I have an existential map. It has 'You are here' written all over it.

Sometimes I feel like, in my everlasting search for Something New on the wondrous world wide web, I'm really just looking for reasons to shake my head at humanity and reassure myself that I am far, far above these hideous creatures who don't learn, know nothing of importance, torture, maim and kill. Half the time that's exactly what I find. The other half consists mostly of porn and videos of cats.

Whenever a man does a thoroughly stupid thing, it is always from the noblest motives.

It sometimes happens that, in the philosophical no-man's-land that is my everyday conversation, someone will make a comment that really grinds my gears. It starts off small: my immediate reaction is usually a quiet acknowledgement and, depending on how receptive to reason the offending party is, perhaps I'll offer a response hinting at how terribly wrong they are. The conversation continues, the gear-grinder forgotten for the moment. The thing that brings it looming back into my consciousness hours, days, weeks, months or years later is the haunting notion that I have left a grave wrong uncorrected. Thus, these vastly irritating comments could be considered a kind of delayed Berserk Button for me.

Case in point: one of my dearest friends made an offhand comment some months ago to the effect that "atheism is in itself a religion". At the time, I settled for a retort along the lines of "no, it's not, that doesn't make a lick of sense", but it has come back to annoy me ever since nonetheless. It troubles me more than is strictly reasonable that such an intelligent, intuitive and sensible young woman could accept for an instant the ridiculous notion that a term that denotes nothing more and nothing less than 'absence of belief in a deity' refers to a religion.

I suppose the strength of my objection stems from a deep-seated contempt for religion as a concept: I am deeply fascinated by mythology from around the world, and religion has never managed to strike me as anything other than mythology taken far too seriously. There are few demonstrations of utter stupidity grander than the argument that atheism is merely a different brand of religion, due largely to the fact that atheism is in essence the absence of religion. Can you imagine a cancer patient trying to argue that perfect health is just a different type of illness? 

Of course there is also the fact that entirely aside from the obvious fallacy, the other half of the argument - "atheists are a united group of people who all have the same belief system" - is simply untrue. I'm absolutely bewildered as to where people come up with this idea, because I've certainly never seen any evidence of it. Atheists present no united front; even atheists who choose to band together in small, localized groups of similar-mindedness are no more a religious organisation than middle-aged women in a book club are founders of a "Love Books Religion". Atheists, being grouped together on no other basis than one particular, very specific thing they do not believe, cannot collectively agree on anything other than that one single thing. Morality, politics, whether or not Jesus existed, we can't even decide what to call ourselves. If atheism is a religion where are its leaders? There are certainly people of note in the atheist community, and some who are much louder voices of reason than others, but we can't collectively agree on who our intellectual heroes are. Some of us are spectacularly uninformed - atheism does not in any case guarantee logic or intelligence.

We are ordinary people of every race, gender, shape, and social status, and we have only one thing in common: a lack of faith. More often than not this means that we are capable and more than willing to think for ourselves, and make our decisions based on fact and reason. This method of thought is fundamentally incompatible with faith. Faith is the mechanism which allows theists and/or stubborn, petulant people to refuse point-blank to allow the possibility that they could be wrong. It is also the basis of every religion ever invented. And it is this fundamental discrepancy that irritates me to this day. I still wonder what kind of incredible mental acrobatics you must have to perform in order to convince yourself that faithless = belonging to organisation of faith.

I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the best.

Tonight I am considering the ideas of sophistication and elegance. I am in love with them. In an abstract sense both of those words have always conjured vague images of clean, precise lines and expensive fabrics. For some reason 'elegance' has a direct connection with fashion in my mind, which in turn leads me to idle admiration of Coco Chanel.

I usually find myself conflicted at some point during this line of thought, because while I consider class to be a virtue above most others, I can never quite put my finger on what makes a classy thing classy. Money can be classy, but only to a certain extent before it becomes vulgar. Clothing can be classy - but is there a law that says, for example, that underwear as outerwear can't be classy? Surely not, because what was deemed risqué a few decades ago is now considered unremarkable.

The entire concept of 'modesty' (one I generally detest in the aesthetic sense) is completely dependent upon the time and place. I must concede that concepts of elegance are similarly malleable, adapting to the situation. I suppose the deciding factor for me is usually not the clothing itself but the way in which it is worn - an overt cry for attention is almost never elegant, no matter the setting. This isn't to say that wearing something extraordinary is necessarily tacky; merely that wearing something extraordinary due entirely to a craving for attention will most likely show in one's behaviour, and come across as pathetic.

I should note here that I am not the modesty police. The concept that anyone, women in particular, should be 'covered up' in order to be deserving of respect is abhorrent to me. This is not the issue. It isn't the fact that her boobs are on show, or the fact that she's trying to show her underwear to strangers in a bar, that actually irritates me - it's the fact that this display is merely an attempt to get people to "look at me". Now, this is not an unusual desire to have. But when it is expressed by people who apparently feel that their most interesting facet is a part of their body or a suggestive piece of clothing, it becomes a pathetic cry for attention, and that is what irritates me. This is an attitude, not a style of dress, and I find it far more grating than any outfit could ever be.

Maybe I should pity these creatures who measure their worth by so little that they seem content to rely solely on their own objectification to gain friends or admirers, but I think that would be a little too arrogant. I choose instead to believe that most of them are not really stupid or genuinely boring, merely lazy. It's too much effort for them to try and gain the interest and approval of strangers without the aid of a neon sign floating above their heads that reads, 'LOOK! TITS! LIKE ME! LIKE ME!'
Oh, grow up.


GIFSoup

As Daddy said, life is 95 percent anticipation.

This looks gorgeous. I haven't read the book, largely because animal abuse/anything that references animal abuse automatically turns me into a sobbing shivering wreck, but I might have to brave this film if only to watch Hans Landa eclipse Elle Woods and Edward Cullen. I'm indifferent to Reese Witherspoon and Robert Pattinson, but I can't wait to see Christoph Waltz be charismatic and generally excellent again. In other words - only here to bask in Oscar-winning brilliance.

Between two evils, I always pick the one I never tried before.

Upon reviewing Christopher Nolan's 'Batman Begins', I believe I could overcome my natural aversion to comics in order to further immerse myself in this world. Of course I'd obviously prefer an animated series, and I do have a vague urge to track down a copy of 'Batman Beyond' somehow, but there's a first time for everything. I'm particularly fond of the villains; I'm almost convinced that the only reason Batman appeals to me at all is because of the recent shift toward the anti-hero, a role which Batman adapts to with minimum fuss.

At any rate, I think there's an unfair tendency to rag on the supervillainesses more than their male counterparts - oh, sure, The Joker, The Riddler, Scarecrow, Two Face, they're all fine, they're more or less substantial enemies, worthy of the (strangely square-jawed) Batman's attention, but Poison Ivy? Harmless, a tease. Catwoman? Isn't she practically Batman's girlfriend? Harley Quinn is passable based purely on excessive amounts of badassery, but she's still just the Joker's sidekick (and punching bag). I find it largely unjustified and distasteful.

Dr Pamela Isley is an eco-terrorist with a penchant for plant-based toxins and mind controlling pheromones, plus she has an immunity to all natural toxins and diseases. I'm sorry, but that is fundamentally pretty cool. On top of that, at least one of her storylines involved attempting to bring Gotham down via huge amounts of superpowered marijuana. So basically, you could think of Poison Ivy as the ultimate dealer.

Dr Harleen Quinzel (are you noticing a trend here? Higher education = villainy? Interesting) is a trained psychoanalyst and a talented gymnast with a whole lot of crazy packed in there to boot. Although she's possibly one of the worst role models for young women imaginable, they're both so batshit insane that no one could mistake her romance with the Joker for a 'healthy' relationship. Harley eventually gains immunity to toxins from her partner in crime, Poison Ivy.

Selina Kyle is the original feline fatale, a whip-wielding jewellery thief with a talent for breaking and entering. Catwoman has gone on to become one of Batman's most enduring love interests, and in recent times has been portrayed as more of an anti-hero than a supervillain. She has always been slightly different from other supervillains in the sense that she is not a killer. This isn't to say she doesn't have claws; she does, literally, razor-sharp retractable claws, along with an assortment of bullwhips and cat-o'-nine-tails, in addition to which she is an extremely skilled hand-to-hand combatant and a gymnast.

It's not that I don't think these characters have flaws, I just don't see why they're so easily dismissed in comparison to the male villains. I'm pretty sure they would turn out just as brilliantly as the already iconic portrayal of the Joker by Heath Ledger if Nolan would give them the chance.


GIFSoup

Begin at the beginning, and go on till you come to the end: then stop.

Well, in a sudden bout of inspiration, this girl decided it would be a good idea to start a blog. So here I am: starting. I'm unsure what I'm going to talk about; I'm not especially good at sticking to one topic. I don't doubt, however, that I will end up writing screeds of impassioned commentary on almost anything that occupies my mind. Stand by.