In the age of "leaning in" and "having it all," the superwoman model for female living persists with a vengeance. Feminism is supposed to be a refuge from all that perfection-seeking, but even there, it's easy to feel bested, lured by things that are bad for women but great for entertainment: Cue your guilty dancing every time "Blurred Lines" comes on the radio.
In her new essay collection, Bad Feminist, out August 5, author Roxane Gay wrestles with this conundrum. "When I drive to work, I listen to thuggish rap at a very loud volume, even though the lyrics are degrading to women and offend me to my core," she writes. "I am mortified by my music choices."
Gay—literature professor, novelist, prolific Twitterer, and blogger who imparts life wisdom couched in cooking advice—is best known for her deeply personal essays about everything from politics to pop culture. Most of the writings in this collection have been published at various outlets, including at The Rumpus, where Gay is essays editor.
Bad Feminist reads like an autobiography, segueing from elements of Gay's life—her Nebraska upbringing, her Haitian-American family, her cooking—into smart critiques of everything from reproductive rights to the Sweet Valley High and Twilight books. It's a mix of the somber and the hilarious; Gay aptly quotes both Judith Butler and the Ying Yang Twins. "I am flawed and human," Gay writes. "I am messy." And capital-F feminism could do with a little more messiness.
I caught up with Gay a few weeks after the release of her latest novel, An Untamed State, as she prepped for back-to-back summer book tours, to discuss her survival tactics for social awkwardness, her Scrabble obsession, and why she never shows her writing to her parents.
Mother Jones: With two books coming out just three months apart, you must be going insane.
Roxane Gay: Yes, I am! It's a good problem to have, but it's a lot more time-consuming than I ever imagined. Never again.
On Sunday's Last Week Tonight, host and comedian John Oliver ripped into American politicians' colossal mishandling of the US wealth gap, which continuesto grow to ever more astronomical proportions. As Oliver points out, plenty of lawmakers insist the game isn't rigged against the poor—ahem, Marco Rubio—while others recognize the problem but are too afraid to be gung-ho on the issue because of, well, politics.
On Wednesday evening, Ronald Lee Haskell, disguised as a Fed-Ex delivery man, gained entry to the home of his sister-in-law and her spouse, Stephen and Katie Stay, demanding the whereabouts of his estranged ex-wife. Haskell would go on to shoot the Stays and their five children, killing everyone except his 15-year-old niece, and only surrendering to police after a three-and-a-half hour standoff.
In July of 2013, Haskell's wife filed a protective order against him in Cache County, Utah, where they lived at the time. In October 2013, Haskell's protective order was converted to a "mutual restraining order" as part of their divorce and custody proceedings. This crucial step likely meant that Haskell was legally allowed to have guns again under both state and federal law.
The Stay family and their five children. Both parents and four of the children were fatally shot Wednesday in their Texas home.
On Wednesday evening, Ronald Lee Haskell, disguised as a FedEx delivery man, gained entry to the home of his sister-in-law and her spouse, Stephen and Katie Stay, demanding the whereabouts of his estranged ex-wife. According to statements by the Harris County police and prosecutors, he then allegedly tied up the Stays and their five children, ages 4 to 15, and shot them execution style, killing all but his 15-year-old niece, who played dead. Haskell then began driving to the home of the children's grandparents, possibly to continue his rampage, but his critically injured niece managed to call 911. He was apprehended on the way by law enforcement. After a three-and-a-half-hour standoff three miles from the scene of the killings, Haskell surrendered and was arrested.
Court records show that in Utah in 2008, Haskell was charged with domestic violence and simple assault against his wife. She reported that he had hit her in the head and dragged her by the hair, according to police and court records.He pleaded guilty to the assault charge and had the domestic-violence charge dismissed as part of his plea deal. In July 2013, Haskell's wife filed a protective order against him in Cache County, Utah, where they lived at the time. The order applied to her and their four children. She then moved away and filed for divorce about a month later. The divorce was finalized this past February.
It's not yet clear if Haskell possessed his guns legally, but his case appears to be the latest example of how easy it remains for domestic abusers to possess firearms, thanks to weak legislation. Under federal law, Haskell's protective order should have prohibited him from owning guns, says Laura Cutilletta, a staff attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. However, in October 2013, Haskell's protective order was converted to a "mutual restraining order" as part of their divorce and custody proceedings. (You can read the protective order docket, obtained by Mother Jones on Thursday, here.) This crucial step likely meant that Haskell was legally allowed to have guns again, under both state and federal law. Had the first protection order not been dropped, Cutilletta added, "likely he would have been prohibited." Nor is it likely that Haskell's 2008 conviction barred him from owning a gun in Utah or Texas, Cutilletta says, because he was convicted of simple assault rather than domestic violence. (Haskell's attorney in his 2013 protective order proceedings did not respond to Mother Jones' request for comment.)
[Update July 11, 2:30 p.m. ET: As more documents on Haskell emerge, it appears that the mutual restraining order agreed to by him and his wife during their divorce proceedings could have qualified Haskell for the federal prohibition on possessing guns, Cutilletta says. But even then it may have done little to stop him, "because it was part of the divorce decree and not under the domestic abuse statute," she says. "Therefore it likely wouldn't have been reported to the FBI for the purpose of a background check."
And there may have been another opportunity to disarm him: According to Chelsea Parsons, director of crime and firearms policy at the Center for American Progress, Haskell's 2008 misdemeanor conviction for simple assault should have activated the federal bar on possessing guns. However, because Haskell entered a plea in abeyance to the crime, the assault conviction was dismissed after he'd committed no new crimes within eight months, keeping his right to possess guns intact.
Update July 12, 2:40 a.m. ET:New reporting shows that Haskell likely had two other pending restraining orders against him—one filed by his sister this past November, and the other by his mother as recently as July 3, 2014. Haskell's mother told KHOU news that at her home in San Marcos, California, her son Ron got angry at her because she'd spoken to his ex-wife. He then "forcefully covered my mouth with his hand and pushed me inside the home," duct-taped her to a chair, and then squeezed her neck trying to choke her to the point of unconsciousness. She said he claimed he was "going to kill me, my family, and any officer who stops him." If this information proves accurate, it raises additional questions about the role of restraining orders in this case, and whether they should have triggered a federal- or state-level ban on gun ownership.]
Three different bills that would strengthen federal law are currently stalled in Congress, in part due to lobbying efforts of gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association. Federal law prohibits convicted felons, subjects of permanent domestic-violence protective orders, as well as current and former spouses, parents, and guardians who have been convicted of domestic-violence misdemeanors from possessing a gun. But this leaves many situations where potential abusers are allowed to keep their guns. The current law doesn't apply to misdemeanant stalkers, domestic-violence misdemeanants who are current or former dating partners but who've never cohabitated or had a child together, as well as accused partners subject to a temporary (rather than permanent) restraining order. This is concerning, especially considering that in more than half of all states, fatal violence between intimate partners is most often perpetrated with a firearm. (See map above.)
In June, US Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) cited the case of 32-year-old mother Lori Gellatly when introducing a bill that would bar Americans served with temporary restraining orders for domestic violence from purchasing or possessing a firearm. In April 2014, a court granted Gellatly a temporary restraining order against her husband after she fled their home and filed for a permanent protective order, citing her husband's violent behavior toward her and their twins. But thanks to the holes in federal law, he was allowed to keep his guns until a judge issued a permanent restraining order. Gellatly's husband allegedly shot her with a legally owned gun one day before she was set to argue her case.
Data suggests that states with fewer measures to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers see more guns used in intimate-partner murders: (For our methodology, see the bottom of this post.*)
A different bill, though, does: Proposed last July by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), the Protecting Domestic Violence and Stalking Victims Act would extend existing federal provisions to those convicted of stalking offenses and to abusive dating partners, but it doesn't address the question of temporary restraining orders.Blumenthal's bill, along with several others, have taken a piecemeal approach to bolstering federal law. In addition to its provision on temporary restraining orders, Blumenthal's bill would also extend existing domestic-violence provisions to dating partners. However, this bill doesn't address gun ownership by convicted stalkers.
A third bill, reintroduced last month by Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.), is a combo platter of the Blumenthal and Klobuchar bills, aiming to fill all three holes in the current federal law—protecting victims from dating partners, convicted stalkers, and accused partners subject to temporary protective orders while they await a more permanent court ruling.
These efforts have irked pro-gun groups. The NRA sent a letter to senators in June saying that Klobuchar's bill "manipulates emotionally compelling issues such as 'domestic violence' and 'stalking' simply to cast as wide a net as possible for firearm prohibitions."
For now, the gun lobby has little to worry about: These legislative solutions haven't moved far in Congress, with Klobuchar's bill sitting in committee for the past year. At the state level, protections aren't much better:
"To the framers, that phrase 'a well-regulated militia' was really critical," says Michael Waldman.
Less than a month after the December 2012 Newtown massacre, the National Rifle Association's then-president, David Keene, warned that the new White House task force on gun violence would "do everything they can to strip Americans of their right to keep and bear arms, to essentially make the Second Amendment meaningless." Three weeks ago, after a killer shot three people and wounded eight near Santa Barbara, California, conservative activist "Joe the Plumber" posted an open letter to the victims' families. "Your dead kids," he wrote, "don't trump my Constitutional rights."*
As America grapples with a relentless tide of gun violence, pro-gun activists have come to rely on the Second Amendment as their trusty shield when faced with mass-shooting-induced criticism. In their interpretation, the amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms—a reading that was upheld by the Supreme Court in its 2008 ruling in District of Columbia. v. Heller. Yet most judges and scholars who debated the clause's awkwardly worded and oddly punctuated 27 words in the decades before Heller almost always arrived at the opposite conclusion, finding that the amendment protects gun ownership for purposes of military duty and collective security. It was drafted, after all, in the first years of post-colonial America, an era of scrappy citizen militias where the idea of a standing army—like that of the just-expelled British—evoked deep mistrust.
In his new book, The Second Amendment: A Biography, Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, digs into this discrepancy. What does the Second Amendment mean today, and what has it meant over time? He traces the history of the contentious clause and the legal reasoning behind it, from the Constitutional Convention to modern courtrooms.
This historical approach is noteworthy. The Heller decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, is rooted in originalism, the concept that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the original intent of the founders. While Waldman emphasizes that we must understand what the framers thought, he argues that giving them the last word is impossible—and impractical. "We're not going to be able to go back in a time machine and tap James Madison on the shoulder and ask him what to do," he says. "How the country has evolved is important. What the country needs now is important. That's certainly the case with something as important and complicated as guns in America."
Mother Jones: What inspired you to write this book?
Michael Waldman: I started the book after Newtown. There was such anguish about gun violence and we were debating, once again, what to do about it. But this was the first time we were having that conversation in the context of a Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment protects individual rights of gun owners. And now every time people debated guns, every time people talked about Newtown, they talked about the Second Amendment. I wanted to see what the real story was: What the amendment had meant over the years, and what we could learn from that.