Saturday, September 19, 2009

She's at home in the circus sideshow.

Performer Jackie Molen, who was born with only one tiny leg, is proud to walk on her hands onstage (alongside her flamethrower boyfriend). Some see her act as exploitation; she calls it tradition.


Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Pueblo, Colo. - Jackie Molen isn't the only star of "The Strangest Show on Earth."

There's also Sonny, a steer with a pair of stunted legs growing out of his back, and Daisy Mae, a red Holstein with two pink noses on her misshapen face.

But top billing at the Big Circus Sideshow goes to Molen, 24, who was born with only one tiny leg. The medical term is proximal femoral focal deficiency, but both she and the man who hired her have a different name for it.

"I'm the Human Tripod," Molen said, sitting in her wheelchair as passersby at the Colorado State Fair gawked at a sign outside her tent: "Freak animals created by God, not by the hand of man."

Some give in to the allure, forking over $2 to get inside.

Until last year, customers found a menagerie of animals, living and pickled, with an array of deformities: a three-legged duck, a pig with two noses and two mouths, and "Ertyl & Myrtle," a double-headed turtle.

But sideshow owner Jim Zajicek wanted humans as well, so he hired Molen, and a man with shortened arms known as "Flipper Boy," to perform -- roles harking back to an era Molen says she is sorry she missed.

"I like to think I'm continuing a tradition," she said.

It's a tradition viewed by many as a distasteful part of American history: the display of people with disabilities to entertain the masses.

Circus sideshows first became lucrative in the late 1800s, when it was considered educational to display people from other cultures, such as the South Pacific, said Robert Sabia, president of the Circus Historical Society. In the 1900s, the focus switched to people with unusual physical characteristics, but after World War II, interest in such shows waned.

To Zajicek, a circus veteran in a bow tie and fedora, there's still a place for sideshows. "The movers and shakers don't think it's politically correct," he said. "But the masses still want to see this stuff."

His is one of several sideshows that traverse the country, booking with carnivals and fairs whose officials can be persuaded to host them. Some demur when they hear the word "sideshow," Zajicek said.

In Colorado, the state fair hasn't had such an exhibit in decades, said fair manager Chris Wiseman, noting that fair officials didn't seek out the sideshow, which was hired by the fair's contracted carnival. When officials learned of it, their reactions varied.

"Some thought it was neat, a throwback to the '40s and '50s," said Wiseman, adding they will gauge public reaction before deciding whether to allow it next year. "Some thought it belonged in another time."

On a recent afternoon, Molen, a pretty, black-haired woman wearing a black sequined tank top and a black high-heeled sandal, sat sipping a Pepsi outside the tent entrance. She only works when Zajicek deems the crowds large enough, and then she climbs a small stage to perform a series of balancing acts alongside her boyfriend, fire eater Josh Bladzik.

Fairgoers glanced at her as they walked into the tent to gape at the placidly chewing animals that Zajicek has collected over the years, mostly from farmers, and the jars of animals -- some relics of 1940s shows, others recent acquisitions from veterinarians -- preserved in formaldehyde.

"Ooh!" shrieked a young girl as she stared at Laverne, a sheep with a fifth leg dangling from her belly. "Disgusting!"

Zajicek is always on the lookout for a new acquisition that will sell tickets but he says he draws a line at "self-made freaks" -- people who cover themselves in tattoos or surgically alter themselves.

"It's stupidity to deform yourself for entertainment value," he said. "What Jackie's doing is she's playing the cards she's dealt. She's an inspiration."

Raised in Idaho, Molen studied gymnastics and martial arts. "When I was younger, I ran around on my hands and foot. I didn't get teased very much. If anyone tried to tease me, I'd beat them up," said Molen, who first joined a show four years ago.

Able-bodied people are the ones who seem most uncomfortable with her job, she said. But she views it as a form of advocacy for the disabled.

"I feel like I'm educating people about diversity and how people can be born different," she said. "I'm in there doing amazing things. . . . This show is about what I can do. It's not a pity party. I'm proud to be a freak."

She could accomplish the same goal by working other jobs, said Andrew Imparato, president and chief executive of the American Assn. of People With Disabilities.

Depicting the disabled as objects of entertainment makes it harder for others to avoid being defined by their condition, Imparato said. "You can find people willing to do that for a living, but that doesn't mean it's good for society," he said.

Under the tent, the reactions of fairgoers were mixed, but many took the same stance as the fair manager: If Molen was OK with it, so were they.

But James Cordova, 47, of Pueblo, confessed to some discomfort. Displaying animals is one thing, he said, but a person is another. "It can be kind of dehumanizing," he said.

Jo Mitchell, 80, of Colorado Springs, recalled the risque exhibits of her youth that included a hermaphrodite hidden behind a curtain.

"This is minor," she said, "compared to what they used to have."

16 comments:

24-HOUR-MAN said...

Has it now become "incorrect" to "exploit" one's self, if one wants to.
Thumbs up to this lady, she's not in the welfare line~

Wade G. Burck said...

Billy,
If she was in the welfare line, folks would still look at her. That is human nature. Why let them look for free? Why not "make lemonade, out of lemons?"
Wade

Anonymous said...

I don't think Jackie views it as 'lemons' Wade.
Sounds to me like a well adjusted and happy person! Has a boyfriend and a place to work; more than many people these days!
A lot of people love her for who she is; not 'what' she is.
What's in question is her right to make a living with her body. I don't think her rights should be questioned at all!
Just because 'some' people say it's 'distasteful' doesn't make it wrong!
Actually, there is every reason to say it's great!
-B

Wade G. Burck said...

B,
I didn't say or mean to infer that Jackie views it as "lemons", I was just using an analogy that is often used. And I agree, she has the right to do what ever it is she want's, with in the law. That's what being an American citizen is.
Wade

Eric Martin said...

She has the right, and making lemons from lemonade is a charming conceit.

But there's also the question whether she (and the people who pay to view her) are presenting physical misfortune as a form of entertainment.

By doing so (and again, her rights in this regard can't be disputed), she encourages depersonalization of the problem...sideshows do not engender sympathy or the desire to support medical research. They merely exploit.

Eric Martin

Wade G. Burck said...

Eric,
You are wrong. Sideshows do engender sympathy, unfortunately, which is why folks are often against them. Why in the world should the sideshow have to support medical research or encourage medical research. Are you suggesting that as a "visual aid" folks like Jackie are justified in being on public display? But not for the God given right to make a living, as they legally see fit?
Wade

Eric Martin said...

I'm not suggesting sideshows should support medical research. I am suggesting that they exist to commoditize unfortunate situations and satisfy less pleasant needs in the rest of us.

Sure, she can sit in a chair and make money by selling a peep at her plight. But there's always a line to the acceptability of self-exploitation; yours is probably just a little farther down the road than mine.

Should a blind person set himself up to toss water balloons at, which he can't dodge because he's blind? Some people will pay to throw them, and it's his legal right to sell them this privilege. Does that make it desireable?

I would argue no, and I'm thinking you probably would too. By the same token, I think exhibiting one's physical deformation for money is also something from which we all, as a culture, need to move on.

It's a very wrong lesson to teach our children than one should go to the circus and pay to see birth defects, like they would pay to see a tiger show. Both become forms of entertainment, and no-one should encourage physical deformation as entertaining, not even the deformed themselves.

Making a buck is not an unassailable defense. We can pardon Johnny Eck and Chang and Eng...those were different times. These are not.

Anonymous said...

"But there's also the question whether she (and the people who pay to view her) are presenting physical misfortune as a form of entertainment." -Eric Martin

Did it ever occur this reader that she might look at this a bit differently that himself? She might view this as a great way to make a living! I'm just wondering if your reader believes that people who are able to contort their bodies, pop their joints and kiss their ass are exploiting themselves!?
What about the Special Olympics...is that exploitation to see the achievements of others 'less fortunate' than someone considered 'able bodied'.
Frankly, it's all the same to some degree.
Freak animals living the high life just doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. Any animal traveling the country, pampered by their owner, is not a bad thing!
Wish people would stop all this political correct nonsense and get real!
-B

Wade G. Burck said...

Eric,
"Some people will pay to throw them, and it's his legal right to sell them this privilege. Does that make it desireable?"
It is the blind mans right as an American citizen to the pursuit of happiness, if that happiness is being a target, as well as the right of "people" to the pursuit of happiness, if that happiness is throwing a ball at said "target", as well as your right to the pursuit of happiness, by not throwing a ball, or even looking at said target. That is very, very desirable. Should Ray Charles have not been allowed to "exploit" himself because he was blind. Or was the fact that he could sing "desirable" to some. What if you didn't like his style of music? Was it then undesirable? No Eric, it is not YOUR world. It is EVERYBODY'S world, and that includes me and the blind man. Tell you what, let's get real correct and champion an organization, private or government sponsored that caters to aiding and helping healthy white males. There are hundreds for females, handicapped, minorities, old, young. Work on one for healthy white males. Let's make this a fair world.
Wade

Eric Martin said...

>Tell you what, let's get real correct and champion an organization, private or government sponsored that caters to aiding and helping healthy white males. <

I have no idea what this has to do with a discussion on the social merits of displaying physical deformities as a means of entertainment.

And Ray Charles' success was in spite of his blindness...it was not because of it. Drawing an analogy between him and someone selling tickets to stare at their malformed bodies is way, way off base.

Wade G. Burck said...

Eric,
I beg to differ. I think she is entertaining people, as Ray Charles did: "then she climbs a small stage to perform a series of balancing acts alongside her boyfriend, fire eater Josh Bladzik". Stevie Wonder, Ray Charles, Jose Feliciano all had a handicap and were allowed to perform, and many went to see that handicap excel.

Vibragera is an exciting co-production between world famous Cullbergbaletten, Riksteatern "Silent Theatre" and Royal Institute of Technology.

The choreographer Martin Forsberg has created this piece together with two hearing dancers from Sweden and two deaf dancers from Japan and South Africa.

Should we stop the two deaf dancers from performing, Eric? How about Ludwig Van Beethoven, Eric? How about Kristi Yamaguchi, who began skating as a child for therapy for her clubbed feet, Eric? How about Rene Kirby (born February 27, 1955 an American film and television actor. Kirby used spina bifida to his advantage when he played his role in shallow Hal, he was also in Stuck on you with Matt Damon. He is the living proof that you can lead a productive life even with disabilities, don't you think, Eric? I know, let's shut down Stephen Hawkings, never buy another book or pay for a seminar, because we have to look at him. He doesn't have much to say anyway, does he Eric? Or is that deal only for folks in an iron lung at a carnival instead of sponsored by a University? Let's not let Sealo, the flipper boy play drums, unless he signs with the Rolling Stones, and sits way up high, where we can't see him. Does that about take care of it, Eric?

Your quote: And Ray Charles' success was in spite of his blindness...it was not because of it" holds true for Jackie also. Or are you going to also define SUCCESS for the rest of the world, as you define "depersonalization of a problem", Eric?
Wade

Eric Martin said...

I'm still thinking you're missing the point. All those people you mentioned do things despite their handicap.

A sideshow exhibit, on the other hand, is making the handicap the attraction. It's not about physics or music or sports...it's just about the deformation itself.

Anonymous said...

Wade- Eric is obviously representative of those "normal" folks who feel uncomfortable viewing a sideshow -even though they've happily paid the admission price. Some of them even have the gall to demand a refund when they leave, depriving the performers of a portion of their livelihood. People like Eric will never open their minds to accept that Jackie and all the others like her are NOT just displaying their handicaps, but showing how they excel IN SPITE of it. Yes, the same as Stevie Wonder, Ray Charles, and all the others you name. Hey, what about Marlee Matlin, Lou Ferigno, and even Steve McQueen? They are all Deaf actors, "exploiting" the fact that they are Deaf! (Except for McQueen, of course, who WAS a Deaf actor!) And whenever I perform my own fire eating act, I'm also exploiting myself, I guess, according to Eric and others like him. Heck, I even tell my audience that I'm Deaf! Thanks for opening eyes to this, Wade.

-Meph

Wade G. Burck said...

Mephisto,
Good to hear from you. We both know what a complete and utter buffoon Curator Zajicek is, and that's why I can't look at this as being exploitative. I look at this as a mutual symbiotic relationship with Ms. Jackie being a rose and The Curator being a bee. That makes it educational, and not exploitative, and worthy of school lyceums. But you have to know the moron ramrodding this dangerous, dangerous outfit to realize that in addition to being talented, Jackie also has a lot of tolerance, like the rose for the bee.
Be safe,
Wade

Anonymous said...

As far as the Jackie-Zajicek situation, who's exploiting who is most likely not what the public perceives. Everybody "knows" that the sideshow owners have their people cowed into a corner, and have them brainwashed into thinking the show is the only place for them, other than an asylum. So, just like that flunky from the big-time handicapped people's group says, there really are other places she could show off her abilities. Of course, she couldn't do handstands, couldn't share a stage with her boyfriend, couldn't laugh at the fools down there in the audiences gawking, and probably couldn't wear the costumes she loves. And people would still stare at her -just not pay her for the privilege.

Yeah, the Curator wanted some live human performers, and now he's got them. But it's THEM exploiting HIM! They are having all the fun while he sits in his trailer wondering if it's safe to come out, or if they'll make him one of them... -Gooba gobba....

Explotation? Hell, it's the name of the game in ALL businesses to exploit their workers. If you hire a carpenter, aren't you exploiting his skills to get a house built, you selfish bastard? When I go to a bar, I'm exploiting the bartender -and the scantily clad waitresses- to get drunk and enjoy myself. Sure, they all get paid. Does anybody think Jackie works for free, or is there against her will?

-Meph

Anonymous said...

*Should a blind person set himself up to toss water balloons at, which he can't dodge because he's blind? Some people will pay to throw them, and it's his legal right to sell them this privilege. Does that make it desireable?

I would argue no, and I'm thinking you probably would too. By the same token, I think exhibiting one's physical deformation for money is also something from which we all, as a culture, need to move on.*

When will people ever get it through their skulls that "handicapped" people are capable of deciding for themselves and don't need or ask for those bleeding hearts to "come to their rescue"? If a blind man (or woman) had senses honed to such a degree that he/she could dodge water balloons, I'd certainly pay to see that. Rather than having sympathy, I'd be trilled and amazed at the skills demonstrated. And believe me, there ARE blind people who can do just that!

And how can folks who have never seen Jackie, but read the news article about her, make the claim that she's simply exhibiting her deformity for money? -Or that she "sits in a chair and makes money by selling a peep at her plight"? -Or that she's perpetuating some stereotype image that is the product of the accuser's own imagination, for entertainment?

Whatever happened to "Live and let live"? Clean up your own backyard before you tell me how to plant my garden, thank you...

-Meph