Brand Age Market Survey: Public opinion on gender equality. (Tidbits On Thai Women's Movements).

"Equality" is a political construct. In Thailand, public debates and social movements have evolved around the theme of equality since the overthrow of the Siamese absolute monarchy in 1932. Until now, equality has served as a central feature of Thai political life. And, throughout these sixty years of the so-called half-baked Thai democracy, social and political talks on equality center on the equal standing of "Thai" people. That is, equality constructed thus far has been about the equal standing of the social classes. Equality on the basis of origin of birth--social, economic, and political locations-appeared only sporadically and to a much lesser degree. Recently, Thai people of various ethnic descents (e.g., Chinese, Malays, and other ethnic minorities) have engaged in demanding for equal citizenship.

An equality talk, which is intensifying in the public forum, is a talk on gender equality. Its forceful emergence is not simply an outcome of a stronger women's movement and their demands. Gender equality discussion in Thailand is principally motivated by the changing structure of power in Thai society. Thai feminists' active agitation is a nitty gritty response to the change; and feminists have used equality talk as their instrument for change.

People of all sectors and groups in Thailand (in both the old and new socioeconomic order) cannot and do not want to tolerate new patterns of gender relations. However, changes. in gender relations are not stoppable; they will persistently and constantly evolve in response to the never-stagnant relations of power shaped by Thailand's social, economic, political and environmental situations. Such is a cyclical fact of social evolution.

Equality may not be a factual thing. Not a tangible truth. It may not exist in the Thai past. It is a discourse on/of power shaped by its contexts. This is where the significance of equality lies, this is the heart of the matter, though equality may not be the talk of the town in the past. But now Thailand is witnessing a relentless production of discourse on equality, situated squarely in the country's social, political, economic contexts and shaped by various, multi-directional social movements. These tradition-all of which are the tangible sides of power relations. The Constitution of 1997 is a product and a concrete achievement of these efforts to alter relations of power in Thai society, albeit at the structural level.

Besides residing in the language of law, gender equality also appears in social, political, and economic practices--undeniable though, at times, invisible everyday practices. Its contents vary in each socioeconomic location. Among the working class and in the lives of many, equality is manifested as social practices rather than discursive ones. For example, the Thai working classes in urban and rural areas are affected by unfair and problem-causing development. Men and women have taken on unorthodox social and economic roles not previously prescribed for their gender identity. It is no longer possible to identify among the working class who is who-whether men or women are the hind and the fore legs of the elephant. Quite often, women are the primary breadwinners of the family. Many women have taken an occupational journey in the world of sex work; and these women lack the privilege to engage in a debate about whether sex work is for them a choice or non-choice, painful or non-painful. They have left it to the ir "Other" feminist counterpart to carry on the debate. Their non-participation is excused simply by citing a "lack of time." Time is too precious for them to engage in contemplating on the meaningfulness of their sex work.

But do their "Others" know what their "not having time to think" means? Maybe not. Against such a backdrop, discourse analysis may not be feasible and useful if the background/foundation that supports and creates the discourse is not brought to the fore. Such is a primary weakness of discourse analysis.

Discourse and discourse analysis constitute the exercise of power, a power trap. It is also a space generative of power. That is, the least powerful have less opportunities and space to create and elaborate their own discourse when compared to the powerful ones. By not having the ability to create one's own discourse because of one's power deficit, one is then excluded from accessing the space of power. As a result, ...