It is 1994 at Rutgers University. A group of young women sit cross-legged on dorm beds, their textbooks open but mostly forgotten. One of them pulls a tiny pink canister from her purse and places it in the center of the circle. The others lean in, fascinated. Someone cracks a joke—“Our hottest accessory this year!” and the room bursts into laughter. But the laughter is nervous, and everyone knows it. The truth behind the joke is sobering: on campus and in cities across America, women were buying pepper spray not just as a “must-have” item, but as a lifeline.
That dorm room scene was not isolated. By the early 1990s, pepper spray had become a cultural phenomenon among women, particularly young women. It was small, discreet, affordable, and effective; an equalizer tucked into a keychain. But how did a simple aerosol of chili extract become a feminist tool of resistance, debated in parliaments and splashed across headlines? To answer that, we need to trace its fiery history.
From Ancient Chilies to Chemical Mace
Long before college students were swapping pink canisters, people understood the defensive power of peppers. Indigenous groups like the Mayans and Aztecs weaponized chili smoke in warfare, creating clouds that incapacitated enemies centuries before chemical weapons existed. Asian myths suggest similar chili-based irritants as far back as 7000 BC. Capsaicin, the active component of chili peppers, was both food and weapon, comfort and curse.
The modern story begins in 1962, in Pittsburgh. Physicist Alan Litman was shaken after his wife Doris’s colleague was mugged. Instead of resignation, Litman turned to invention. His goal was radical in its simplicity: to create a tool women could carry for their own defense. He experimented with chemicals and delivery systems until he produced an aerosol weapon, what he patented as the “Assailant Incapacitator” and “Aerosol Safety Device.” Together, these patents became “Chemical Mace.”
The name evoked the brutality of a medieval weapon, but the effect was designed to incapacitate, not kill. When sprayed, it caused intense burning, disorientation, and grogginess for about thirty minutes. For Litman, it was a way for women to level the playing field without carrying a gun.
But society had other ideas. In 1965, the newly formed General Ordnance Equipment Corporation marketed Mace not to women, but to police departments. Police used it liberally in riots and protests throughout the late 1960s. By May 1968, more than 20,000 people had been sprayed. The cruel irony is not one of them was a woman protecting herself on the street. The very tool designed for women had been absorbed by the state.
Pepper Spray’s Double Life: From Postal Workers to the FBI
While police were busy deploying Chemical Mace, another branch of pepper spray’s story was unfolding. In 1963, an OC spray made from cayenne peppers was marketed under the name Halt! Animal Repellent. It wasn’t meant for muggers or rapists; it was designed for postal workers facing aggressive dogs. The U.S. Postal Service quickly adopted it, and carriers still carry animal-repellent sprays to this day.
For years, OC spray existed, but women could not buy it for personal defense. In other words, society deemed it safe in the hands of organizations (The U.S. Postal Service), but not in the hands of women walking home alone at night. That changed in 1977, when entrepreneur Gardner Whitcomb began selling an OC spray called Cap-Stun. The product languished until the late 1980s, when the FBI tested it and found it more effective than Chemical Mace. By 1989, the Bureau formally adopted it, praising its ability to incapacitate even intoxicated or drugged suspects. By 1990, more than 1,000 police departments had switched to OC sprays.
Pepper spray had entered the mainstream, but women were still waiting.
The Science of Fire: Effectiveness and Risks
The effectiveness of pepper spray is not anecdotal; it is backed by decades of research. Studies from the National Institute of Justice and medical reviews report success rates of 90 percent or more in temporarily incapacitating attackers. Unlike firearms or knives, OC is non-lethal, causing an intense burst of pain and disorientation that fades with time.
Equally important, research shows pepper spray reduces injuries compared to other forms of force. Police departments that adopted OC sprays reported fewer injuries to officers and suspects alike. One meta-analysis estimated the use of pepper spray lowered the odds of injury by nearly 70 percent compared to other tactics.
Yes, risks exist: people with asthma or other respiratory issues can suffer severe complications. But these cases are rare, and responsible use (including short bursts, training, and aftercare) dramatically minimizes harm. For women deciding between helplessness and action, the benefits are clear: pepper spray works, and it works without requiring lethal force.
When Women Finally Got Their Hands on It
The original dream of Chemical Mace—equipping women—did not come true until nearly twenty years after its invention. In November 1981, after Smith & Wesson acquired the company, Mace was finally sold to civilians in Connecticut.
From that moment, adoption exploded. By the early 1990s, women weren’t just buying pepper spray; they were shaping its market. A 1993 Philadelphia Inquirer article reported that 75 percent of all customers were female. In 1994, The New York Times declared it the “hottest must-have item” among Rutgers University women. Campus safety brochures, local news segments, and even product designs, all pink and purple keychains, spoke directly to women. Parents began buying sprays for daughters heading off to college.
What had been sidelined as a police tool was finally in women’s hands, and it became more than a product. It became a cultural signifier: of independence, of awareness, of refusal to be passive.
Culture and History: Pepper Spray in the Public Eye
The adoption of pepper spray by women wasn’t a quiet revolution. It was punctuated by cultural flashpoints.
- Campus Culture of the 1990s: On campuses across America, pepper spray was both serious and ironic. Women joked about it as an “accessory,” but the humor masked a grim reality: carrying pepper spray was an acknowledgment of threat, and an act of empowerment.
- The Walmart Black Friday Incident (2011): When a 32-year-old mother used pepper spray in a chaotic Los Angeles Walmart sale, headlines initially painted her as reckless. Later, police admitted she may have been protecting herself from being trampled. The story reframed pepper spray as a defense not just from violent men, but from dangerous, unpredictable crowds.
- UC Davis (2011): The infamous image of a police officer casually pepper spraying seated, peaceful student protesters became an icon of state violence. For women, the image raised hard questions: how could a tool meant to empower individuals also be turned into a weapon of suppression? The answer wasn’t to ban it, but to demand accountability and ensure that women, not just police, had access to it.
- The Leiden Sexual Assault Wave (2024): In the Netherlands, after a surge of sexual assaults in Leiden, women turned to online forums asking what legal tools they could carry. The tragic irony: pepper spray is banned there. Many women openly questioned why the state criminalized their self-defense, even as the risk of violence climbed.
Each of these moments, whether rooted in humor, tragedy, or protest, reinforced pepper spray’s place in feminist discourse: a symbol of both vulnerability and resistance.
Bans, Permissions, and the Feminist Politics of Law
Today, the legal landscape for pepper spray is a patchwork of contradictions.
In countries where it is banned, including the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Greece, Malta, and Norway, pepper spray is classed as a weapon. In the UK, the Firearms Act of 1968 prohibits “noxious liquid” devices, placing pepper spray in the same category as guns. In the Netherlands, the Weapons and Ammunition Act makes civilian possession illegal. Punishment can mean fines, arrest, or even a criminal record (a strafblad) for simply carrying a small canister.
The justification is always the same: pepper spray can be misused offensively, and the state should control its use. But from a feminist lens, this argument collapses. If women are expected to live freely, travel at night, study abroad, or commute in unsafe neighborhoods, why deny them a proven, non-lethal tool that could save their lives? State monopolies on force have historically failed women, particularly when police are understaffed, undertrained, or dismissive of gender-based violence.
In contrast, countries that allow pepper spray under regulation demonstrate that public safety does not crumble when women are trusted with self-defense.
- In the United States, pepper spray is legal for self-defense in all states, albeit with restrictions on canister size, purchase age, or vendors. In New York, for example, sprays can only be sold by licensed dealers or pharmacists. Despite widespread availability, there is no evidence of social harm from its use by civilians.
- In France, pepper spray is classified as a Category D weapon. Adults can buy and own it, but carrying it in public requires justification, and misuse is criminalized.
- In Austria, pepper spray is explicitly considered a legitimate tool for self-defense, permitted under the legal principle of Notwehr—protection of life, bodily integrity, and sexual autonomy.
These legal models prove the point: bans are unnecessary, and regulated availability works. Women in Austria, France, or the U.S. carry pepper spray without society collapsing into chaos. Meanwhile, women in the UK or Netherlands risk fines or arrest simply for wanting to defend themselves.
When the Law Says No: Alternative Self-Defense Tools
For women living in countries where pepper spray is banned, the situation is frustrating. The state denies access to a proven non-lethal tool, but the threats remain. This gap has pushed women to seek out alternative, legal forms of self-defense. Some of these are explicitly permitted, while others fall into grey zones.
- Personal Safety Alarms: In the UK and much of Western Europe, these small devices emit ear-splitting sounds when activated. The goal isn’t to incapacitate an attacker but to disorient and attract attention. They’re widely distributed by universities, women’s groups, and even local councils. But critics argue they are more deterrent than defense, effective only if help is nearby.
- UV Marking Sprays (SmartWater, DNA sprays): Particularly in the UK, companies market sprays that coat an attacker with traceable liquid, visible only under UV light. These can aid in prosecution but do little in the moment to stop violence.
- Everyday Objects as Defensive Tools: In many places, items like umbrellas, flashlights, and keychain kubotans (non-sharp impact tools) are marketed as “dual use.” Women’s forums are filled with advice on how to legally carry ordinary objects that double as improvised weapons. In some countries, however, intent matters; carrying a heavy flashlight “for self-defense” can be criminalized if framed as premeditation.
- Electronic Devices (Tasers, Stun Guns): These are legal in certain EU states (e.g., Germany, Switzerland with licensing) but heavily restricted elsewhere. Where permitted, they function similarly to pepper spray—non-lethal, incapacitating—but are bulkier, pricier, and often regulated as firearms.
- Self-Defense Apps & Wearables: A more recent development, especially in India and parts of Europe, are mobile apps and wearable tech that send GPS alerts, sound alarms, or call emergency services when activated. While innovative, these tools depend on connectivity and response times, raising doubts about their immediacy compared to pepper spray.
Ultimately, these alternatives highlight the absurdity of outright bans. While women are told to carry whistles, UV sprays, or apps, the most effective, immediate, and affordable tool, pepper spray, remains criminalized. The result is a patchwork of half-measures that shift responsibility back onto women without equipping them with the same level of agency available elsewhere.
Feminist Reflections: Fire in a Canister
Pepper spray is not just a chemical irritant in an aerosol can. It is a story of women demanding tools for survival in a world that too often denies them safety. It was invented for women, diverted to the state, reclaimed by women in countries where it is legal, and continues to be contested in legislatures and culture.
To ban pepper spray is to send a message: “We don’t trust you.” To allow it, with sensible regulations, is to affirm women’s agency, dignity, and right to move freely. Yet in many countries today, women are still denied this tool. The vision of Alan Litman—a feminist impulse to give women something they can carry, something that works, something that equalizes—remains only partially realized.
Where pepper spray is legal, women carry more than just capsaicin; they carry history, resistance, and the insistence that their safety is not negotiable. Where it is banned, that insistence is stifled, forcing women to rely on less effective alternatives or face legal penalties simply for defending themselves. The fight for women’s autonomy and the right to defend themselves is far from over—and until every woman can carry protection without fear or restriction, the struggle continues.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: What is pepper spray and how does it work?
A: Pepper spray is an aerosol containing capsaicin, a chemical from chili peppers. It temporarily incapacitates attackers by causing intense burning, tearing, and disorientation, giving the user time to escape.
Q: When did women start using pepper spray for self-defense?
A: Women began widely using pepper spray in the early 1980s, after Chemical Mace became available to civilians. By the 1990s, it was a popular personal defense tool, especially on college campuses.
Q: Who invented pepper spray and why?
A: Physicist Alan Litman invented Chemical Mace in 1962, inspired by a mugging incident involving his wife’s colleague. His goal was to create a safe, non-lethal tool women could carry to protect themselves.
Q: Is pepper spray effective?
A: Yes. Studies show it temporarily incapacitates attackers 90% of the time and reduces injury compared to other defensive tactics, making it a highly effective non-lethal self-defense tool.
Q: Is pepper spray legal everywhere?
A: No. Pepper spray is legal in countries like the U.S., France, and Austria under regulation. It is banned or heavily restricted in places like the UK, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, and Ireland.
Q: What alternatives exist where pepper spray is banned?
A: Legal alternatives include personal safety alarms, UV marking sprays, martial arts, everyday objects like flashlights or umbrellas, tasers (in certain countries), and self-defense apps or wearable devices.
Q: Has pepper spray caused harm to women using it for self-defense?
A: When used responsibly, pepper spray is generally safe. Risks are minimal and usually involve respiratory issues or pre-existing conditions. It is non-lethal and meant to incapacitate attackers temporarily.
Q: Why do some countries ban pepper spray?
A: Authorities often classify it as a weapon, fearing misuse or offensive attacks. Critics argue this is unfair, as it denies women a proven, non-lethal means of self-protection.
Q: How has pepper spray influenced feminist culture?
A: Pepper spray symbolizes empowerment, independence, and resistance. It allows women to take control of their safety in environments where physical vulnerability has historically been exploited.
Q: Can pepper spray save lives?
A: Absolutely. By temporarily disabling an attacker, pepper spray gives women time to escape dangerous situations, making it a practical tool for reducing harm and asserting personal safety.