I · AM · VERTICAL

The two entries I just posted are two of my final papers for this semester. The one about Law and Order: SVU was for my Gender, Sexuality, and Popular Culture paper. The one about Nadya Suleman was for my Feminist Global Ethics. They are both long. Welcome to my life. I have one more paper to finish before I am done with my semester. I’m excited for summer.

Oh yeah, I will soon be working at The Gap on the Magnificent Mile in Kids/Babies/Maternity. I’m pretty pumped to actually have a job! Hopefully, it will be able to fit my schedule for next school year, as well. Almost one year of graduate school down, just one more to go.

Throughout our culture, the dichotomy of emotionality and rationality runs rampant. The gendering of this dichotomy is also easily recognizable. Emotionality is seen as being a feminine trait and rationality is seen as being a masculine one. Emotionality and rationality are gendered in the same way that the public and private spheres are gendered, which is also prevalent in popular culture, especially in family centered sitcoms. In the genre of detective and lawyer shows, traditional gender roles have the possibility of controlling how the shows’ narratives progress. Focusing on the detective and lawyer show, Law and Order: Special Victims Unit, it is apparent that this show can revert into traditional gender roles and therefore traditional views of emotionality and rationality. However, the show also has subversive qualities which break the dichotomy between emotionality and rationality.

In this paper, I deconstruct the dichotomy between emotionality and rationality in the context of popular culture through the television show, Law and Order: SVU. I then look at how the two main detectives—Olivia Benson, played by Mariska Hargitay, and Elliot Stabler, played by Christopher Meloni—represent emotionality and rationality. Examining how their representations are subversive through the analysis of a few episodes, I look at how emotions are expressed for both characters. It is important to note that occasionally these expressions fall back into traditional gender norms. Through their portrayal of emotionality and rationality, I analyze how physical aggression is used by both characters. I observe how they express physical aggression and whether or not it is spawned by anger, emotional baggage, or something else entirely. Even further, how does the show itself gender the characters’ use of anger, rage, sadness, fear and physical aggression? How is gendering avoided?

First, let’s look at an analysis of emotionality and rationality within the context of popular culture relying heavily on the work of Allison Jagger in the article, “Love and Knowledge: Emotion in Feminist Epistemology,” and Sue Campbell’s article, “Being Dismissed: The Politics of Emotional Expression.” Campbell discusses the idea of the ideal woman: “. . . [T]o have an emotional life as a woman, to be an ideal woman, in fact, is always already to be edging the excessive sensitivity that is a ground for dismissability” (Campbell 56). Her analysis discusses the views of the ideal woman as being overly emotional. This excessive emotionality causes women to be easily dismissed in all aspects of their life. But without the emotion, she is considered to not be a woman or to be a cold-hearted bitch—also making her dismissible. Campbell also discusses how people interpret the emotions of others, changing their initial meaning. This power of interpretation gives authority to the self-imposed interpreter, while making it acceptable to dismiss the woman who is emoting: “What is at the core of the feminist interests outlined and what accounts for their concentration on authority—the potential authority of our anger, the authority of others to interpret us, and the authority of our own judgments and experience—is that the association of the feminine with feeling has been a long-standing historical ground on which to dismiss women” (Campbell 48-49). She also mentions the historical validity of the connection between femininity and emoting or feeling. People who show emotion are easier dismissed in almost any context. In popular culture, expressions of emotions are policed incessantly. An example of this policing and dismissing is when Britney Spears went through her “crazy” year. She was no longer a valid human because of how she was expressing her emotions.

To continue the analysis of this dichotomy, I turn to Allison M. Jaggar. She discusses how emotions are used as a recognizing tool for the cultural roles a person play: “For instance, the psychologist Averell likens the experience of emotion to playing a culturally recognized role: we ordinarily perform so smoothly and automatically that we do not realize we are giving a performance” (Jagger 172-3). Emotions are policed not only by others, but by the individual through an emotional hegemony of which many remain unaware. Jagger refers to the expression of emotions as a cultural role. When emotions are performed by actors, does this change the impact of the expressed emotion? It is important to note that the emotions expressed by actors are more than likely expressions that would be addressed by any person in these situations. It also makes for a more interesting analysis. Additionally, expressions of emotions can be seen as spontaneous outbursts, although they are sometimes culturally controlled. The emotions allowed to Elliot Stabler—a male—show a larger cultural hegemony of what emotions are proper for a man to express and the same goes to the emotions allowed to Olivia Benson. I later argue that the emotions allowed to both Stabler and Benson occasionally subverts the traditional dichotomy and cultural hegemony.

Jagger also discusses the importance of emotion to human life in that without it we are nothing: “Without emotion, human life would be unthinkable. Moreover, emotions have an intrinsic as well as an instrumental value. Although not all emotions are enjoyable or even justifiable . . . life without any emotion would be life without any meaning” (Jagger 175). Emotions are necessary for us to survive, although the expression of emotions is not always necessary. Even though emotions are essential to life, anger for men and sadness for women. It is interesting how anger is a more acceptable male emotion than a female emotion, even though anger may be considered to be the least rational of emotions. The idea of anger as an acceptable emotion for men will be later analyzed through my discussion of Stabler and Benson in Law and Order: SVU. Jagger also mentions how it is culturally acceptable for men to be angry: “On the rare occasions when a white man cries, he is embarrassed and feels constrained to apologize. The one exception to the rule that men should be emotionless is that they are allowed and often even expected to experience anger. Spelman points out that men’s cultural permission to be angry bolsters their claim to authority” (Jagger 188 Note 17). Anger is an important emotion for men to express throughout popular culture. In many popular culture texts, anger is the only emotion allotted to men and hysteria or sadness is the only emotion allotted to women. Intersectionality is also an important aspect in the dichotomy between emotionality and rationality. Both Benson and Stabler would identify as white or Caucasian. But Jagger discusses how men of color are more allowed to express a wide gamut of emotions:

Women appear to be more emotional than men because they, along with some groups of people of color, are permitted and even required to express emotion more openly. In contemporary western culture, emotionally inexpressive women are suspect as not being real women, whereas men who express their emotions freely are suspected of being homosexual or in some other way deviant from the masculine ideal (Jagger 178).

Jagger even mentions the questioning of sexuality if a man is seen as too emotionally expressive and she brings up the fact that women are suspect of not being women if they do not express emotions. However, one could also argue that if a woman doesn’t express emotion that she may be regarded as a lesbian. The dichotomy between rationality and emotionality helps in the creation of different dichotomies—male and female, heterosexual and homosexual. The emotionality and rationality dichotomy helps in reiterating traditional gender norms we see throughout our culture.

Our culture’s linguistic limitations also add depth to the dichotomy. Jagger mentions this idea: “. . . [E]motions simultaneously are made possible and limited by the conceptual and linguistic resources of a society” (Jagger 171). Expressions of emotions can happen through a physical expression and reaction, but often emotions are described through words to others. Generally, on television shows, emotions are better shown than said, but words are what present the concepts to interpret emotions, which additionally plays into who has the authority to interpret. My analysis of the dichotomy between emotionality and rationality and how it is shown and subverted through Law and Order: SVU holds cultural importance: “Although there is no reason to suppose that the thoughts and actions of women are any more influenced by emotion than the thoughts and actions of men, the stereotypes of cool men and emotional women continue to flourish because they are confirmed by an uncritical daily experience” (Jagger 178). It is through our uncritical eyes that this dichotomy continues. Developing a critical eye while viewing different popular cultural texts will help subvert this age old dichotomy and its impact on traditional gender roles.

To begin my analysis of Law and Order: SVU, I have chosen three episodes which present both Olivia Benson and Elliot Stabler in emotionally wrenching experiences. A brief synopsis of each episode is followed by comparing and contrasting the emotions and expression of emotions allowed for the characters, Olivia Benson and Elliot Stabler. In the episode “Wrath,” Olivia Benson’s emotions are further expounded upon. This episode revolves around three killings of former victims that Benson had helped and was the head detective on each of their cases. Previously, the woman had been raped. The old man’s daughter had been raped and killed. The little boy had an abusive father. Benson takes the lead in the investigation because she knows the victims. Painless potassium chloride injections were used in their deaths. She tries to keep her rational head on throughout the investigation—taking the lead, being a bad ass, and trying to figure out the connections between the victims besides herself.

The detectives learn that they were all “chosen” to win a computer, which is how the perpetrator was able to lure them to an office building. When they discover the office building, the name of the “business” on the door is “AiVilO Promotions”—Olivia spelled backwards. The detectives begin to discover that this is a personal vendetta towards her. Benson shows her emotions, fear and terror, the further they investigate the case. She becomes reclusive. Another body ends up on her doorstep, the father of the little boy—his death was more painfully executed than the other three victims. Once again, her emotions, mostly fear, rise to the surface.

The detectives soon learn that the perpetrator is an ex-con who was charged with rape and attempted murder, but cleared by DNA seven years after the sentencing. Stabler tries to pull her off the case and put a protective detail on her. She claims she is not a victim, loudly, expressing anger towards him. Her captain, Donald Cragen, says that she is wound a little tight. She states that she’s fine, but she is obviously acting a little on edge. The perpetrator is using psychological warfare to get under Benson’s skin and into her mind—trying to torture her by killing people around her. The detectives go to a bar to unwind. She keeps talking about how the perpetrator is a victim because of her. After she leaves the bar by herself, she discovers her partner, Stabler, has put a protective detail on her, but sees the perpetrator across the street watching her. She confronts her partner about the protective detail the next day. Stabler says she’s under stress.

She decides she might need to take some vacation time because she wants to capture the perpetrator too much and is questioning her own abilities. Once her emotions become wrapped up in the case or her job, she views her rationality as taking a nose dive. She continues to follow the perpetrator even after she says she is taking vacation time. Benson goes to the perpetrator’s place of work and finds out he is on a house call. Once she arrives at the apartment, the perpetrator has another woman with a gun to her head. She calls for back up, but goes into the apartment alone. As she has her gun pointing at him and his gun is pointing at the other woman, she apologizes for the wrongful conviction. Her gun is shaking. She is hesitant. He claims there aren’t any bullets in his gun. It looks as though he is going to shoot the woman, though. Benson fires right before back up appears. She is stunned and can’t move. Stabler takes the gun from her hands and we find out that the perpetrator’s gun wasn’t loaded. She almost cries, but only tears up. She says she has to give her statement. Stabler says he will take her and she tells him to leave her alone. The final shot of the episode is Benson in her apartment sitting on her couch in the dark stewing as one tear drips off of her face while Stabler rings her buzzer trying to make himself available to comfort her, but she doesn’t answer the door.

In the episode entitled “Risk,” Elliot Stabler has a similar experience to Benson’s in “Wrath.” In the beginning of the episode, an infant is brought into an emergency room with a cocaine over dose. The cocaine was in the baby formula that his mother got from the people she cleans for. The detectives soon learn that there is a drug ring importing cocaine from Mexico through baby formula. Elliot Stabler goes undercover as a businessman to try to infiltrate the drug ring. Stabler soon finds out that a dirty cop was near the head of the drug ring. Stabler gets roughed up by this dirty cop and his partner. The dirty cop wants Stabler to help bring in a load of cocaine in terracotta tiles. A house is set up as an undercover house, but after the tiles are delivered the dirty cop realizes Stabler is a cop, then pulls his gun and runs to the backyard. Stabler follows. Benson was undercover as Stabler’s wife, but was unarmed and did not follow him. Stabler and the dirty cop have their guns drawn. Stabler says, “Drop your gun.” The cop doesn’t, but acts as though he is going to shoot Stabler. Stabler shoots twice. As soon as the cop drops onto the ground, Captain Cragen makes it to the backyard. Stabler is distraught. His eyes tear up, but he doesn’t cry. He keeps repeating, “He made me shoot him. Why did he do that?” Cragen takes his gun telling him he needs to give his statement. At this point, Stabler snaps back and says, “I know how it works.”

The rest of the episode continues with Stabler being under investigation because of the incident. Benson and Cragen continue with the investigation. They are able to locate the head of the drug ring. He is the CEO of a stock brokerage. This man begins to kill off all of the families that helped him in bringing the cocaine from Mexico. At the end of the episode, Stabler finds out he is cleared by Internal Affairs. This episode takes place after the episode, “Wrath,” when Olivia Benson shoots a perpetrator. Benson asks Stabler if he is going to see the shrink. He replies yes. He then asks her if it helps. She replies simply, “No.”

In the episode titled, “Loss,” an undercover cop is discovered dead, naked, beaten, and raped. Through the investigation, the detectives discover a drug cartel based out of Colombia. The assistant district attorney, Alexandra Cabot becomes set on bringing justice to this dead undercover cop. They locate the perpetrator as one of the leaders of the drug cartel. Alex Cabot offends him in one of the negotiation talks. He almost attacks her, but his lawyer holds him back. Cabot soon finds out that there is a hit out on her. Later in the episode, Cabot drops the charges of rape and murder because the FBI has a much stronger case to charge the perpetrator with.

After this event in court, the detectives and Cabot go out for some drinks at a bar. Benson, Stabler, and Cabot leave the bar together. Cabot is continually complaining about how the justice system fails. As they are walking down the street, a large, black SUV drives by with a gun sticking out of the window. Shots are fired—Cabot falls on her back with a gaping wound in her shoulder. Stabler runs after the SUV, as though he could catch up with them. Benson crawls to Cabot saying, “No, no, no.” She immediately applies pressure to Cabot’s bullet wound, telling her to hold on and calling her sweetheart. The next shot in the episode is of all the detectives sitting in their squad room, silent, and then a close up on a newspaper article saying there are no leads in the death of slain ADA. No one is crying, but the emotional tension is thick. Cragen comes out of his office and tells Stabler and Benson they need to meet at a remote location to close up the drug cartel case. The next scene is of Benson and Stabler pulling up to a group of black SUVs. A United States Marshal says, “She just wouldn’t take no for an answer.” The back door of one of the SUVs opens with Alex Cabot sitting in the back seat with her arm in a sling. She apologizes for everything. Benson mentions that her funeral is tomorrow. The marshal says that they are both expected to attend and that it is safer for Cabot to stay dead. Benson is crying and asks “How long?” Cabot doesn’t really answer. The marshal tells them they have to get going. Stabler looks upset, but he is not crying. Benson has tears rolling down her face as the SUVs pull away.

Olivia Benson shows more tears than Elliot Stabler, at least in these three episodes. Of course, this is a small sample of the many episodes in all ten seasons. In the episode, “Wrath,” Benson’s reputation and emotional life were under attack by a perpetrator. Throughout the entire episode, colleagues were mentioning the stress she was under. Her emotional reaction after shooting the perpetrator was completely understandable in the context, but was it because she was a woman? Also, the fact they show her in her apartment after the fact stewing in the dark pulls everything back into the private realm. In “Constructing Gender Stereotypes Through Social Roles in Prime-Time Television,” the authors discuss traditional gender norms in many different television shows. The focus of this article was the gendering of the public and private spheres, which helps feed the dichotomy between emotionality and rationality. Their findings proved that there is still a focus of women in marital roles and men in occupational roles. Even if women were in an occupational role, they were in more relational roles: “These findings suggest that female characters continue to be portrayed in roles that emphasize communal traits focusing on relationships and concern with others. . . . In contrast, male characters were more likely to inhabit work roles exhibiting more agentic goals including ambition and the desire for success” (Lauzen, Dozier, and Horan 211). Major television networks are still making use of traditional gender roles. Therefore, Law and Order: SVU is subversive because not only do both men and women have occupational roles on the show; Elliot Stabler is the one with an “identifiable” marriage. Benson is occasionally seen in romantic roles with other men to reify traditional heteronormative gender roles. One could read Olivia Benson as a lesbian because she doesn’t always express her emotions openly, but the show has added enough “straight” love affairs to solidify her heterosexuality. In the relational sense, both Stabler and Benson have several storylines revolving around their families—Stabler’s wife and kids and Benson’s mother’s rape and in later seasons her newfound brother.

Within the episode, “Wrath,” Benson could have easily been thrown into the position of a victim, such as becoming hysterical when the body is dropped onto her doorstep, but instead she remains calm, while still expressing fear. As the episode progresses her victimhood becomes more prominent, though. She tries to assert her power as her colleagues continue to try to put her in the role of victim. Within the book, Working Girls: Gender and Sexuality in Popular Cinema,” Yvonne Tasker mentions how female detectives can be pushed into the role of victimhood:

If female characters can be seen to inhabit the positions of victim, investigator and investigated in a fluid sense within many crime narratives, it may come as no surprise to note that these sites or realms are bound up with the articulation of sexuality. Women, it seems, are involved in transgression even and to the extent that they are represented as lawmakers or enforcers” (Tasker 92-93).

Tasker is discussing how women’s sexuality is policed continually in modern day cinema, including in crime narratives. Benson does not show her sexuality very often, but her sheer masculinity and “butch” tendencies may have made it necessary to give her the victim status that could be found in the episode of “Wrath,” as though she needed to be put in her “rightful” place. Although, her sexuality wasn’t articulated, her gender became an important part of the story—when her emoting of fear helps Stabler to decide to hire a protective detail for her.

In The Terror Dream, Susan Faludi discusses the erasure of women from the media and popular culture after September 11^th. In her discussion of who becomes a hero relating to the narratives which developed out of September 11^th, Faludi states: “The line between ‘hero’ and ‘victim’ was evidently thin” (Faludi 78). This is obviously the case within the episode of “Wrath.” Faludi also mentions the idea of a rescue drama which came out of September 11^th: “If women proved capable of fending for themselves, if they laid claim to agency instead of violation and dependency, the rescue drama fell to pieces” (Faludi 56). Although Stabler doesn’t physically “rescue” her, his use of the protective detail is taking agency away from Benson. In this episode, the rescue narrative is reinforced in that context, but it is Benson by herself with the perpetrator. She is “rescuing” another woman from the grasp of the perpetrator. She is the one who shoots the man. Once a traditional gender narrative is expressed, a subversive one is expressed in the same episode. Law and Order: SVU has many rescue narratives running throughout each episode.

In the episode “Risk,” Stabler expresses emotions similar to Benson after shooting a perpetrator. He does not cry—as Benson seems required to—however he is clearly affected by the shooting. He is disoriented, shocked, and upset, but always upholding a traditional sense of masculinity. In the book Masculinity and Popular Television, Rebecca Feasey deals with this traditional masculinity shown within the police and crime drama genre:

If one considers that the genre relies rather heavily on a rather simple formula of ‘crime, pursuit and capture,’ then one might assume that the cop show is responsible for some of the most tired and passé representations of hegemonic masculinity on the small screen. However, irrespective of the simplicity of the formula and the success of the officers, the genre has produced some of the most tormented and troubled images of the male on contemporary television (Feasey 80).

She provides a complicated view of male masculinity on television today. Stabler’s reaction after shooting the dirty cop is a great example for the “tormented and troubled” images of male detectives on television. In some sense, Stabler is holding up the traditional stoic male by not crying, but his reaction to actually killing someone was one of remorse and shock which could be seen as subversive.

The episode “Loss,” shows Benson being more emotional that Stabler, as well, but they both are reacting and showing emotions while they say goodbye to Cabot. One could make an argument that Benson is more visible with her emotions because she and Cabot had a more intimate relationship than Stabler and Cabot. In the article “Going through the E/Motions: Gender Postmodernism, and Affect in Television Studies, Lynne Joyrich articulates the usage of personal stories in crime dramas: “The emphasis of even the crime series shifts to the more personal issues associated with the melodramatic mode, and the audience’s emotional involvement is induced by a focus on the family (the actual family threatened by crime or the “police family” itself) in danger of dissolution” (Joyrich 35 Note 5). The Law and Order: SVU “police family” was being fractured as Cabot went into the Witness Protection Program. Benson’s tears and Stabler’s emotional, yet stoic demeanor played into the melodrama used in prime-time television. The expression of emotion becomes an important part of analyzing the gendering of emotionality within Law and Order: SVU. The discussion of sadness, fear, and shock observed within the show has been approached but it is also important to take a closer look at how anger is expressed by the characters. Anger is considered to be a masculine emotion and its expression through physical aggression is interesting throughout the show. Using two specific episodes as an example where both Benson and Stabler show an extreme amount of physical aggression it is interesting to note what causes their anger and physical aggression.

In the episode titled “Florida,” Benson exhibits extreme physical aggression at a supposed perpetrator of a rape. Earlier in the season, Olivia Benson comes to learn through a kinship DNA test that she has a paternal half-brother, Simon Marsden. Her mother was raped while in college, resulting in Benson’s birth and being. Her brother’s DNA is in the system because he was suspected for a rape a few years ago in New Jersey. He comes up in another rape investigation and skips town with Benson’s help. While she and Stabler are questioning a perpetrator who calls Benson a bull dyke, Captain Cragen pulls her out—the FBI discovered Benson helped her brother skip town. After she makes a deal with the FBI to turn her brother in once he contacts her, she goes to talk to the captain of the River Park, New Jersey SVU, where Marsden is suspected of rape. The captain has a personal problem with Benson’s brother because the captain believes he tried to rape her sister in high school. The NJ captain accuses Benson of having a sexual relationship with Marsden, who she doesn’t know is Benson’s brother. Benson responds by telling her to go to hell. After this encounter, Benson goes back to work. When she arrives, Stabler tells her the perpetrator from the beginning is asking for her. Benson goes in to interrogate him without Stabler. After a few moments the perpetrator starts asking her if she has a thing for perverts or if her “daddy” molested her as a child. At this point Benson becomes physically aggressive. She locks the door with the chair and knocks him to the floor, kicking him. Through this beating, the perpetrator admits to raping the woman. Finally, Captain Cragen has made it through the door and pulls Benson off of the perpetrator. She then becomes angry with Cragen telling him to get off of her and to keep his hands off of her. He sends her home.

As Benson is leaving, Stabler asks her what that was all about. Benson responds, “Oh the poster boy for rage is going to tell me how to control my anger.” She does mention the problems with her brother. While she is at home, her brother contacts her and she turns him into the FBI, but he gets away right at the last minute. The FBI agent and Benson try to find where Marsden would have gone. They go to visit his mother or technically her father’s ex-wife, who happens to have Alzheimer’s. The mother does have a lucid moment recognizing Benson from the photographs her ex-husband use to have and saying it was his little girl. At this point, Olivia is crying. The mother’s lucidity leaves and only helps a little in tracking down Marsden. Through the next part of the episode, Benson begins to research her mother’s rape. She has to know if her mother was actually raped and if her father was actually a rapist. She comes to the conclusion that her father raped because of his severe depression. At the end of the episode, she does learn that her brother is not a rapist—the captain from NJ has framed him, but her sister was raped by their father, not Marsden. It could be said that through this episode Olivia Benson finally finds out the other half of her genetics through an emotional path.

In the episode titled “Rage,” Elliot Stabler shows extreme physical aggression. Throughout the series, his rage and anger have become a common occurrence or theme. An added element in this episode is that Stabler’s wife, Cathy, has left him taking their four kids. The episode revolves around an old perpetrator named Gordon Rickett, who got off on a previous charge. He kidnapped, raped, and murdered girls around the age of 12 or under. He recently moved back to New York City from California and the police also recently discovered the body of a dead girl. They assume Rickett is the perpetrator. They bring him in for interrogation and only have 24 hours before they have to release him back into society if he doesn’t confess. The reason the prior crime didn’t stick in court was because they couldn’t find where the murder took place.

While Rickett is in the holding cell, all he can talk about is Detective Elliot Stabler—his rage, anger, instability, and lack of self-control. Throughout the interrogation, Rickett is trying to provoke his rage and anger. At one point in the interrogation, Rickett starts talking about how he is going to kill Stabler’s kids, but after this he burst into laughter, as though he were kidding. This outburst causes Stabler to lose it. He spits in Rickett’s face, calls him a bitch, and yells at him to confess. Rickett then claims that he and Stabler have the same rage. The 24 hours pass and they have to release him, but Stabler and Benson continue to investigate. As the show continues, they discover where he murders the girls—in the basement of his “aunt’s” house. The aunt is actually an old friend of Rickett’s deceased mother. As they are walking up the steps, Rickett comes in with another girl. Both Benson and Stabler pull their guns. Stabler is obviously struggling with his gun, but his main emotion being shown is anger or rage. Benson ends up shooting Rickett in the arm. After Rickett goes down, Stabler walks up to his writhing body on the floor and points the gun at his head. The viewer thinks he is going to pull the trigger, but Benson stops him and tells him it is over. They head back to the precinct. Stabler asks if she thinks he froze and if that is why she fired first. Benson responds that she fired first because she knew he would kill him. Stabler says he deserves to die. Benson agrees, but Stabler didn’t need to kill Rickett out of anger because that was what Rickett wanted. Benson asks Stabler to get something to eat, but he says he is going to go home. Benson leaves and Stabler looks at himself in his locker mirror—frustrated and enraged. He then proceeds to punch the locker multiple times, grunting. After he finishes he pulls his hands up to cradle the sides of his head. His hands are torn up and bloody.

Both Benson and Stabler are dealing with their own rage and anger, interestingly enough, both are brought on not only by their job, but also dealing with family issues—Stabler with his separation from his wife and Benson with her newfound brother. In an article about a study on physical aggression, “Gender Role Conformity and Aggression: Influence of Perpetrator and Victim Conformity on Direct Physical Aggression in Women,” the authors discuss gender role conformity as an indicator of physical aggression: “Taken as a whole, results of these studies highlight the influence of gender role conformity on an individual’s endorsement and expression of aggression, and they suggest that masculine gender role conformity is associated with increased perpetration of aggression” (Reidy, Sloan, and Zeichner 232). In the studies they used in their research and in their own study, masculine gender role conformity increased the likelihood of physical aggression. Stabler expresses this gender role. Benson would be considered a more masculine woman, but she is not known to show physical aggression unless it is called for to control a perpetrator. Stabler has had the running theme of being a hot head. It is interesting to note that each of their physically aggressive behavior came out of personal reasons, more than just job related stress. This expression of anger subverts traditional gender norms, which go into the continuance of the dichotomy between rationality and emotionality. In the episode, “Florida,” Benson not only expresses anger through physical aggression, but also expresses tears of sadness when talking to her father’s ex-wife. The dichotomy is subverted, but also upheld at the same time within the episode.

In the book Rape on Prime Time, Lisa M. Cuklanz discusses how masculinity and physical aggression is shown in crime dramas dealing with rape:

Later representatives of hegemonic masculinity use physical force just as their more traditional predecessors would have done, but they add a dimension of sensitivity and nurturance in certain situations that augments the traditional masculine profile. . . . Although detectives are no longer quite as predictable as in the past, they are still competent, outspoken, and volatile if provoked (Cuklanz 81).

The author mainly talks about male detectives in her analysis of rape on television, but she does mention how the detectives have become more complicated characters not only showing physical aggression, but expressing other emotions, as well. She uses the phrase “hegemonic masculinity,” but notes that it is becoming much more complicated. The expression of emotions other than anger could cause masculinity to no longer be hegemonic. Olivia Benson also complicates the ideas of hegemonic masculinity. Although Benson is a woman, she gives off a masculine vibe in the way that she handles perpetrators and even in how she expresses her anger. She is given more freedom than Stabler in how she shows other emotions, but overall these episodes subvert the dichotomy of rationality and emotionality.

Even with its subversive elements, Law and Order: SVU occasionally falls back into traditional gender norms. The show’s cop and lawyer genre makes the subversion more implicit, but as noted and analyzed, there are definite instances of subversion. Being able to show the breaking down of the dichotomy between rationality and emotionality, even if still relying on traditional gender roles, provides a strong impact. Even through the occasional gender norm, the shows usage of emotions subverts the norms enforced by the dichotomy of rationality and emotionality. In discussing the characters use of physical aggression, it may be possible to claim that the show glorifies violence. In the book Redesigning Women, Amanda D. Lotz examines this inquiry. She believes that the show reveals a fine line between bringing awareness of crimes against women and exploiting the crimes: “The series offers valuable narratives validating the experience of female victims, depicting systems of support for those who suffer domestic abuse or rape, and reiterating that these crimes are not her fault. However, weekly explorations of gruesome and horrific crimes repeatedly victimize women” (Lotz 160). Her analysis of the violence portrayed on Law and Order: SVU seems extremely one sided—she is not complicating her analysis. Even though the show portrays many gruesome crimes, the violence can be used as shock factor—waking up the deadpan public into noticing what happens to women and children everyday. There is a fine line to be tread, but I believe as living humans we are always treading a fine line. A fine line between supporting traditional, hegemonic dichotomies or subverting these dichotomies. Law and Order: SVU is no different.

At the end of January, the nation learned about the newest and longest surviving octuplets. Not long after we learned about their mother, Nadya Suleman. Nadya Suleman, 33, was a single mother with six other children. All of the children were conceived through IVF—in vitro fertilization. There is currently not a father in the picture and Suleman says only that she had a dear friend donate sperm. Suleman was living with her parents and six other children when she gave birth to the octuplets. She is currently unemployed and furthering her education. In the late 90’s she began receiving workman’s compensation for a back injury. She continued the workman’s compensation through many of her pregnancies. Controversy erupted soon after these facts were learned about Suleman. She also earned the lovely nickname of Octomom. Many facets of this controversy revolve around her sanity and money. Commentators claimed her as a drain on our tax system, since she was living on welfare and food stamps. Others claimed she was crazy, a bad mother, and that her children should be taken away and either put into foster care or be adopted by other families. Some went after the doctor who performed IVF for Suleman.

In this paper, I focus on the controversy surrounding Suleman as a single mother choosing to use IVF and how the media framed this aspect of her story. Through the usage of Janet R. Jakobsen’s article, “Struggles for Women’s Bodily Intergrity in the United States and the Limits of Liberal Legal Theory,” and “Eating the Other” by bell hooks, I analyze the critiques of Nadya Suleman’s choices. In the case of Nadya Suleman using IVF to become a single mother, how and why have her choices become a media frenzy? How through this media frenzy has Suleman become the “other?”

Suleman made a choice. The basis of her choice was her desire to have children and the family she didn’t believe she had as she was growing up. Of course, it is difficult to know her true, inner thoughts, but she has openly expressed wanting children badly enough to decide to use IVF and become a single mother. This choice goes against the naturalized heteronormative hegemony we live in. The “normal” nuclear family consists of a father, mother, and a few children—conceived through natural methods. Society does not recognize the limitations of this view of the nuclear family. Suleman made a non-traditional choice in how she started her family, by using reproductive technology as a single person. Her choice pertained to her body. It is more complicated because she does have other children, but at the core of the controversy, she wanted at least one more child. The concept of bodily integrity plays a role in the narrative that was constructed for Suleman. Jakobsen discusses bodily integrity and its role in women’s rights debates: “Perhaps the most drastic threat to women’s rights has been the continuing denial of a basic right to bodily integrity” (Jakobsen 5). At this point in the article, Jakobsen refers to Susan Bordo’s article “Are Mothers Persons?,” where Bordo defines bodily integrity as having the right to not have your body violated by other people or the State. The question that keeps coming to mind is if Nadya Suleman’s decision to have IVF—and therefore having a large family—falls under the canopy of having the right to bodily integrity?

The doctor’s ethics have been debated often within Suleman’s narrative since she ended up having octuplets. In an article from USA Today, “Q&A: Octuplet Birth Raises Questions,” Rita Rubin discusses commonly asked question about IVF in the context of Suleman giving birth to her octuplets. Currently, there are not actual laws limiting the amount of embryos that can be transferred through IVF:

To reduce the number of multiple births resulting from IVF, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART), one of its member organizations, have drawn up guidelines suggesting limits based on a patient’s age and other factors related to her chances of conceiving. . . . Under ASRM guidelines, only one or two embryos should be transferred to women under 35. The upper limit in women over age 40 is five (Rubin <usatoday.com>).

Suleman had six embryos transferred which resulted in the birth of the octuplets. A more recent news article from the Orange County Register mentions she is going to have surgery because of fibroids in her uterus, which might be why so many embryos were transferred—fibroids cause difficulty in conceiving. The article mentioned there is a good chance she will not be able to have anymore children after the surgery (Ponsi <ocregister.com>). I hear a sigh of relief from many in the nation.

Another reason Suleman had so many embryos transferred was because of her belief that life begins at conception. She refused to have the embryos destroyed or to allow anyone else to have and raise her children. The narrative constructed around the issue of Suleman choosing IVF as a single mother has become skewed by the media as a story of a crazy and lonely person looking for fame through having as many children as possible—no one mentions that it was her choice. Jakobsen articulates the choice to have children or not to: “Procreative choice includes the right to have, as well as to not have, children” (Jakobsen 22). An issue not mentioned often when discussing reproductive rights is the fact that some women do decide on non-traditional methods of having children. IVF doesn’t enter the debate often. It seems too easy to reduce the argument to the simple question of “Who are we to judge?” but on some level it makes sense. If I decide to have a child, I am not going to want to have fourteen or eight at one time, but through her beliefs Suleman thought this was the best decision for her life. It would invade her bodily integrity if she were told it was illegal or immoral for her to not go through with the IVF.

There is a parallel with the abortion debate—who has the right to make reproductive choices for anyone else? Jakobsen mentions the failure that the focus on abortion rights within debates about reproductive issues has become: “Abortion rights alone cannot articulate the complex burdens and responsibilities of reproduction, the diverse and complex social relations within which reproduction takes place, the social implications of women’s claims to bodily integrity, or the diverse freedoms that women desire” (Jakobsen 10-11). Jakobsen’s words could be used to defend Suleman’s decision to have a large family. Additionally, Jakobsen has passing moments of mentioning the right of women to have children when they see fit, but doesn’t get into a discussion of reproductive technology.

When contemplating reproductive rights in the context of Suleman’s situation, the most interesting commentary discusses how both sides of the abortion debate agree that Suleman acted irresponsibly in her decision to have octuplets. In her article, “Octomom as Reproductive Lightning Rod: Do the prolife and prochoice sides in L.A. finally agree on something?,” Tina Dupuy quotes prochoice Carol Liberman, “Freedom, including women’s reproductive freedom, entails responsibility . . . Prochoice essentially means that she had the choice over her body in regard to reproduction. She had several options, including donating her frozen eggs or giving the babies up for adoption” (Dupuy <laweekly.com>). I have a strong feeling that Liberman’s words will later come back to haunt her. She is making many assumptions about what freedom and choice means. Responsibility is an interesting word to use, since Suleman thought of herself as being responsible in her choice of transferring all of the embryos. She believed in her view of the conception of life strongly enough to go through with the chance of multiple births. Liberman’s use of choice is also compelling. She even states Suleman has a choice over her reproductive body, but obviously not if people continue to force decisions upon it. No one is arguing Suleman made a choice—many believe she made the wrong choice—but it comes down to whomever has the ability to make that judgment call. Dupuy also discusses the prolife advocates’ viewpoints: “Prolife blogger Jill Stanek says that Suleman’s decision to not abort her babies or selectively reduce their numbers was prolife. But beyond that Stanek states, ‘many prolifers believe the process of in vitro fertilization is unhealthy and/or immoral’” (Dupuy <laweekly.com>). The prolife advocates are critical of her initial choice to use IVF to get pregnant because it is not “natural” and that they don’t think conception should begin in a Petri dish. If a prolife advocate was having trouble getting pregnant, I wonder how quick they would be to say that IVF was immoral and unhealthy. The fact that on both sides of the abortion debate agree that Suleman made unhealthy, immoral, and irresponsible decisions is fascinating only because it is rare for two sides of such a heated debate to agree about a person’s reproductive decisions. Why have the choices Suleman made regarding her own body and life become so contested?

The largest stigma given to Suleman is that of being a single mother. It is something mentioned in almost all of the articles written about her. This media-enhanced stigma goes back to traditional gender roles: “The projection of social roles onto nature allows for the connection between the ‘is’ and the ‘ought.’ Gender complementarity and women’s traditional gender roles of childbearing and child rearing are considered more because they are considered natural” (Jakobsen 11). Suleman wanted to have children without a father breaking the traditional nuclear family with the father as the head. I believe this is one of the main reasons the prolife advocates are against her choices. Many prolife advocates also claim evangelical Christianity as their chosen religion. The traditional nuclear family is preached from the pulpits because this has become the church’s view of the healthiest environment for children to be raised in. Even though, it is rare to find this form of a nuclear family within the Bible.

Her use of IVF or an unnatural form of conception creates another issue with prolife advocates. However, Suleman’s personal agency has been reneged by both the prochoice and prolife advocates. Both sides believe she made an irresponsible decision pertaining to her reproductive body. Prolife advocates are more apt to want to take control over a woman’s reproductive rights, but I am still appalled by how some prochoice advocates have responded—saying Suleman was irresponsible because she made an abnormal choice about her own reproductive life.

Suleman’s choice becomes more complicated when the specifics of her life are entered into the discussion. The facts of her negative financial situation, her other six children, and that she chose to become a single mother are further complications to her choice of IVF. Fiscal conservatives claim people shouldn’t have children if they do not have the means to support them because they will become a drain on the taxpayers. Suleman is unemployed but furthering her education and is planning on becoming a counselor after she finishes her schooling. Talks of a reality show staring Suleman and her 14 children have been discussed as well. She has options in supporting her children, especially since the media has helped in creating her fame.

Many commentators make the argument that because Suleman has so many children she won’t be able to give enough time and attention to each of her children causing her to be a “bad” mother. This again plays into her stigma as a single mother: “Women who mother outside this gendered structure, along with their children, are portrayed as socially deviant and probably criminal” (Jakobsen 13). Although most commentators on Suleman claim her to be “socially deviant,” they are more worried about the children’s well being and only portraying her as “criminal” in her behavior. Another response generated by Suleman’s stigma as a single mother of a large family calls for the state to intercede if the mother can be seen as unfit to raise her own children. Gloria Allred, who hired “Angels in Waiting,” an organization that offers nanny services or training for new mothers, for Suleman, has even filed suit against her for being an unfit mother. Jakobsen addresses this issue in her article, as well: “Challenges to race- and class-based ideologies also dispute the assumption that appropriate women bear children and work to rear them within the bounds of while, middle-class ‘respectability’ whereas any woman bearing children outside these bounds is subject to control by state” (Jakobsen 25). Allred claims that Suleman doesn’t spend any time with her children and is unfit to care for them. Allred wants the State to intercede and take Suleman’s children away. Suleman states that “Angels in Waiting” wasn’t there to help her, but was only waiting for her to make a mistake, to give the State a reason to intercede (<USmagazine.com>).

The media has framed Suleman’s choices in such a way as to make her an “other” that the public was able to consume and regurgitate as part of the story. In many theories, the “other” is discussed as a fetishization of humans different from us. How exactly has the media othered Suleman through her choice to mother a large family on her own? Once the personal facts about Suleman’s life were learned she became a tabloid’s wet dream. She became the epitome of the “other” because of her choice to be a single mother, to use IVF, and also her suspected plastic surgery and stripper job. The media’s introduction of her past and suspected stripping job furthers Suleman’s othering. The excess of eight babies at once and 14 overall has also contributed to her otherness because it is not normal to willingly have that many children. bell hooks’ article, “Eating the Other,” discusses how our culture commodifies others: “The commodification of Otherness has been so successful because it is offered as a new delight, more intense, more satisfying than normal ways of doing and feeling” (hooks 21). Because of the excessiveness that Suleman became for the media, she became the “other.” Once the media latched on, the entire nation began to consume her story, her choices, and her morality. From the observation of the way Suleman’s choices have been devoured by the public, people who don’t have fourteen children or haven’t needed to use IVF to get pregnant feel as though, “Look, at least I am not as screwed up as her.” The way the media has portrayed Suleman is like a train wreck. We can’t look away, but in the process we are glad it is not us. Another strange facet of the “other” leads from the consumption of Suleman’s story, to a possible inner desire of wanting to be her—otherwise the talk about her would have stopped long before the media coverage died down. Suleman’s differences mesmerize us as a nation: “Difference can seduce precisely because the mainstream imposition of sameness is a provocation that terrorizes” (hooks 22-23). No one would say they were seduced by Suleman, but obviously the tabloid magazines used her because they knew she would be able to sell. It was her use of IVF and many children which made her a sellable commodity. Through our consumption of the story, the fame of Suleman, which many people have criticized her for, grew. Our consumption becomes a vicious circle. Our consumption of Suleman’s story brings her fame. Our criticisms of her fame leads to more consumption bringing her more fame.

The nation’s fascination with the Suleman was not just a story of horror, but one of desire—the story of her having been a stripper, the offer of becoming a porn star, and the EOnline story comparing her to Angelina Jolie. We wanted to be with her, but only as we were able to judge her choices. hooks introduces this idea when she discusses the usage of race in fashion advertisements: “One desires contact with the Other even as one wishes boundaries to remain intact” (hooks 29). I believe this is our fascination with Suleman. We view her as the “other,” but we don’t want her to cross our boundaries or vice-versa. Boundaries keep us in our comfort zone. Our desire for difference and the other is what breaks us out of our comfort zone. This view of boundaries and desires is discussed by hooks when she mentions imperialist nostalgia: “It establishes a contemporary narrative where the suffering imposed by structures of domination on those designated Other is deflected by an emphasis on seduction and longing where the desire is not to make the Other over in one’s image but to become the Other” (hooks 25). The media has created Suleman to be the “other” through her choices, but the media has also created her to be a sexual object—something to be desired and one day attained. Through our consumption of the media’s created narrative about Suleman, somehow we are vicariously becoming her—living her story.

Our consumption of Suleman’s story also comes from our need to feel deeper than we are allowed. In discussing the need for extremes to feel pleasure in reference to Foucault’s theories about pleasure, hooks states, “In the United States, where our senses are daily assaulted and bombarded to such an extent that an emotional numbness sets in, it may take being ‘on the edge’ for individuals to feel intensely” (hooks 36). Although she is discussing having sexual experiences with others we view as dangerous, her observation of the need to be “on the edge” to “feel intensely” is a common occurrence in our lives. Suleman’s choices and situations have put us on the ledge of the 25^th floor of a building. The extremes and excesses she has portrayed have caused much emotional reaction espoused by many. We view her as a dangerous mother. It is the danger that draws us into her story, into her life.

Nadya Suleman made an unusual choice in going through IVF to have fourteen children. Her reproductive freedom was debated through the media by many different people. Suleman was able to bring prolife and prochoice advocates to an agreement. It doesn’t change the continuous debates about abortion rights, but these advocates need to look and see that they might agree on more issues than just Suleman and her 14 children. The judgment of her choices to do what she finds pleasurable ran rampant through our society. Suleman’s story brought to the forefront that single motherhood remains an extremely stigmatized “identity” to reside in. Her story also showed how reproductive technologies and IVF have remained stigmatized in our society, as well. We view people who chose IVF and single motherhood as un-human and “other.” The narrative the media created around Suleman and her choices caused the nation to make her into a desirable “other.” Through our consumption of the narrative created about her choices, we have taken part in her othering. Our society is not immune to internal othering, especially pertaining to people who make non-normative decisions. Suleman’s choices have lead to her life being viewed as a freak show.

I realized my last few posts were super depressing. Okay, so my life has not been wonderful the past few months. What can one expect? Classes have been kicking my butt, my own emotional problems, missing people more than I ever thought possible, not feeling like I had a purpose, not feeling like I belonged. I think I was experiencing too much. My life has settled a bit. I don’t know if it is because there is only a few weeks of school left, but I’m feeling relieved. I finally found a part time job until middle of June at least. I file, all day. It is not the best, but it is definitely not the worst job. I’m glad to be doing something besides school. It actually makes school more enjoyable, which is great. I also got some excited news on Friday, too. I officially have a Graduate Assistantship within the Women’s and Gender Studies department for next year. I’m super excited. It makes me feel like I belong. Up top!
I watched "Closer" Friday night. Now, I'm obsessed with this song!

I need to go to bed. I need to sleep. I took some Excedrin PM about 30 minutes ago. They should be kicking in soon. I’m feeling needy. I’m needing. Except, what I need is unattainable right now or ever. I don’t want to be the person to live in the past, but I can’t help but want to live in Plex 14 again. I miss it. I miss them. I know it wasn’t perfect, but I don’t remember feeling like I’ve been feeling for months now. I’ve fallen so hard. I’m afraid I won’t be able to get up—not just by myself, but with help.

There’s a song I’m feeling.

I hope you feel it too.

I feel as though I’m flailing in my life. I make decisions and they never seem right, but would I know right if it came up to me and slapped me in the face? I would say probably not. I’ve felt weird the past two days. I’ve dreamt weird the past two nights.  It is good I’m sleeping, but at what cost?

I have decided on my final project/thesis for my MA. I’m going to be able to write a play and a companion essay. I’m hoping it works. I’ve technically only written one ten minute length play, but this is the first decision about my life that seems ‘right.’

I need to be doing more homework, but my minding is reeling right now, but I don’t think in a good way. I’m exhausted mentally. I’m on the verge of tears almost everyday, every hour, every minute. I’m struggling at staying a float. I don’t know how to cope with this. I’m forgetting how to trust others.

I have song/video which is describing how I’m feeling. It is called Lover’s Spit by Broken Social Scene.

I have a painting I made a few weeks ago. I need to start painting again. But this painting is describing my feeling of disconnection and misdirection.

And so goes my life . . .

Through my handy dandy online dream interp website, this is what I've discovered:

Lions-Protectiveness, aggression. Ruling, trying to control people or situations, being in charge. Strength of character. Quiet strength—meaning strength without the need for action. Commanding respect through personal character, rather than through violence, manipulation, or control games.

King-Royalty can represent status, respect, specialness, wealth, power, popularity, approval, or other things you personally associate with royalty. Dreaming that you are royalty (queen, king, prince, princess) can mean you are feeling, wishing for, or feeling you are lacking one of the qualities listed above. Dreaming that you are with someone who is royalty can mean that your subconscious mind considers that person an acquaintance because you see them often in the media, or that you wish you knew them, or that you feel you deserve to know them or be in that social circle

I'm not sure how to deal with this dream, but I think it means something. I think there's something there. But now, I'm going to try to go to sleep or watch Gilmore Girls, both things absolutely necessary.

Current Location:	Chicago, IL
Current Mood:	curious
Current Music:	Ani DiFranco

It was nice today, weather wise. I wish it felt that way inside of me. I'm overwhelmingly overwhelmed. I want to say I feel lost, which I do, but for once I don't want to be found. I want to say that I want to feel love, which I do, but I'm satisfied with the love that has embraced me.

I want to feel the wind in my hair.

Current Location:	Chicago, IL
Current Mood:	indescribable
Current Music:	Puddle Dive album by Ani DiFranco

When I close my eyes at night, I see your face. On my notes for philosophy, I doodle your face—not surprisingly, it bears a striking resemblance of us.

The problem with getting involved with an artistic, emotionful person; they won’t let go without a fight for your heart.

What happened Tuesday night? I don’t remember, well, I don’t remember how it ended with you. I remember the wine. Oh goodness, I remember the wine the day after with my head in the porcelain toilet bowl. I remember drinking to ease my thinking, my brain, my thoughts, to heal the holes forming in my heart. I remember my boots and the cab. I remember starting to hate you and trying to push those feelings away. The idea of hating you makes my stomach curl—similar to the way my stomach felt as I vomited. I remember texting you when I made it home. My mascara running down my face from the tears cried in the cab. Tears caused by the wine, by the situation, by you. Now I wonder, why did it end?

Current Location:	Kearney, NE
Current Mood:	crushed
Current Music:	Ani DiFranco

One Hundred Love Sonnets: XVII
by Pablo Neruda

I don’t love you as if you were a rose of salt, topaz,
or arrow of carnations that propagate fire:
I love you as one loves certain obscure things,
secretly, between the shadow and the soul.

I love you as the plant that doesn’t bloom but carries
the light of those flowers, hidden, within itself,
and thanks to your love the tight aroma that arose
from the earth lives dimly in my body.

I love you without knowing how, or when, or from where,
I love you directly without problems or pride:
I love you like this because I don’t know any other way to love,
except in this form in which I am not nor are you,
so close that your hand upon my chest is mine,
so close that your eyes close with my dreams.

Current Location:	Chicago, IL
Current Mood:	content

A letter to no one:
I can't understand what Karl Marx is saying--something about division of labour and private property. As I'm trying so hard to understand Marx, I have this sinking feeling in my gut. So much so, I'm writing this letter. What is this feeling? Why can't I name it? Why is it enveloping all of me that all I can think about is this feeling? Fix it! I want you to fix it because I can't because I don't know what it is. You know. You must know. I'm crawling out of my skin. I have to get away from it, away from myself. I haven't been sleeping. I keep waking at strange hours of the night. Thinking, but I don't know what I'm thinking of. I don't know how to go back to sleep. I've forgotten how to sleep. And now this feeling, this fucking feeling, I can't fucking name. Would you please come relieve me of this, this feeling? I can't handle this by myself anymore. I need someone next to me while I can't sleep. I need you next to me, but I don't know who you are and I don't know this feeling. Please take this feeling away. Please.
Sincerely, Sarah

I'm freaking out, again. Lacking in specificity, focus, and a topic. No one knows I'm freaking out. I run away like the newly unflowered female ashamed of the drunken decisions from the night before. I want to talk, but I don't have the words to express what I need to say. I'm sure those words haven't been invented. I feel this need to connect, to commune, to relate to these people, but instead I hide within my own insecurities and judge them for not understanding who I am. I over caffeinate myself so that I can function, but I can't sleep at night, debating my lack of purpose, specificity. I've lost my appetite, actually, I think I've forgotten how to eat, how to function. Where is the closest place to buy cigarettes? The only real question, I can formulate. What if all I want to do is make art? How does that fit into what I'm studying now? I'm scared. i'm frightened. I lost my purpose--my reason for being here. I thought a PhD was in my future, but I'm afraid I won't be able to make it through my master's program without sinking so far into disillusionment I won't be able to resurface alive. I'm so badly wanting to be understood that I won't open myself up. Another one of the paradoxes I settle into, always hoping for unity; hoping for complimentary ideas, wants, needs--not contradictory ideas, wants, needs. All I want is a cigarette right now, can we all say addict together--ADDICT.

I've for sure settled into my program and Chicago now. I've made friends and am generally happy. I just love the emotions I was able to express in these pieces of mental brokenness. I still can feel those feelings, but I'm glad they are in the past.

Current Location:	Chicago, IL
Current Mood:	content
Current Music:	Gilmore Girls in the livingroom

I try to enter your mind/you. I'm stopped by border control. The guards won't let me in and they have guns. I scream your name praying you will let me come . . . to you. The guards aim their guns. I scream your name, again. The guards cock their guns. I see my life run past my eyes, but the promise of death seems more hopeful than living with thwarted desire. I scream your name one last time. And the glimmer of hope is gone.

My heart is racing in anticipation. My mind is racing with thoughts of you. My body is static with the penetrative knowledge that us, you and I, will never be.

Current Location:	Chicago, IL
Current Mood:	contemplative
Current Music:	Ani DiFranco

o my my
by ani difranco

your body
foreshortened
below
your shoulders
your face
so close
it's out
of focus
way down
the hallway
comes the sound
of your shoes
that is what i
what i think about
when i think about
you

if we let our love
off of its leash
do you fear, like i fear
how fierce it could be?

your headlights
sweeping
across my
ceiling
the breadth of
my smile now
the depth of
my feeling
way down in my dark life
a shaft of your light
shines through
and that is what i
what i think about
when i think about
you

if we let our love
off of its leash
do you fear, like i fear
how fierce it would be?

o my my

Current Location:	Chicago, IL
Current Mood:	sleepy
Current Music:	Ani DiFranco

Sonnets / Unrealities XI
by Bjork

It may not always be so
And I say that if your lips
Which I have loved
Should touch another's
And your dear strong fingers clutch his heart
As mine in time not far away

If on another's face your sweet hair lay
In such a silence as I know
Or such great writhing words as, uttering overmuch
Stand helplessly before the spirit at bay

If this should be, I say if this should be
You of my heart, send me a little word
That I may go unto her, and take her hands saying
Accept all happiness from me
Then shall I turn my face
And hear one bird sing terribly afar in the lost lands

Current Location:	Chicago, IL
Current Mood:	contemplative
Current Music:	Bjork

slide
by Ani DiFranco

she was hungry so hungry
she was trying to think clear
she kept opening the fridge door
looking at the mustard and the beer
then finally she went out into the rain
carrying her bicycle chain
and her feet worked the pedals
while her appetite steered

after that she just followed her nose
and fate is not just whose cooking smells good
but which way the wind blows

she laid down in her party dress and never got up
needless to say she missed the party
she just got sad
then she got stuck
she was wincing like something brittle trying hard to bend
she was numb with the terror of losing her best friend
but we never see things changing
we only see them ending

and some vicious whispering voice
keeps saying you have no choice
you have no choice

cuz when i look at you i squint
you are that beautiful
and my pussy is a tractor
and this is a tractor pull
i'm haunted by my illicit, explicit dreams
and i can't really wake up
so i just drift in between
thinking the glass is half empty
and thinking it's not quite full

the pouring rain is no place for a bicycle ride
try to hit the brakes
and you slide
and you slide
and you slide

© 2003 ani difranco / righteous babe music

Current Location:	Chicago, IL
Current Mood:	calm
Current Music:	Ani DiFranco