Here’s a thought-experiment:
Should a woman attempt to defend herself against a would-be rapist?
There are exactly two, mutually-exclusive and mutually-exhaustive answers to the above question:
yes (by the appropriate means/within the appropriate context)
NO (as an absolute prohibition, without regard to context)
The thing is: any self-defense measure (even something as blatantly stereotphical as “attempting to scratch with long fingernails” or “stomping his food with her high heel”, or something of that sort) – necessarily involves the use of physical force, and could be stigmatized as a form of “violence”.
This is the essential evil of pacifism: victims willingly reducing THEMSELVES to the status of “prey” ensures that their victimizer(s) CONTINUE victimizing.
So, no: I have absolutely no problem with the (ridiculous) pseudo-category of “violence”. The only legitimate topic of conversation is : “violence” against whom? To what purpose?
There is a vast gulf between (say) the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, and the actions of the Nazis themselves. Anyone who would even attempt to conflate the two is morally lower than the Nazis themselves.
(this is also why I hate Gandhi – but that’s another topic).
So anyway: either women should at least attempt to defend themselves against their would-be victimizers, or they shouldn’t.
Simple as that, really.