Emma Haeusel

11/9/15

BCORE 107 C

Professor Goldberg

Professor Padilla

So far in this quarter, I have had three writing assignments. I have done well in the assignments, however, I don’t think I’ve improved all that much. While there are points that I feel I have improved grammatically, I haven’t fundamentally changed my writing, and I don’t feel I need to. I think I am able to clearly and concisely explain and analyze documents and sources to use for my writing and that I am able to get my point across, however, I definitely have some work still to do. There is always room for improvement, and even the best writer of our time is no exception. While I do have improvement to make, I still am able to write good papers. I identify the point that I am illustrating and the author is making by using the documents provided and my command of standard English to clearly laid out and well analyzed papers.

            I am able to identify and understand the points that an author is making in order to write my paper. For example, in my second writing assignment, I feel that I grasped what Anthea Hartig was saying quite well, and used that as a basis for my paper, which I got a good grade on. In a quote from Writing Assignment 2, I said,

“the author argues that Sunkist and other citrus producers used white men and women and an atmosphere of a perfect, Mediterranean city to appeal to their target consumer- affluent white families- while excluding the thousands of non-white workers that made their companies possible” (Writing Assignment 2)

In this paper, I feel that I understood what the author was trying to say and articulated the main point that she made in this article. I have also shown my ability to find the author’s main points in my other writing assignments. As of now, my writing in this class has shown my capability when it comes to understanding authors.

            I believe that one of my strongest points as writer is using the documents given to me in order to make my paper better. I use all the documents given to me and really work to find quotes or examples that I feel best fit my point or best fit in with my writing style. As an example, I turn to Writing Assignment 3, where I analyzed Rock Hudson, and his role in “Pillow Talk”. I quoted, “‘Rock is never cast as the heavy in movies, never appears drunk, and never, never makes a pass at a girl. His fans wouldn't stand for it.” (263)’. I used this quote to illustrate the way Hollywood created Rock Hudson’s image, one of soft masculinity, and this quote shows that perfectly. I am very good at finding quotes and using them to my advantage when writing a paper.

            If I were to choose my weakest point when it comes to the fundamentals of writing, I would say that it’s my command of Standard Written English. For my entire writing career, this class included, what I get critiqued most on is my grammar. And the majority of the time, it is because I simply do not know any better. I feel that if I work on anything, I should work on grammar first.

            There are a few things I know I should use more of in my writing. One of them is really spending time looking at the feedback given to me by my teachers and applying it to my writing, because some of the time they are critiquing me on the same thing on multiple papers, so I feel I should use that to my advantage because they are there to help me. Another thing I will begin to use to help me is spending more time. I can at sometimes rush through some areas while writing, for example when I double check my writing, and even if I put in an extra 5 minutes of work it could really help my writing. Finally, I think peer review is very helpful. Much of the time, my classmates bring up points in my paper that I didn’t otherwise see or think of. Overall, I believe that so far my writing has been fairly well done, however, I believe there is room for improvement. I am able to gain a good understanding of a writer’s point and I use documents and sources very well in order to illustrate my point, however, I have work to do on my command of Standard Written English.

Emma Haeusel

Prof. Jim Chin

BWRIT 134

3/15/16

When Justice Needs a Facelift

            When my dad sold the closest thing he had to a real gun, he did not know it would be used in a robbery. He did not know the man using it would be shot and killed by policemen trying to protect themselves and others. He did not know a harmless pellet gun would be the reason a man lost his life. But it was. Throughout the past few years, police brutality has come into the media criticizing the police for increased harm when the situation did not call for it. But what about when the situation does call for it? What is the protocol, and how far is too far in a situation like the one my dad witnessed? In this case, the police were right to shoot first and ask questions later, but what about in cases where violence of that magnitude is uncalled for? In Ta-Nehisi Coates’s article The Case For Reparations he talks about the terrible violence done to African Americans during the 19^th and 20^th centuries by authority figures in the United States, and it is important to trust those who are placed in authority positions, but sometimes, they shouldn’t be trusted, and there needs to be a way to uncover how to discern between the two. Through my dad’s example and the example placed by Coates’s article, it is obvious to see there are two sides of the justice system. The justice system has been corrupted and needs to be mended through altered protocols and systems so that the people in it’s care may be protected and feel safe within it’s borders.

            About fifteen years ago, my father was working in a sporting goods store when a man came in looking for a pellet gun. He told my dad that he wanted something that looked as close to the original as possible. He wanted a standard 9mm handgun. My dad thought nothing of it, as many people came into the store with the intention of buying something that would look authentic but would not cause real harm to anyone. My father could not know that the man was going to use the gun for a robbery. The man went into a pub, and using the pellet gun he had just bought he threatened the bartender and stole the money from the cash register. As all this was going on, the pub owner called the police, who confronted the robber in the back alley where he had run to try and escape. The police gave him multiple warnings and told him to put the gun down, and when he did not, he was shot and killed by those policemen. When the went to examine the body they discovered that the gun was in fact fake and they came to realize their mistake.

            After the shooting, the man’s family sued the police for wrongful death, and it was then that my father went in and testified. He told them what had happened at his store, what the man had asked for, and how he had seemed to them. The police department also held a separate investigation into whether or not the man’s death was justified. When something happens like this, the police must investigate. They can not be held accountable for wrongful deaths, because that is when people begin to be untrustworthy. Who can people trust if their authority figures are killing innocents? For the policemen themselves, it is important to know that they are not in the wrong. As Coates talks about reparations in his article, so they too need to make reparations and have healing- it is not a light thing to kill someone, no matter who you were protecting, and especially in a case such as this when death could have been avoided. After the trial, the policemen won their case and were cleared of any wrong doing- they acted how they were supposed to, and followed their rules to the letter.

            In this case, the police were in the right. Had they not acted upon their suspicions, and had it been a real gun, real harm could have come to many people, the police officers included. Police in that situation can not risk anyone’s lives, not even if they have a suspicion that a weapon may be fake. It is the police’s job to protect the innocent more than the guilty. The man knew what he was doing when he bought that gun. He knew that people would think it was real, and that is why he bought it. He understood that there was a potential he would be seriously injured. When the police were shouting at him to lower the gun, why didn’t he? Why, when he knew that he could do no real harm to anyone, did he continue to risk, and ultimately lose his life? For some, pride is more important that one’s life. For him, a few hundred dollars was worth more than his life. No one can know his reasoning behind risking his life for a few hundred dollars, but it is more important to ask whether anything could have been done to avoid such a thing.

The police did act fairly in this instance. They saw what they perceived to be a gun, what the victim was clearly treating like a gun, and they shot to save lives. But when men reach for something, and are shot, or are pulling something out of their bags, and are killed, that is when to look more closely at what police are doing and what can be changed. For this instance, it could have been something as simple as not selling pellet guns that look authentic, or placing something bright and obvious to mark that they are fake. In other instances, when it’s shoot first and ask questions later, lives could be saved if only protocols were changed. While yes, most of those men thought they were saving their lives, in instances where it is possible, they need to make sure a man has a weapon, or at least something that very closely resembles it. In some instances, like the one in this paper, the criminals know that they do not have a real weapon, but insist on pretending. Policemen need to be made aware of situations like this. They need to always wear bullet proof vests, so if they do suspect a fake weapon, they may pursue it. There has to be protocol in place for situations like the one mentioned above, so as to save not only the lives of criminals, but to save the mentality of policemen. No matter who it may be, killing someone should never be easy. But when someone is killed and it could have been prevented, it is truly a tragedy for not only the victims and their families, but policemen and their families. They are forced to live with that for the entirety of their lives, and if there was a way to prevent that, it should be put into action.

The authorities are not always in the right. There are cases when people are treated wrongly, and when the authorities abuse their power. Whether it is Rodney King or Michael Brown, police brutality will get coverage, and people will be up in arms about it. Yes, it is real, and yes it is a real problem that is prevalent in more than one police precinct. Whether it is excessive force while arresting someone or shooting a man who is unarmed or who is listening to the police, or not stopping violence after the suspect is clearly under police control. Corruption is throughout the justice system. Whether it is police brutality, or judges who would take a bribe, or wardens who could not care less that the men in their prisons are human beings. In these instances, those in authority think that their lives and their comfort and their beliefs are much more important that those of whom they consider to be less than them or deserving of their brutality. The bottom line is it is not the policemen’s job to enact punishment or justice on a suspect. It is not their job to say what a suspect did or did not do, or to decide how they should be treated. That is the reason for the justice system. To decide whether or not a suspect is guilty and to dole out their punishment as the law says, not how they personally feel. And yes, sometimes innocent men go to jail, and sometimes guilty men go free, but it still is not an individual’s job to say what a man did or did not do, but rather, to do the job given to them and protect the common good and do everything they can to make sure those that are guilty are punished to the full extent of the law.

In Ta-Nahisi Coates’s article, he talks about police brutality and times when the police were wrong. In the article, he talks about African Americans and the wrongs that were committed to them even after the civil war and slavery. For them, discrimination never stopped, and they were not given the rights they were owed. In one case of police brutality, he speaks of a man’s brother. Clyde Ross, one of the men talked about in this article, had a brother who would have seizures and could potentially harm other people. Instead of getting him the help he desperately needed and deserved, they placed him in prison: ‘“He was a gentle person,’ Clyde Ross says of his brother. ‘You know, he was good to everybody. And he started having spells, and he couldn’t control himself. And they had him picked up, because they thought he was dangerous.”’ (Coates) In this instance, the authorities did not do what was right. Not only did they wrongfully accuse a man, they put him in the wrong place. He should have been placed in a mental institution or even a regular hospital where he could do no more harm to people and he could get help. Seizures are not a hard thing to fix, but because of his race, he was placed into prison where he eventually died. It is cases like these where the justice system failed it’s own citizens.

            There will always be controversies surrounding the police. There will always be people who do not trust them, or who do not think the authorities have their best interests in mind. It is determining when that is actually the case that the justice system in this nation must look at. In the case of the man whom my father had to witness about, the police acted within their rights and rules as police officers. They acted in a way that would have saved lives had the situation been different. But there are real cases of police brutality. Not just for African Americans, though that runs rampant, but with all people, in some jurisdictions. There needs to be better systems to figure out who the “good” cops and “bad” cops are. Because there are good men out there that only want what is best for the men women and children in their care. There are also men who would abuse the power that has been given to them, who would harm people underserving and take advantage of their authority position. It is finding those men and finding a way to eradicate corruption in the justice system that the nation must look at, if they ever want people to feel safe around those that are charged with their safety.

Emma Haeusel

6/6/16

BWRIT135

Dr. Brown

Invitation to Browse

Laurel Thatcher Ulrich once said, “Well-behaved women seldom make history” (Ulrich). No burlesque performer would ever be accused of being “well-behaved”. In fact, many people viewed burlesque performers as so inappropriate they would place them in the same category of that of prostitutes (Buszek 142). Many questions arise from women in burlesque and the actions they took to ensure their popularity during the heyday of burlesque. Some of these questions are: how did women performing in burlesque so effortlessly assert their dominance over and manipulate audiences? How did regular circus freaks showing off their bodies differ from how burlesque performers did? Were women treated differently because of how sexual they were? [meh. I think that transition is better but still not great] In the essay “Lady Olga”, by Joseph Mitchell, Lady Olga, a bearded lady, shows that she is a fully accepted part of the circus while still maintaining that she is a woman, and also by remaining fairly conservative in both her clothing and attitude. In another reading of that same book, Harry Crews describes an evocative performer, Rose, and how she used her sexuality to manipulate men while maintaining control over what they knew of her. While women in burlesque may not have been treated worse than those who were simply performers, they were set aside. Burlesque performers wanted an audience to see every part of their body and to intimately know the personality that they were putting on display; however, Miss Barnell and burlesque performers may have more in common than it seems- neither of them want anyone to get too close, to truly see who they really are. Burlesque performers want an audience to see every part of their body and of the personality that they are putting on display, however, Miss Barnell and burlesque performers may have more in common than it seems- neither of them want anyone to get too close, to truly see who they really are.

Burlesque, the risqué, one-step-down-from-stripping art of being sexually aware and taking charge of an audience began in the mid 1800s in Europe as a way to bend the rules of the status quo by wearing scantier clothing and putting on shows the likes of which many had never seen (Buckland). It also put a strain on the restrictions that men had placed around women because they feared a woman’s potential or wanted to keep her pure and malleable. As Peter Buckland says in his essay “Vaudeville and Burlesque”, “Burlesque comes from the Italian word burla, meaning a joke or a mockery” (Buckland 1182). Buckland describes burlesque as involving song, dance, comedy and the like, often performed by very scantily dressed women (1182). Burlesque was a way for women to own their sexuality in the first few decades that it was around. It first came to America in the 1860s and grew in popularity until the 1940s when it was somewhat debased by “outcries from conservative and religious leaders,” (1182). Buckland states that as prohibition gained notoriety and burlesque slowly decreased “many saw its atmosphere and culture as immoral and degrading” and it slowly turned into what is now modern day strip clubs or strip teases.

In another essay, “Sex Shows and Dances” author Lynne Conner states that people more and more saw burlesque as an inappropriate, pornographic form of entertainment not suitable for the public and burlesque performers were moved into the category of prostitutes (Conner). As the rest of America moved toward more conservative family values, so did circuses, and with it, burlesque transformed into “vaudeville”, essentially burlesque without the nudity and alcohol. Something that once empowered women and led to many women’s rights activists became nothing more than legal prostitution. Conner states: “though much contemporary feminist scholarship attempts to theorize the gender politics of sex shows, disagreement abounds about the relationship between male objectification and sexual exploitation of women versus the validity of choosing sex work as a profession” (Conner). As authors Katherine Adams and Michael Keene state in the book Women of the American Circus: 1880 – 1940, “like women employed in other American businesses, including offices and stores, they repeatedly encountered the complications of reconciling beauty and skill as they sold a product to the public” (Adams, 85). Unlike other women employed by American businesses however, the product they were selling was their body. These women did not see what they did as sex work, something that would now be considered the realm of strippers and prostitutes, they saw it as their profession, something just as valid as another woman who worked in the circus or an actress working in Hollywood. They were proud of what they were doing, but the climate of that time did not allow them to embrace their sexuality.

While women in circuses and freak shows were stared at and wondered about- after all, who wouldn’t be interested in a woman with four legs or a beard a foot long- they lacked the air of sexuality and the feeling of forbidden intimacy that burlesque performers provided. In a section from the Encyclopedia of Sex and Gender, author Laurie Essig states “Burlesque slapped the ideal woman in the face by allowing white women to strut their desires and their bodies across stages all over North America and Europe. Not only were the actresses scantily clad, but they were also aware of their sexual power in ways that made critics rage and audiences blush” (Essig, 198). While burlesque women were loud and made no move to distance themselves from audiences, other circus freaks preferred to stay aloof. In the book The Circus Age: Culture & Society Under the Big Top by Janet M. Davis, she discusses the lengths that both performers and management went to distances themselves and their acts from that of burlesque: “circus press agents sought to distance their productions from ‘tawdry’ burlesque shows featuring ‘bold’ talking women who jeered at their audiences. In contrast, the circus lady was almost always silent during her act” (Davis, 108). Audiences like to be noticed, like to be recognized and burlesque women provided that, whereas many freaks provided only stationary, silent acts and did not interact with their audiences. Burlesque was in a way refreshing to audiences. [right now I don’t have enough about freaks, but I don’t yet have a secondary source concerning them]

In the anthology Step Right Up, there is an entry called “Lady Olga”. In it is described the life and career of notable bearded lady Jane Barnell, and through it one can see the stark differences between her life and the life of a burlesque performer (Mitchell). At one point in the reading Mitchell discusses Miss Barnell’s dress and attitude, “On a sideshow platform or stage, Miss Barnell is rather austere. To discourage people from getting familiar, she never smiles. She dresses conservatively, usually wearing a plain black evening gown. ‘I like nice clothes, but there’s no use wasting money,’ she says. ‘People don’t notice anything but my old beard’” (Mitchell, 97). Immediately the differences between Miss Barnell and a typical burlesque performer are apparent. While perhaps she is afraid of people getting too close, as Mitchell points out, she absolutely discourages any form of intimacy with her and the audience and tells them her life is “none of [their] business” (98). She dresses conservatively, wearing a long black dress, everything covered but her face and that all important beard.  This is an obvious difference from that of the burlesque performer, but more than that, she dresses and acts as though she hopes to be invisible, people are there to see her beard, not her. Women in burlesque bared their bodies for anyone who paid the price, they put themselves on display and made up a persona they felt would entice their audience the most.

In an additional reading from Step Right Up, author Harry Crews discusses his time in the circus and a woman, Rose, with whom he interacted. Rose was a performer in a “girlie show” essentially a burlesque performance that happened in the after-hours portion of the circus. Rose was their main performer, and she was about as open as one can be with the audience. [I would like to talk about the similarities of letting someone look at your body and inside your mind, like are you being just as vulnerable by being naked than if you bared your soul to someone? Not sure how to incorporate] She performed an act that was out of the ordinary even for a burlesque performance, and completely captivated men with it. She was an expert at playing the crowd. Crews states, as the men were filing into her show, “They were randy and ready and seemed to know something I did not know. Rose even permitted herself a small smile and a couple of winks to the boys who apparently knew who she was, had maybe seen her show before, and were digging hell out of the whole thing.” (Crews, 62). Everything Rose did had a calculated quality to it, and it left the men in a craze: “…with Frankie Valli squealing for all he was worth and the old man single-mindedly beating his drum and several of the good boys hugging each other…” (63). With just the anticipation of her act, Rose has the men in the palm of her hand, she has them willing to do anything for her and losing themselves over her. Not once does it discuss how she feels however. Not once does it allude to what she actually thinks, it only shows her sexuality, and what she allowed them to see, and yet they felt they knew everything about her, they felt like they were in control, when really, nothing happened and the audience knew no more of her than she allowed.

In another section of the Harry Crews reading, he describes the contempt that circus freaks and workers had for “normal” people, something that contributed to a woman freak’s propensity for ignoring a crowd and her resistance to letting a crowd into her life. Crews states, “Carnies have nothing but a deep abiding contempt for marks and what they think of as the straight world,” (57). They despised “marks” so much that they did not feel it was a bad thing for them to look at the women of the girlie shows, even those women that were married. As Crews describes, “[Rose] wouldn’t tell him. He couldn’t go see for himself, because one of the strongest taboos in the carnival world is against carnies going to the girlie show. Most of the girls have carnies for husbands, and the feeling is that it is all right to show your wife to the marks but fundamentally wrong to show her to another carny, one of your own world” (58). Women in girlie shows at least did not see the men they were performing for as equal to them, and therefore could go further than if they had seen them as equals. To the girls and their husbands, it was similar to if an animal saw this, it did not matter.

In addition to them feeling as though the marks were less than carnies, they also believed they had the moral high ground. Authors Katherine Adams and Michael Keene explain: “many other circus people looked at their lives as different…their distinctions [from marks] involved not just discipline and freedom but morality. They argued… that the highly structured life within the circus … made circus performers more ethical and proper than townspeople and other performers” (Adams, 65). This attitude contributed to the freaks being unwilling to show more of themselves than absolutely necessary, and because they did not have to entice the crowds, they only had to exhibit their freakishness, they did not let people in or shows them their thoughts or details of their life.

Works Cited

Adams, Katherine H., and Michael L. Keene. Women of the American Circus: 1880 - 1940. Jefferson, NC: McFarland &, 2012. Print.

Buckland, Peter. "Vaudeville and Burlesque." Music in American Life: An Encyclopedia of the Songs, Styles, Stars, and Stories That Shaped Our Culture. Ed. Jacqueline Edmondson. Vol. 4. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood, 2013. 1182-1183. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 4 May 2016.

Buszek, Maria-Elena. "Representing "Awarishness": Burlesque, Feminist Transgression, and the 19th-Century Pin-up." TDR: The Drama Review 43.4 (1999): 141-162. Project MUSE. Web. May. 2016.

Conner, Lynne. "Sex Shows and Dances." The Oxford Encyclopedia of Theatre and Performance. N.p.: Oxford UP, 2005. N. pag. Oxford Reference Online [Oxford UP]. Web. 3 May 2016.

Crews, Harry. "Carny." Step Right Up. Ed. Nathaniel Knaebel. New York: Carrol & Graf, 2004. 47-72. Print.

Davis, Janet M. The Circus Age: Culture & Society Under the American Big Top. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina, 2002. Print.

Essig, Laurie. "Burlesque." Encyclopedia of Sex and Gender. Ed. Fedwa Malti-Douglas. Vol. 1. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. 198-200. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 4 May 2016.

Humez, Nick. "Burlesque." St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture. Ed. Sara Pendergast and Tom Pendergast. Vol. 1. Detroit: St. James Press, 2000. 388-390. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 22 May 2016.

Mitchell, Joseph. "Lady Olga." Step Right Up: Stories of Carnivals, Sideshows and the Circus. Ed. Nathaniel Knaebel. New York: Carroll & Graf, 2004. 91-107. Print.

Shteir, Rachel. Striptease. Cary, US: Oxford University Press (US), 2005. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 22 May 2016.

Ulrich, Laurel Thatcher. Well-behaved Women Seldom Make History. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2007. Print.