Confirmed Pacifist

Pacifism has permeated American culture in many fairly bizarre ways. The most notable of which is among people who declare themselves outright pacifists. Most typically, these are women, which is a really faint delclaration seeing as how they are very rarely called upon to fight, militarily or otherise. By "otherwise" I mean fist-fight. If I'm physically attacked in public, The first question anyone will ask in response is "Did/Why didn't you hit them back". Whereas a female will only be told "I'm glad you weren't seriously hurt!".

When declared by a male, even in the theme of this post, I question whether he's just trying to be unusual in his opinions for whatever reason, or if he's only considered the issue of combat in it's simplest and most innofenstive of definitions(example: Does violence make you upset?). Males however are more likely to have amalgamated some "I'm a pacifist...unless..." position in the form of "I don't throw the first punch, but if someone else does, I'm going to fight and win!". This is the most ridiculous declaration I've heard, and the one I've heard most often. It's like elevating the "eye for an eye" ethos(already counter-indicative of pacifism) to "ideology for an ideology". All this form of non-violence, if it can be called so, indicates is that the proponent won't use violence on non-violent people. That's great and all, for women and me, but doesn't mean anything in an already violent world except you're willing to put yourself at a disadvantage by accepting the first blow/offensive(which can sometimes be the only one).

And finally, there's the confirmed pacifist. Someone who doesn't think violence works pragmatically, or ethically. This is still split in 3, with my position being "doesn't work pragmatically" exclusively. No one responds to violence against them or their culture by deciding "Damn, we really learned our lesson. Ever since those hateful men hurt me/destroyed everything I love, I've decided they're right". They get angry and exact revenge, become depressed, or fight against the agressors in non-violent ways. Fighting against the agressors in non-violent ways is the most respectable and sensible option. Because in the first step you agree that what they did is wrong, and you can't simply retaliate with violence which would be equally wrong. In the second step you decide what they did cannot go ignored, because it's wrong. And in the third step you are attempting to defeat them by methods they didn't think could work themselves. No opressor has ever staged a sit-in or bloc to get their way.

I don't think that those who use violence are evil or wrong. They're emotional and unreasonable, and I was the same way, when I was a child. Anyone who can hold onto those "ideals", if they can be called so, into adulthood can not be considered rationally or ethically(if you're into that sort of thing) sound. I'm a pacifist. Not because Violence makes me cry, not because violence is preached against by my religion, but because violence doesn't work, and never has.