The Hatpin Peril (2014)
smithsonianmag.com
smithsonianmag.com
I’m paraphrasing, but I thought this was an interesting perspective into a kind of vulnerability that a lot of men probably hadn’t thought about.
I used to do shows for drug dealers that wanted to clean their money up. One time I did a real good set, and these motherf--kers called me into the back room. They gave me $25,000 in cash […] I jumped on the subway and started heading towards Brooklyn at one o’clock in the morning. Never been that terrified in my life. I’d never in my life had something that somebody else would want. I thought to myself, “Jesus Christ, if motherf--kers knew much money I had in this backpack, they’d kill me for it.” Then I thought: “Holy s00t, what if I had a pu--y on me all the time? That’s what women are dealing with.” […] If those same drug dealers gave me a pu--y and said, “Put it in your backpack and take it to Brooklyn,” I’d be like, “Ni--a, I can’t accept this.”
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SFC19030822.2.48&e=-...
If someone breaks down your door and enters your house, I (and I think most others) see nothing wrong with you defending yourself.
Why is it different here? It doesn't matter if their intention is to rob you or not.
You never know whether someone will attack you. Giving people the right to stab any person who makes them feel threatened is de facto giving people the right to stab people at will.
OTOH if you were to say "he just looked at me just so, and I felt really threatened, so I fought back", it's likely not going to fly.
Wow.
I think we are missing something in that today this kind of action would lead to a case in favor of the "people" (ie the complainant). But there are so many things that can be better handled by people defending themselves without having to fear a case against them. Like a home invader suing homeowners for something)
Obviously in a civilized society we expect people to behave so we have these tools of justice available to us, but in some cases, like these, I think this kind of action would serve to better deter uncivil behavior.
Although what the man did is inappropriate, stabbing him seems excessive. She could've first asked him to stop.
> "A Chicago showgirl, bothered by a masher’s “insulting questions,” beat him in the face with her umbrella until he staggered away."
Again, seems excessive. Why not just tell him off and walk away?
> "Such stories were notable not only for their frequency but also for their laudatory tone; for the first time, women who fought back against harassers were regarded as heroes rather than comic characters, as subjects rather than objects. Society was transitioning, slowly but surely, from expecting and advocating female dependence on men to recognizing their desire and ability to defend themselves."
I would say this is more than self defense. The examples given are overreactions that would be prosecuted as crimes under most circumstances.
Perhaps that fact will provide some context as to why women were stabbing men with hatpins for sexually assaulting them. They didn’t have the same rights that men did!
Also, as a separate point, it was only in 1868 that all men were able to vote in the United States, although it seems most men could vote by the 1820s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_voting_rights_in_t...
Would it have been acceptable for a non-property-holding white male in 1820 to beat another man with a stick if the other man offended him, on the basis of the first man lacking voting rights?
Definitely if they were congressmen.
https://newrepublic.com/article/151817/violence-broke-congre...
If we're going to go for "all men", how about a felon or an immigrant attacking a proper citizen in 2020 on the same basis?
If you're 6'2" and the other guy is 6'2" you're on pretty even footing. But if you're 5'1" and the guy is 6'2" you're not on even footing and shouldn't be expected to act like you are.
This is to say nothing of how physically intimidating it is for someone to just enter your personal space like that. And when you're in an enclosed space like a carriage, you have no escape route. So in my mind stabbing the guy in the arm was pretty mellow. There's no telling where things would have gone from there.
If you're at all concerned about getting stabbed in the arm, maybe get to know the other person before you invade their space.
Also, it has been true for centuries that a woman screaming "help!" would draw the attention of all the men in the area (for example the carriage driver in this case) who would be eager to beat the other man to a pulp if he didn't stop harassing her.
Women and children first into the lifeboats, remember? Most men do care about women as a class and even elevate their care for them above their concern for themselves.
Also, although people might give a 5'1" man some leeway regarding using a stick against a 6'2" man if the 6'2" man attacked him first, I don't think anyone would find it acceptable for the 5'1" man to INITIATE the violence using a weapon merely because of the POSSIBILITY that the larger man might attack him.
If you're in a bar and a large man says something insulting to you, do you just skip to attacking him because, if you say something insulting back he might attack you? If you do, I'm pretty sure you're the one who will be charged with a crime.
You know, sometimes people who ask for directions then demand your wallet. Should I just attack everyone who approaches me for directions, because they might be a thief?
Is that really true?
Also, while it is probably true that there were sometimes inappropriate police responses to domestic violence in the past, that is not the general case of a woman screaming for help in a public place from a strange man.
Even so, the story you're talking about sounds very unusual.
Also note that the honest research since the 1970s shows that domestic violence is two-way, and that women initiate the majority of violence.
Reference: Thirty Years Denying the Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence, Murray Strauss, University of New Hampshire. Summarizes results from 200 studies.
Around the same time, 1970s, Erin Pizzey, creator of the first womens' shelters in the UK, observed (as she wrote in her book) that many of the women that came to her for shelter were as violent or more violent than the men they were escaping from.
More than just an empty phrase: of the passengers on the Titanic, 72% of adult women survived, 50% of children, and 16% of adult men: http://www.icyousee.org/titanic.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/women...
I guess society is more egalitarian than I thought.
Disagre; it's generally backed by one's ability to raise a stink and possibly even call the police. That is to say, it relies on the force you can summon from having people (whether bystanders or professionals) recognize that you're in the right and rally to join you, not your own personal capacity for force.
You make it sound like she was cornered and in mortal danger. The carriage was crowded with people. Yes, he was (likely) a creepy dirtbag who deserved to be punished. STABBING SOMEONE WITH A FOOT OF SHARP STEEL IS NOT "MELLOW"! It's nuclear. You either have a frightfully diminished understanding of the potential lethality of stabbing someone, or you have a psychotically draconian image of justice.
It's very simple to find many, many anecdotal cases where doing this does exactly zilch to actual stop harassment, and sometimes instead results in a man aggressively insulting and harassing the woman for daring to refuse his attention.
The same thing could be said about many circumstances.
Just because a non-violent attempt to defuse the situation doesn't work in 100% of cases doesn't mean it is okay to skip attempting it, and jump straight to stabbing or bashing someone.
Now consider having to do that twice a day, every day or every other day, where in some X% of the cases the man involved may themselves turn violent immediately after being rejected.
If this was an isolated incident, then what you say is reasonable. When it happens often, the deterrent clearly needs to be greater.
And when you factor in average strength, generally restrictive clothing of the day, social norms, lack of rights.
Bugger it, you may as well take a mile as an inch, you'll be prosecuted the same either way.
Once you move to physical assault, you lose the defense of "you should have just asked me not to do that!"
The harassment is ALSO TERRIBLE. Just not STABBINGLY so.
What if I have a blood clotting disorder? You stab me in my arm and I die. This is ok as an immediate reaction? What if I only accidentally bumped you because the subway jerked?
It’s just crazy.
I agree if you really are in a position of self-defense, reaching for any countermeasures you can makes sense, stabbing with a random object included.
That’s not what this is describing, not remotely.
I guess the safest answer is don't go around groping strangers.
> What if I only accidentally bumped you because the subway jerked?
I'm a male who has ridden NYC subways for 15+ years, and have been groped probably a half dozen times. It is clear when it happens versus when a bump happens.
What you describe as mental gymnastics seems straightforward to me. As for what you perceive as escalation. The situation has already escalated:
Confined space, obvious aggressor doing OBVIOUSLY wrong thing to a vulnerable, complete stranger. There is no way to read their intent as friendly at that point. This is self defence.
Hence your other later reasonable sentence DOES apply.
in a position of self-defense, reaching for any countermeasures you can makes sense, stabbing with a random object included
About the only thing you said that was reasonable.
As for your lame "blood clotting" mental gymnastics, this is extra information not available at the time. You can't make decisions on information you don't have or can't reasonably assume. If you assume your blood clotting disorder argument to be valid then in a split second of self-defence:
- I need to canvass the knowledge of the medical establishment to know every possible medical condition a person could have and...
- avoid triggering every such possibility.
Tell me again that your "blood clotting" argument makes sense.
And even assuming it played out this way, I would be unhappy a person died, but given the information at the time I wouldn't regret the decision/action one iota. Morally clean and happy to sleep like a baby.
Accidental bump? Not what this was. Another mental gymnastic flip on your part.
This was a simple moment of self defence with a measured (She didn't stab him in the face) - but not unwarranted - action.
Edit:text flow, no words deleted.
But I'd surely go to prison if I followed through and stabbed some stranger for putting their arm on my shoulders. One of the first things you learn in any kind of self-defense training is that you should not - and legally must not - wield a weapon except to protect yourself from an immediate risk of serious injury.
But have a look at history and you'll see that not every kid who skinned a knee got some horrendous complication. Chances are he didn't either.
Also, he didn't get stabbed with a broadsword, it was a hatpin. While we don't know, chances are he was fine.
"Blood poisoning" i.e. infection:
https://cdsun.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/cornell?a=d&d=CDS1...
Another "jostled on public transportation" incident:
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SFC19060711.2.68&e=-...
Here she mistook a prank by a kid as an unwelcome advance from an innocent man:
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SFC19030822.2.48&e=-...
That's not to say that everyone who took a puncture wound from a hatpin was grievously injured, but you shouldn't be so casually dismissive of the fact that they could do very real harm. Regardless of its intended utility, a foot of sharp metal is still a foot of sharp metal when it bites into flesh.
Maybe she stabbed him right through the arm with blood gushing anime style! Maybe she barely broke the skin.
Maybe he was fine. Maybe he died from tetanus. Maybe he got run over shortly after stepping out of the carriage. Maybe he gave up his life of mashing, donated everything to charity and became a monk.
We don't know. But I know which way I'd bet.
As for other incidents, not every incident is the same, not all results are the same, accidents happen and some are likely outright hostile too!
To compare them and say an outcome in one should be applicable to another is not practicable.
For the original case I would happily maintain, to defend herself as she did, with the information she had at hand, was entirely reasonable.
Also, you may not have this expectation yourself, but society at the time would not be surprised to see a male in a similar situation react with at least the threat of violence. In this view females just normalized their behaviour in public.
Maybe the masher could have just asked her to stop stabbing him instead?
Sure, she could've. But how many times do you think she'd tried that in other circumstances with success?
If you intentionally violate someone else's personal space, particularly with sexual intentions directed at a member of the opposite sex, you really have no right to assume an equally measured response, especially if you're the physically dominant one.
The moment you decide that it's OK to touch someone inappropriately, you really have no standing to argue over the severity of the response. Let the court decide that one.
If I remember correctly, a downvote is for spam, attacks, or other things unrelated to the discussion, not for disagreeing with someone.
See: https://lobste.rs/ and https://tildes.net/
Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That destroys the curiosity this site exists for.
---
The "hundreds of downvotes" and how the UI reflects the downvotes are two facts of life. Indeed your initiative to change these facts is not interesting to me.