Physical Resistance to Attack: The Pacifist's Dilemma, The Feminist's Hope (Pat James)

The main point of this article was somewhat surprising and disappointing. To note, neither of those adjectives are being used to derogate feminism; but my expectations from the title of the article were different than what was actually discussed. What I was expecting was an article discussing heavily on the pacifist’s dilemma and how pacifism as a lifestyle doesn’t work perfectly. Instead, it was an argument for changing women’s perspectives of themselves and how they need to take power, control, etc.

The dilemma that Pat James addresses is: “when does self-defense stop being nonviolent?” However, it is also the question James does not answer. She does draw a line at saying that verbal resistance isn’t violence, but believes it is still unclear whether throwing someone or poking their eyes is also nonviolent if used as self-defense.

The theory Pacifism is something that eludes my ability to comprehend. Comprehend is probably the wrong word because I do understand what Pacifism; but the question of “why?” people follow it, much like religion. I was hoping that this article would have shed some light on the limitations of Pacifism, but it has not.