"The weird thing is, Molen says she gave up acting because 'they would always typecast me in the beginning to play kids or animals.' Well, she's certainly not pigeonholing herself now!"
The difference is that--regardless of whether or not she's being "pigeonholed"--this is a role that she is choosing, rather than one that's being thrust upon her. She's not a child or an animal, whether she's a "human tripod" is entirely up to her.
It just seems disingenuous to me that a site that so vociferously defends the decisions of women like Sasha Grey that this lady doesn't deserve respect for her decision to take control of her pigeonholing. How is it any different?
@allyzay: It's not about respecting her decision in and of itself: of course she should be able to do whatever she pleases. But to say it's a decision that furthers her cause, as she does, is absolutely up for discussion.
The issue I have with modern-day freak shows is the perception that people nowadays go for such enlightened and different reasons than people back in the day did. While there may be more understanding and more options for someone with a disability or unusual medical condition, the audience sentiment of "Look at the freak!" is largely unchanged. The pretense of it all irritates me.
@LaComtesse: I think you've hit the crux of the issue. If this is what makes Molen happy, then that's cool. If you want to learn about medical abnormalities one can go to the Mutter Museum (or a similar science based museum), if you want to see 'freaks' you go to a sideshow. It's a point and stare spectacle, not an educational experience
@jemandtheholograms: Exactly. As I said below to @Ri_L, it's cool for her, but hardly a progressive, activist stance to take. But I also don't think it's her responsibility to take that stance.
Sideshows - or freak shows - have a long and ignominious history that most of us are aware of: various forms of exploitation, sometimes, as in the case of different human "exotics," couched in scientific or educational terms and, later, presented baldly as pure, lurid entertainment.
From what I understand, side shows often represented exactly the opposite for many so called "freaks". Many times side shows allowed for those who would normally require assistance from the government to exist, the ability to make their own money (and lots of it). They were able to be around people that were more like them and they were able to control their own destiny, turning what would normally be a disability into a financial boon and acceptance into a close knit community. In the early 20th century side shows were often the ONLY way people differently-abled people could flourish.
As someone who longs to give up her cubicle life and run away and join the circus, I totally support Jackie and her choices and would definitely see her perform.
It makes sense that she would give up acting so as to not be typecast as a kid or an animal. Wouldn't it be more degrading to play an animal rather than just be herself?
Also, Sadie, I don't think you not feeling inclined to see her show (as I am not either) means you can't respect the choice she's made for herself. It's clear she's changed perceptions already. I'm not saying you don't respect her choice, only saying that it doesn't make it any less valid because you, personally, feel uncomfortable watching her perform.
In the 18th and 19th centuries, impoverished families might sell disabled children to carnivals; later, it was often the only form of employment for someone "freakish."
Not just in the 18th and 19th centuries. This happens today. This man ([www.blisstree.com]) can only get a job as a "freak" and it's a dangerous job.
@LaComtesse: Wikipedia says no cure yet, but biannual surgery can relieve Tree Man's symptoms. There's that :/
Agreed on the forcing thing. My research has turned up all sorts of mixed reactions from those who were displayed as freaks back in the day. There was one guy who actually got pissed that new laws forbade him to work as a freak because it was his job and he wanted to do it to support himself. But so many of them were unhappy and mistreated, even by their own families.
Bottom line is, what Jackie's doing is cool because she chooses and embraces it.
@Ri_L: Cool for her, sure. Cool on the whole in terms of moving things forward? I don't think so. But I also don't think it's her responsibility to take that upon herself.
In all seriousness, though, I have always been fascinated by this culture. I watched a program about it on public television last year, and found myself understanding how some "freaks" felt not only empowered, but useful. And they made money to boot. Of course, it's more complicated than that, but it's reductive to just scream "OMG this is so degrading and awful!"
@Penny: YES THIS. I've always been interested in old amusement parks and researching the so-called freaks came with it. What was fascinating to me was how these people lived as human beings, how they lived with/overcame their disabilities and where their lives took them. Some stories are heartbreaking, but some are really awesome, like Bill Durks, the two-faced man who married the alligator girl. Their marriage was happy and they ended up grandparents <3
I like the song. I think the video is decent. But I miss seeing her really break out the dance moves. Also do not know if I am reading into it something that is not there, but she certainly seems so less confident. She used to be so 'fuck you I am hot as SHIT' and now she just seems so unsure. I miss confident brit-brit.
I've listened to most of the new album and it's solid, but there's still something off about Britney. Her "sound" hasn't evolved very much over the course of the past 10 years, but I still dig the album.
09/08/09
The difference is that--regardless of whether or not she's being "pigeonholed"--this is a role that she is choosing, rather than one that's being thrust upon her. She's not a child or an animal, whether she's a "human tripod" is entirely up to her.
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
How are those TLC specials NOT modern sideshows? People are still fascinated by this. Fact of life. May as well get paid for it.
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
From what I understand, side shows often represented exactly the opposite for many so called "freaks". Many times side shows allowed for those who would normally require assistance from the government to exist, the ability to make their own money (and lots of it). They were able to be around people that were more like them and they were able to control their own destiny, turning what would normally be a disability into a financial boon and acceptance into a close knit community. In the early 20th century side shows were often the ONLY way people differently-abled people could flourish.
09/08/09
For some it was better than nothing but that doesn't mean it was positive.
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
Like she says, the show is about what she can do.
09/08/09
09/08/09
Not just in the 18th and 19th centuries. This happens today. This man ([www.blisstree.com]) can only get a job as a "freak" and it's a dangerous job.
09/08/09
09/08/09
@Ri_L: That would be wonderful, but the point remains that forcing people to be an oddity for the entertainment of others remains a practice today...
09/08/09
Agreed on the forcing thing. My research has turned up all sorts of mixed reactions from those who were displayed as freaks back in the day. There was one guy who actually got pissed that new laws forbade him to work as a freak because it was his job and he wanted to do it to support himself. But so many of them were unhappy and mistreated, even by their own families.
Bottom line is, what Jackie's doing is cool because she chooses and embraces it.
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
I work in a circus too, doing this.
09/08/09
12/05/08
12/05/08
I've listened to most of the new album and it's solid, but there's still something off about Britney. Her "sound" hasn't evolved very much over the course of the past 10 years, but I still dig the album.