Hint: white and creamy

Getting up today was like prying caramel out of a waffle iron. Not easy.

And now it's the afternoon, and I'm all caffeined-up. Things are different now. The me of now doesn't understand the weariness of morning-Paul. My whole day sees me being wrenched from one itineration of myself to another.

(I don't know whether itineration is the right word, but I like how it sounds good written down).

Asleep-Paul is yanked into conscious-Paul, who then gets squeezed into clean-Paul, who is mashed into dressed-Paul. The constant changes are disorienting. I'm in a constant state of trans-dimensional jetlag.

So, coffee-addled-Paul is writing this now.

The trouble with the burst of mental spriteliness that comes with a cup of java is it makes me interested in things. Everything. I suddenly want to talk about Guantanamo Bay and the moon landing and the nature of milk.

But at work, being interested in things is actually a hindrance. Because it makes mundane things seem like a waste of time. I want to do something, argue with someone, run somewhere, but I can't. It would be a bit weird to run to the other end of the office. I'd get funny looks.

Writing is ok though, because typing is a satisfying activity. The staccato rhythm and fun clicking sounds reflect my own thought processes. Handwriting is smooth and fluid and continuous. That's what I'm like usually.

But on caffeine my thoughts are jumping around like some nutcase frog. A nutcase frog could type pretty well, and would enjoy the jumping. It might not have much to say, though. But then neither do I.

So I'm thinking too much, typing too much, and I'm curious about everything.

Curiosity killed the cat. But I don't think he was curious enough. If he was really curious, he would have pondered what abstract concepts were likely to kill him. He would have run several experiments. His curiosity would have led him to purchase sophisticated measuring equipment.

Then he would have gone though several possibilities:
1) Would jealousy kill the cat?
2) Would fastidiousness kill the cat?
3) Would a sense of superiority over mice, with a corresponding, deep-seated insecurity over its own relationship to dogs kill the cat?

Then, if he was curious enough, he would eventually find that curiosity can kill the cat. Then he'd be left with a conundrum: keep being curious (a quality which has defined him) and risk death, or cease being curious and live a long (albeit complacent) life. Faced with this possibility, he would be left with no option but to take his own life.

Lacking opposable thumbs, he might, in a last curious-hurrah, devise a method of operating a revolver using a complex pulley-mechanism. Or he might just jump out in front of a van.

I know what you're thinking, or at least what you're thinking if you're as curious as I am (I'd be interested to know): why did I assume the curious cat to be of the male gender?

That's an interesting question.

I think one answer is that in creating and manipulating the thoughts and actions of a being, I feel more comfortable using a male, as it doesn't carry the same connotations of exploitation that playing with a female character would do. I might, in a liberal, Guardian-reader way, feel subconsciously compelled to avoid exerting power over the opposite sex. This is of course undesirable, as I it emphasises the distance between, and otherness of, women (and female cats).

I think the real reason I chose the male gender is one much more disturbing. I think, perhaps bred by the traditional patriarchy of the English language, I begin to see the male as the 'default'. The male is assumed, unless stated otherwise. In the same way as 'waiter' and 'actor' are the default, unless specifically negated with 'waitress' or 'actress'.

Now, the use of the term 'actress' is now discouraged, which is a good thing. But it just goes to show that there is a long way to go in terms of challenging long-held gender assumptions. These assumptions are not necessarily explicit, and not deliberately exploitative, but are still very problematic. They are both a reflection and and a foundation of gender inequality.

It highlights the fact that deliberate 'reclaiming' of words (like actor), whilst seen by some as pedantic or counter-intuitive (or even as 'political correctness gone mad'), are important attempts to redress ancient injustice.

But, in the same way as affirmative action, this raises loads of problems about intensifying group distinctions. I could talk more about that, but I think I've been curious enough for one day. Maybe later I'll go hog-wild with a few expressos (expressoes?) and write a treatise about the nature of milk.