Nandita Sharma advocates a similar strategy as Judith Jack Halberstam's idea of radical passivity. In the face of what she terms the "global apartheid," Sharma advocates for "a rejection of the global system of nation states" (139). Rather than change the idea of states or sovreignty, Sharma instead believes that "we need to engage in practices of refusal" (139). However, this is problematic for the same reasons as Halberstam's argument--how would this work? Sharma criticizes the current international concepts of nations and immigration, but she offers no way out of the existing system. She calls for a new order based not on "imposed identities...but upon radically diverse ways of organizing" which are not specified. 

In Sharona Simoni's article, she gives a variety of examples of the increased political activism among women that accompanies a colonial conflicts. However, all of these women come into the public sphere through their traditional roles in the private sphere--as mothers whose primary concern is the family. These women become aware of the gender discrimination that they face only through this new "accidental" activism. Simoni cites various women describing their political awakenings who claim that this transformation is irreversible. However, the examples of women remaining politically active in the peace process are constrained by their traditional female gender roles as mothers. The women of the NIWC end up as the token maternal figures, and the Irish women must "embrac[e] motherhood in order to justify their political stand" (200). Is it possible for these women to stay in the public political sphere as individuals outside the previous maternal role that they have supposedly transcended during the conflict itself? Do these constraints exist because of the nature of their initiation into politics, or because the space for new ideas about gender generated in conflict is only temporary?