Indeed. A younger friend of mine was walking her dog when a group of construction workers started harrassing her--making kissing noises and generally being jerks. The dog, of course, flipped out, and started straining at the leash. My friend asked the men to stop repeatedly and then said she might not be able to hold on to the dog if they didn't cut it out. At which point, one of them threatened to break the dog's neck.

Charming admiration, don't you think?

While, in general, I'm not a fan of violence, I can't help but wonder if the fear of violence might be the answer to street harrassment. When I was a teenager, I was told over and over again by well-meaning teachers and guidance counselors and other adults that no matter what a man said to me on the street, I should just ignore him no matter what. Anything else would just a) encourage him and b) provoke him--and who knows what he might do? He might flip out and attack me.

While I think my teachers etc. meant well, I also think they are wrong. First of all, when I used to ignore the harrassment, it always continued until I was out of sight, whereas now, when I look the guy straight in the eyes and say, depending on what he's said, loudly "Fine thanks, how are you?" or "Knock it off," he's almost always surprised enough to stop talking. Second of all, why do I have to be afraid of what they'll do? Maybe it's time for them to be afraid of what we'll do. Maybe if more sexual harrassers were frightened of "some crazy bitch" pulling out a steak knife, they'd keep their mouths shut.

That said, I could not bring myself to attack someone who wasn't actually attacking me, and I can't in good conscience condone it, either.

My pal Cameron wrote a letter to the New York Times, which I think is worth posting here:

Editors:

I am a lesbian. Since I've written the word, I expect you won't run this letter. Apparently, it is such a taboo word in the Times, that even when it is the central issue in a dispute you are reporting, you omit it.

That is what you've done in "Man Is Stabbed in Attack After Admiring a Stranger." The Advocate and other publications clearly indicate that that the dispute involved a woman defending her girlfriend. One of the women in the group also said the victim threatened to f-ck them all because they were [homophobic slur]s. The homophobic content of the conversation ought to be included not just because it seems to have been the motive for the crime, but also because discriminatory remarks are still happening in the West Village. Discrimination against gays and lesbians is relevant to your readers in the Village and Chelsea and Williamsburg, and is also a matter of some national debate.

The other basic fact about the stabbing that you fail to mention is that the man was quite clearly catcalling the women. He was not simply "admiring" them or "say[ing] hello to a human being." It seems to me that most of your readers can understand that while saying hello to someone is usually a positive interaction, catcalling them is not. This does not justify the lesbians' response, but it puts it in much needed context. I imagine at least some of your readers have felt that they would like to stab someone who disrespectfully catcalls them.

These two things are certainly more relevant than what the women said about the man's shoes, which you do report.

All of these flaws reflect plain-old bad reporting. The Times appears to have interviewed neither the police, nor any eyewitnesses, nor both parties, but rather just the poor likable cat caller. Atmospherics of the piece are used to make us sympathetic with this poor victim of a pack of women who, in the context of the story, were vicious for absolutely no reason. Cat calling women is not so likable, or so harmless, as your crime blotter and most women's experiences readily reflect. Nor is your only source particularly reliable.

Now, because I've associated myself with the taboo L-word, I feel I should say that of course I don't think it's OK that these lesbians stabbed a man for his sexist and homophobic remarks. But the event is interesting because neither party was innocent.

From the information we have, it sounds like the man was guilty of being an asshole, the Times was guilty of lazy reporting, and the women were guilty of assault with a deadly weapon.

"But it's easy to understand how a group of women walking at 2 a.m. could feel threatened by harassing comments from a man on the street." - Ann

Let's not pretend they were acting in self defence. They beat him down and then stabbed him multiple times. One even yelled "She's my girl, and no one hits on my girl!" during the attack. They sound pissed, not scared.

>>>They sound pissed, not scared.

Fear isn't the only emotional reaction to a threat. I've certainly felt angry toward men who have said threatening things to me on the street.

And let me just say again that I'm definitely NOT defending the violent actions of the women in question.

Well, it also sounds like he was guilty of harrassment, which, unlike being an asshole, is illegal, and that the NYT is guilty of not merely lazy but sexist reporting.

And yes, assault with a deadly weapon. Though I still cannot help thinking that they may have done the rest of us a big favor.

I guess if he spit on them that would technically be assault, correct (not that I think this would constitute a mitigating factor)?

Actually, anything he did that could justifiably provoke an angry response would be a mitigating factor. If he did spit on either of them, I suspect these women will get relatively lenient sentences. That's assuming they can't introduce a reasonable possibility of self-defense.

Not justifying any of this--stabbing someone in the gut is never a swell idea--but there is a legal "fighting words" element to this that I think will work to the womens' advantage.

Cheers,

TH

The lead post on The Psychotic Patriot is entitled simply... "More Stabbings Please." I believe I caught my feelings about this story and some of the wider issues involved just right. Not for the squeamish.

These were a couple of street people and he was homeless. Doesn't make them less worthy but actions like this are common among these classes of people. He should not have pinched the shorthaired ones butt and the feminine lesbian had no right to stab him either.

I believe we have a winner in the Dwayne Buckle's Fantasy Weekend contest.

Lets look at a similar situation.

Its 2 am and a bunch of guys is walking down the street.

A man they pass call them out, calling them a bunch of nancy queers and says he is going to fuck them all. He them flips his cigarette at them and spits on of them in the face.

In this case assut with a knife would be just as wrong, but does anyone think that the headline would be same as in this case?

That's horrible. It's absolutely terrifying to be harassed on the street- and the really scary thing a lot of the time is that these catcalling guys really do think they're being super awesome by "complimenting" you with their attention. I had a guy follow me down the street in a van, honking his horn- who then pulled up beside me yelling "Hey! Hey! I want to talk to you girl! I want to talk to you!" and when I kept walking, he pulled over again, got out of his car and started screaming various expletives at me. These men think they have a "right" to talk to you/harass you/ etc. and that you ought to be complimented by it. They actually feel they have a right to feel offended. I've had similar problems a number of times- and I have to say- if one got too close, and I had any kind of weapon, or skill with one- I don't know that I wouldn't do the same thing. Men need to be taught that they don't have the "right" to "admire" a strange women on the street, and that they are not entitled to a positive response from one they "admire."

That's horrible. It's absolutely terrifying to be harassed on the street- and the really scary thing a lot of the time is that these catcalling guys really do think they're being super awesome by "complimenting" you with their attention. I had a guy follow me down the street in a van, honking his horn- who then pulled up beside me yelling "Hey! Hey! I want to talk to you girl! I want to talk to you!" and when I kept walking, he pulled over again, got out of his car and started screaming various expletives at me. These men think they have a "right" to talk to you/harass you/ etc. and that you ought to be complimented by it. They actually feel they have a right to feel offended. I've had similar problems a number of times- and I have to say- if one got too close, and I had any kind of weapon, or skill with one- I don't know that I wouldn't do the same thing. Men need to be taught that they don't have the "right" to "admire" a strange women on the street, and that they are not entitled to a positive response from one they "admire."

I understand feeling threatened on your own, because I've felt threatened myself.

But I can't say I've ever felt threatened by one unarmed male when I was in a group of seven, no matter what he said. That said, I hope this story makes the national news and enough guys hear it to think twice about "admiring" strangers.

How many of us have considered a well-place kick when cat-called like this? Perhaps it's something that should frighten men.

I wanted to say something similar to Soren Kongstad.

I think that he would be less likely to have harrassed a group of men because of fear of retribution. It is ironic that while the actions of the woman who stabbed the man is bad, it is attacks like this that will prevent (or at least make a man think twice about) street harrassment.

Once women are seen as agressors in the same way as men, rather than victims, they will be less harrassed.

noname, from what source do you get the information that he was stabbed "multiple times"? Neither the Times article nor the Daily News one suggests that, and the description implies that he was, in fact, stabbed once. Of course, stabbing someone once is bad enough, but it should be remembered that he felt entitled to act with extreme disrespect towards these women because he assumed that they posed him no threat. Bet he'll think twice next time.

Ledasmom - Here is the link:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/445121p-374817c.html

"Johnson and six of her friends - all lesbians from New Jersey - pounced on Buckle at 2 a.m., whipping him with belts before Johnson stabbed him repeatedly in the belly with a 4-inch serrated steak knife, authorities said.

Buckle was bleeding badly after the attack. He suffered multiple stab wounds to his stomach, and his face was bruised."

This is the description that, if accurate, undermines any self defense claim in my opinion.

The fact that he was badly injured doesn't in itself rule out self-defense. If one were defending oneself, would one stop in the middle and wait to see if one's assailant was about to get up and attack one again? The story in general doesn't support self-defense.
Is spitting on someone technically assault or battery? Doesn't assault refer, strictly speaking, to a threat rather than the actual physical attack?

Quoting Robert A. Heinlein:

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

On an individual level, I must abhor disproportionate use of force, including what Bush has popularized as "preemptive defense". On a social level... I can't help but think that it's good for this kind of thing to happen once in a while, as it may accomplish what the legal system obviously fails to do.

I will make one legal note, though: the level of the response does not mean that it cannot be considered self defense. If it can be demonstrated that the threat of rape was imminent (i.e. his body language or approach implied that he was going to "fuck them all" right then, as opposed to at some point in the future), the New York Penal Code (§ 35.15.2.b) authorizes the use of lethal force.

Someone should send the NY Times the URL for Holla Back NYC so they can get a taste of all the oh-so-charming "admiration" from strange men that countless NYC women are subject to on a daily basis.

Zed - Of course, 35.15.1 says (in part): "A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person"

This reasonable belief has to end at some point. Once this reasonable belief is over, surely any further assault cannot be called self defense.

"It is ironic that while the actions of the woman who stabbed the man is bad, it is attacks like this that will prevent (or at least make a man think twice about) street harrassment."

I agree. But why are those who advocate that women should carry guns as a rape prevention measure told that it is a form of victim - blaming in advance (you got raped? well, you should have had a gun!)?

noname:

There is no indication from the article that the women had reason to believe that the man was disabled before he was stabbed (belt whippings tend not to inflict serious damage), or that subsequent stabbings happened after he was disabled (i.e. whether or not the stabbings happened all at once, and are thus all part of the same defensive act). Whether or not the belief in the threat is considered reasonable or whether the reaction is considered reasonable is a matter for a jury at this point, but there is nothing in the article to indicate that this could not be self-defense.

I agree. But why are those who advocate that women should carry guns as a rape prevention measure told that it is a form of victim - blaming in advance (you got raped? well, you should have had a gun!)?

Well in the UK carrying around a gun or other offensive weapon would get you into a lot of trouble. Please correct me but I don't think you are even supposed to carry pepper spray here either...

Anyway these laws (agree with them or not) at least remove this argument from the equasion where I am and any answer I could give would be skewed by that.

RM:

Because a willingness to kill (and take all of the associated legal risks) should not be considered a prerequisite to not being raped.

Zed, didn't you say:

"On a social level...I can't help but think that it's good for this kind of thing to happen once in a while, as it may accomplish what the legal system obviously fails to do."

Why is it good for this to happen once in a while, but not often (or even all the time)? What makes the use of deadly force good in this case but not in all other sexual assaults?

Two words: Sakia Gunn.

http://professorkim.blogspot.com/2006/05/sakia-gunn-three-years-on-few-still.html

RM:

Because there is socially a cost/benefit tradeoff of excessive punishment inflicted to an individual assailant (and weakening of the collective belief in the dominance of the rule of law) versus the strength of the deterrent effect. Past a certain point you are not substantially increasing the deterrent effect, but are increasing the number of cases of disproportionate punishment, which isn't healthy, but before that point the drastic jump in deterrent effect may be worth it.

Zed:

"excessive punishment inflicted to an individual assailant"

Are you saying that the actions of these women was excessive?

I thought it was settled that we none of us thought attacking a catcaller with a knife was the appropriate way to live one's life. The fact that Zed and I have suggested that a few such violent responses might in fact alter men's behavior in this regard doesn't change that.

Of course the women's actions were excessive, unless it turns out that the guy claimed to have a gun or something like that.

RM:

My guess is that it was probably excessive. People have done stupider things than attempt to rape a woman in front of half a dozen of her friends, though, so there remains the possibility that it was not. (Specifically, if the man's actions were nothing further than a threat of rape and spitting, the response most certainly was excessive by far -- if he approached after that with an apparent intent to commit that rape on the spot, by New York law lethal force may have been justified, a sentiment with which I concur.) I'm content to leave the fact finding to a jury that will be presented with more detail than a couple of news articles.

On behalf of the many really nice but kind of shy (at least around attractive women) guys out there, who can't fathom ever cat calling a woman, how would you like to be approached in public by a man who's interested in you?

At 34, I've finally gotten to a point where I no longer unconsciously immediately avert my eyes when coming face to face with a pretty woman, which was a big step, in my mind. Sometimes, I even smile. And sometimes, I might even muster up the ability to say "hi". And sometimes, I think the "hi" occasionally comes out confidently rather than awkwardly.

I'm still not clear about how to decipher if a woman is smiling to be friendly, or smiling out of genuine interest.

I'm tired of just trying to friendship route, because that often goes nowhere.

Personally, if women cat called ME, I'd LOVE it!

(but understandable why it's not usually desirable when guys do it to you)

There are a few other sources saying that Buckle was spit on first. I've listed one of them below.

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=61933

Even in the link you provided it quotes one of the attackers as saying "She's my girl, and no one hits on my girl!". If the lesbians attack was in self defense or because they were slurred I doubt such an inappropriate response would've been yelled.

Who the hell walks around the city with a steak knife?

This site is a travesty, to the forward progressive movement of Lesbian & Gay people. I was at the incident and seen the whole thing. All the guy did was say "Hi" to one of the women, then a fat girl out the group started yelling at him, he yelled back, another girl spit at him, he spat back, then here comes the viscous assault on this man my 7 people, who looked like they could have been members of the Bloods street gang, complete with du-rags and wife beater tank tops. These girls are 100% guilty of this assault with a deadly weapon, and they deserve all the time that the judge throws at them. Not to mention, the guy was not homeless nor selling counterfeit DVD's, he is a professional filmmaker, who was outside of the IFC theatre, a theatre for independent films. These girls were from Newark NJ, and as someone that used to live in the neigborhood, I know firsthand how wild these people get at night. These girls are viscous thugs, and the fact that you guys just cant get over the fact that these people committed a hanest act, tells me a lot. I've seen the whole thing, and I know that the girls acted out of hatred for this man hitting on one of thier girls, which will make this a valid claim of a "Hate Crime" for the man's defense. This will be a slap in the face for the Lesbian and Gay community, and will hinder the forward movement. Lesbian and Gay people if truly for a positive struggle for freedom in this society, should come out in outrage against these girls, rather than supporting them, just because of thier sexual orientation. I've done further research and the man is actually a reputable person, check out his websites:
www.myspace.com/dwaynebucklefilm
www.TheMinorityMovie.com
He also has great credentials on IMDB.com, I've checked for the women they seem to have no credentials other than members of a street gang. Now go figure.

saintpat - You have to expect it at this site. Many here are not interested in the truth if it doesn't reinforce their victimhood.

That said, it would be wrong for us to take your word for how this went down as well.

I know that the girls acted out of hatred for this man hitting on one of thier girls, which will make this a valid claim of a "Hate Crime" for the man's defense.

People only know what we read in the media especially if they are not on the scene. I thought about this incident a few days ago and remembered the fact that girls are the fastest growing group of gang members. They are either in cities and suburbs and usually have nothing to live for so they can be violent. So I don't doubt the possibility of your scenario. I see he is a straight, black male, 29 so it could be a hate crime by race. The most hate crimes are committed by race followed by religion (Jewish), sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin and disability.

noname:

Many here are not interested in the truth if it doesn't reinforce their victimhood.

Are you somehow expecting gratuitous insults to make this a better place?

Zed: Nope. I am just frustrated by how quickly some at this site assume facts when they support their world view and reject them when they don’t.

noname:

Care to support that accusation with examples? Generally, I see people assume facts when they're probable, and reject unsupported assertions that are often surreal in their detachment from reality.

On the other hand, I have yet to see any of the women here reject documented facts. In fact, the only person I can think of to do so is that fellow from a few weeks back who consistently refuses to believe that Plan B doesn't increase implantation failure rate despite multiple biological explanations and two peer-reviewed studies on it.