“After waiting twenty minutes, we are ushered into a room upstairs. A woman from the agency hands each of us a time sheet. For the sign-in, she tells us to write 8:30. “I know you were told to be here at 8:15,” she says, anticipating a protest that never comes, “but that was just to make sure you got here early.”
And, like that, fifteen minutes are lopped from our paycheck. It’s a small but important lesson in what it means to be a “flexible” worker.”
Women are sexualized according to their race all the time. With the help of the media and pop culture, women are placed into different color coded compartments; sweet and submissive, wild and sexual, sheltered and passive, all based on their ethnicity.
It may not be something planned or pre-meditated, but the ease with which men call women “crazy” says a lot about them. Calling a woman “crazy” is quick and easy shut-down to any discussion. Once the “crazy” card has been pulled out, women are now put on the defensive: The onus is no longer on the man to address her concerns or her issue; it’s on her to justify her behavior, to prove that she is not, in fact, crazy or irrational.
Indeed, long before George Orwell popularised the expression ”war is peace” in his 1949 novel, Zionism understood well that its colonial strategy depended on a deliberate and insistent confusion of the binary terms ”war” and ”peace”, so that each of them hides behind the other as one and the same strategy: ”Peace” will always be the public name of a colonial war, and ”war”, once it became necessary and public in the form of invasions, would be articulated as the principal means to achieve the sought after ”peace”.
Waging war as peace is so central to Zionist and Israeli propaganda that Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, which killed 20,000 civilians, was termed “Operation Peace for Galilee”. War and peace, therefore, are the same means whose only and ultimate strategic goal is European Jewish colonisation of Palestine and the subjugation and expulsion of Palestine’s native population.
What colonisation has done is to construct an external objectified Islam and Muslim, an ideal inferior and a static pre-modern Other through which the Eurocentric colonial “modernisation” project can be rationalised in the Muslim world.
The Muslim subject in colonial discourse is ahistorical, static and rationally incapacitated so as to legitimise intervention and disruption of the supposed “normal” and persistent “backwardness”. Indeed, the colonial expansion was theorised prior to contact with the Muslim subject through a set of rationalisations to satisfy foremost the colonial citizenry that the theft, pillaging and destruction is for a higher purpose, i.e. civilisation itself. The Muslim’s subjectivity emerges out of this colonial rationalisation and is brought into the modern as the constantly un-modern and persistently resistant to civilisation, therefore necessitating constant intervention.