Pacifism can probably be set aside pretty easy, after all, what is the pacifist going to do to stop or deter the initiation of physical force?
An individual that respects the rights of others shouldn’t have any concerns about a pacifist initiating for against them, nor the pacifist from such an individual, whether he carries a weapon for personal protection, or uses what skills he may carry with him.
Pacifism in terms of a government formulated to uphold and defend individual rights is simply a contradiction in terms.
Many situations are simply diffused by you being in the right and appearing confident to handle things.
In a fight between two sisters where I was present when it started, it was easy to determine who was the aggressor. Since I could not just pull her off of her sister, I applied two fingers just above where the collar bones come together, pushed inward and downward until she let go. Releasing that technique, I just held her down until she stopped struggling. Then we escorted her from the premises.
Absent knowledge of such a techniques, (somewhat in Ray Rice’s defense), the situation may have turned out different. Arguing how we should all be pacifists does not examine effective means of deterrence in order to acquire such knowledge for when or if you may have to use it.
Built into viewing violence committed against women and children is the sense of injustice it raises (i.e., picking on the defenseless). Most women and nearly all children are generally ill-equipped to deal with an aggressor intent on doing harm. A woman with a gun, or proficient at martial arts is less likely to become a victim. A woman with martial arts training is less likely to be an aggressor.
Related: Force vs Retaliatory Force, Fighting a girl