I know, I know, I used the dreaded p-word. But if you can see your way past this vocab transgression, read on.
I just stumbled across an article detailing a previously-unbeknownst (at least to me) method of protest activism: intimidating the Burmese government by mailing ladies’ gotch to its embassies.
The Panties for Peace campaign rests on what is apparently a cultural taboo: the more superstitious of the Burmese junta members associating touching ladies’ garments with weakness and loss of power. Causing them to come into contact with Hanes Her Ways is probably more of an insult than a direct action, but when diplomacy fails, I guess you have to hit, um, below the belt, as they say.
The new Molotov cocktail?
To add your knickers to the growing movement, check out details of the campaign online.
Digg
Facebook
del.icio.us
eight comments
Anna- I love that you posted about this. I really don't think sending panties by the boat-load is going to have any real effect on the issue at hand in any direct way, but what this campaign does do is create awareness in a way that political discourse someties can not.
Let's face it, a lot more people are going to latch onto a movement that has "panties" in the headline - a sad reality, yes, but the more people mobilized, aware and interested the better.
Posted by Stacey May
October 22, 2007, 9:09 AM
I'd like to say for the record that after you pointed out that "panties" has the words "pants" and "tease" in it, I saw that dreaded word in a whole new and wonderful light.
Hm, this campaign is kinda weird. I totally understand the impetus behind it, think it's really funny, and I love it when lady parts that are considered shameful are used for resistance. At the same time I feel like this could get turned into a "Did you know that Burmese people are afraid of panties? Isn't that sick?" kind of thing.
And it is really true that they're afraid of panties? To me it makes the Burmese government (and maybe Burmese culture) look ridiculous and foolish. I think there's a really big danger in
1) characterising poor/not-white peoples as foolish
2) characterising serious political actors who abuse their power with massive and terrifying ramifications as foolish.
Not that those two things are necessarily the intention of this campaign - or your intention in posting about it! - I just feel like that's how it's prolly gonna be interpreted.
Posted by Thea
October 22, 2007, 9:48 AM
I had similar thoughts, Thea - nobody wants to be caught in the trap of going "Those crazy brown people over there are scared of panties! How crazy!" But, as I said, it seems to be intended as more of an insult and an attempt to make your feelings known, in whatever small way you can, than an action that people actually believe will instill fear and loathing in the junta leaders. (Though if you read the comments section of various sites that have reported on the campaign, it seems like few people get this - most of them say things like "Oh yeah right, as if PANTIES stand a chance against AK47s!" Dude, it's called symbolic protest.)
There are also plenty of instances of campaigns where folks mobilize symbols that play on the insecurities of white men in power too. Um, I just can't think of any right now, except for David Wojnarowicz's suggestion of dumping corpses on the White House lawn to protest government inaction on AIDS. But that is definitely moving out of the realm of the symbolic.
Posted by Anna
October 22, 2007, 10:37 AM
How about when they dumped a truckload of potatoes in front of the White House because Dan Quayle spelled it wrong?
Though that's definitely an example of presenting powerful people as foolish...
I guess my thing with this is that it plays on a cultural insecurity, whereas potatoes and corpses don't really. Let's try and think of protests that play on the cultural insecurities of our culture. It's always good to be aware of your own culture's hang-ups, especially when you live in a country where people constantly claim "we have no culture!"
Hm, can't think of anything. Maybe the free hugs guy? That doesn't have the same sort of sting though...
Posted by Thea
October 22, 2007, 10:43 AM
And, p.s., if every culture was judged solely by its superstitions and taboos, we'd all end up looking like pretty big dolts. Hockey players not washing their socks for weeks before a big game? Hotels that skip the 13th floor? Black cats, spilled salt, etc. etc. etc. It's just that maybe widespread ignorance about Burma could contribute to people taking the panties taboo as representative of the entire culture. Which would be as silly as basing everything you believe about North America on the fact that boys get hassled when they wear pink to school. Hey, wait a minute...
Posted by Anna
October 22, 2007, 10:48 AM
I totally think corpses play on insecurities! There are huge cultural taboos here about the dead, about things that are supposed to be private showing up in public. Especially when the corpses are of gay people who died of AIDS.
(oy, this conversation is getting a bit disorderly. Damn you, time lapse.)
Posted by Anna
October 22, 2007, 10:51 AM
Yah, I was going to say, things that play on cultural insecurities very specific to that particular culture. Because we definitely have a fear of death, sickness and gayness, but that's not really special to us. As in you could dump bodies of queer people who've died of AIDS on the front lawns on parliamentary buildings all over the world and it would upset people equally.
Whereas not all cultures would see panties as a loss of power.
Also I never knew "gotch" was a synonym for "panties." You are always learning me.
Posted by Thea
October 22, 2007, 11:49 AM
my mom calls them "ginch" !
Posted by piKe
February 3, 2008, 10:04 PM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
Our comment policy
Shameless prides itself on the diversity of opinions expressed by our writers, and we encourage and appreciate different points of view. Our intention at Shameless is to foster community and to maintain a safe and positive blogging environment; we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. We will delete comments that:
(We get to decide what's discriminatory, hateful, attacking, or inflammatory).
In some cases, we will cap off comments on a discussion when we feel they are spiralling out of control and fostering an unwelcoming space for bloggers and readers. Comments will be closed by the Web Editor, unless the post is by the Web Editor, in which case the Editor in Chief will close them.
If your comments repeatedly make the same point, they may be deleted. This also applies to comments made by multiple members of the same organization.
Your comments should be about the topic of the post, not its writer—although we certainly encourage praise for our writers, if you want to say something nice.