddenly understood many hazy concepts that I had been forced to work with, even if I did not full understand them. Overnight, I stopped limping around with a pair of crutches and started to walk on my own and even run, almost like a biblical miracle.

I had a similar epiphany this afternoon, when Karen read aloud for me this quote from Marilyn Frye's collection of essays "Politics of Reality":

To say that straight men are heterosexual is only to say that they engage in sex (fucking) exclusively with (or upon or to) the other sex, i.e., women. All or almost all of that which pertains to love, most straight men reserve exclusively for other men. The people whom they admire, respect, adore, revere, honor, whom they imitate, idolize, and form profound attachments to, whom they are willing to teach and from whom they are willing to learn, and whose respect, admiration, recognition, honor, reverence and love they desire... those are, overwhelmingly, other men. In their relations with women, what passes for respect is kindness, generosity or paternalism; what passes for honor is removal to the pedestal. From women they want devotion, service and sex. Heterosexual male culture is homo-affective; it is man-loving.

Even if this text was written back in 1983 when I was just a kid, it is surprisingly on point. I have given sexism a lot of thought over the years, on the one hand because my mother was always an ardent defendant of free thinking and on the other because Karen is a very dedicated feminist. However, I had never come to identify the matter with such clarity. With this insight it is much easier to understand this story from 2017 where a man suddenly and brutally experienced first hand the difficulties that women face in the work environment because of the rampant sexism.

Now, next time that there is a discussion about sexism, your wildcard word is "homoaffective". Use it wisely and enjoy the weekend.