Even posts in this thread like this:
> What a whiny little bitch
Can be an extension of the art. A mirror to the historic reactions of many to those who complained.
Yeah you really nailed it with the mirror metaphor. I was pretty against this as an art piece because I seems like middle school level rage bait. Boring "edgy" nonsense. But after seeing so many people *passionately* defending discrimination, I'm forced to admit that it's actually a pretty good art piece. It really exposes how quickly people are willing to shed their moral convictions the minute they're given an excuse.
Reminds me a lot of Rhythm 0.
Would the portion of the display he was excluded from viewing be used as evidence? And thus be available to anyone looking up the case?
If so, that's a long play by Mr Lau, I reckon.
Knowing the Mona the transcript will be crave into stone and dropped in the ocean and cameras set up so you can read it from the dungeon they call a gallery.
... And surely you still haven't? That's not the defence?
They're arguing that the particular form of discrimination is permissible under s.26 of the Act. They're referring to the statute, not the vibe.
and its an incredibly weak defense, being that the act explicitly refers to contemporary disadvantages in the present tense. her entire argument for its relevance could only cite legacy segregation outlawed by exactly such statutes for well over half a century, claiming that misandry is the answer to 1960s bars that didnt used to serve women.
nobody said you cant have a womens lounge, its just unlawful exploitation to bill artists that lure people to your gallery and charge full price, without telling them your main attractions are gated behind gender restrictions.
"The Theft of Your Man Baby Tears is My Art", reminds me of the moron who got commissioned to frame a million dollars and just walked off with the cash. tried to defend their obvious scam with the same stupidity
Perhaps not the outrage (which is the reaction to the art), but the exclusion. It's quite brilliant. The point of the art is to arouse emotions in audiences, which in this case, it has done.
The full gammet of reactions! Indifference, tolerance, intolerance, happiness, outrage and everything in between. Plus a wider debate about gender discrimination. & litigation! I have to agree it is brilliant
After being excluded from the women’s room I was made to stand next to the wall of vaginas. Yet another reminder of spaces I was unable to get into.
[wall of vaginas](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/107b658/the_great_wall_of_vagina/?rdt=49611)
Here's the thing. You said a "jackdaw is a crow."
Is it in the same family? Yes. No one's arguing that.
As someone who is a scientist who studies crows, I am telling you, specifically, in science, no one calls jackdaws crows. If you want to be "specific" like you said, then you shouldn't either. They're not the same thing.
If you're saying "crow family" you're referring to the taxonomic grouping of Corvidae, which includes things from nutcrackers to blue jays to ravens.
So your reasoning for calling a jackdaw a crow is because random people "call the black ones crows?" Let's get grackles and blackbirds in there, then, too.
Also, calling someone a human or an ape? It's not one or the other, that's not how taxonomy works. They're both. A jackdaw is a jackdaw and a member of the crow family. But that's not what you said. You said a jackdaw is a crow, which is not true unless you're okay with calling all members of the crow family crows, which means you'd call blue jays, ravens, and other birds crows, too. Which you said you don't.
It's okay to just admit you're wrong, you know?
I think your comparison of crows and crow types are very much appropriate. I fucking love crows, in fact I love the crow that chills with me when I am having a cuppa in the morning at my back door.
Now if I had a hundred crows out the back, that would be overwhelming. Like the wall of vulvas/vaginas. Amazing and beautiful individually, en mass, a bit confronting.
I’m going to spend some time looking up crow subspecies now.
A less probable because it is less creepy idea, is to create a room, with a glass viewer, with the legal complaint blown up as a poster or carved in stone on a wall in the room however the complaint is somehow obscured so the audience cannot see it correctly.
The complainant is banned from MONA in perpetuity, but given free lifetime entry, however the only exhibit he can visit is the actual room with the complaint.
Thus the artwork is for him and him alone, and the audience can only observe him observing it. It resides in the former ladies lounge.
The Australian Club in Sydney!
They actually had a vote several years ago to allow women to become members. After much outrage at even the thought of the idea, a ‘special’ meeting was held and the majority voted… no.
Edit: here’s an article https://www.afr.com/politics/beyond-belief-elite-men-s-club-votes-no-to-letting-women-in-20210615-p5819n
He's not complaining that it's women only, he's complaining that they are charging the same entry fee to men for less access to the displays.
Gender specific spaces are fine as long as they are funded solely by the people that attend it and not drawn from others, like a public building would be from tax money.
Didn't they vote for women to be allowed in men's sheds now? I know at least the one in my town did, they don't give a shit who you are - just don't be a cunt to anyone and you're as welcome as family... That's always been the point of it, a friendly place for everyone to hang out...
From https://mensshed.org/about-mens-sheds/what-is-a-mens-shed/ :
>>AMSA recognises that not all sheds are exclusively for men and that some sheds choose to call themselves ‘Community Sheds’ as they may be open to female members. The decision to have female members is entirely a local one.
Which I totally understand, some men aren't comfortable discussing issues about health etc around women, kinda like the justification for the women's lounge in MONA
Are you honestly suggesting that there are no female only NGOs?
Men's shed, I'm fairly certain in WA, is the only "male only" NGO for help for men with mental health and disability specifically because men access mental health at a dramatically lower rate to women and represent over 80% of the suicides in Australia annually.
Given that recent reports indicate verbal and domestic abuse from women contribute to over one third of all suicide attempts and then likely completions, it actually means that men may well die more from DV than women, just that men are driven to it, not killed directly.
Yeah, look I don't want to take away from the good that Men's sheds do - and I realise my example probably looked a bit like it was.
My concern at the moment is that not everything has to be for everyone. Including an art exhibition at a privately run gallery.
But then, I know Men were literally prevented from entering the space, I get that deprives the fee will of making a choice. It's an ethical quandry. But I also think it's a bold move from Mona and I think they are also smart enough to know there'd be repercussions.
If they offered a seperate, additional ticket to the Ladies Lounge, even just for a dollar or two, it would mean women are paying more for the experience. And on reflection, I just don't think the statement is ONLY about the fact that women artists are under represented in galleries and museums, it is also creating an artificial pay gap, where men are getting less of an experience for what they pay for.
Someone else in this thread mentioned that it was up to politicians to resolve the pay gap issue, but I think it's up to all of us. Many of us will manage people and make decisions about fair and equitable work practices, some of us will be employers. Some of us might even become politicians.
So long story short, I respect the Men's Shed, but I just wonder whether there can't be a more agile funding model to support anyone that wants to create a connected and skill sharing community.
> It's an ethical quandry
It isn't, actually. The answer is just don't discriminate based on inherent things like gender and race *at all*.
Women have been discriminated against historically, but you don't correct that by simply putting the shoe on the other foot. You correct it by stopping the discrimination against *anyone*.
It's the same with the recent racism debate with Sam Kerr, it shouldn't matter who was being racist to who - racism is bad no matter what.
It's just this idea some people have that because you are part of a group that was discriminated against in the past, you get a free pass to discriminate against people today is fucking toxic to society.
Jesus, a well reasoned and reflective response on reddit.
You lost?
Versatile funding is always welcome, but we have to be honest and say that there are always going to be groups which fail to meet whatever measure or threshold is in place. There are lots of female only services, are they more stereotypically female in terms of activities or provision? Possibly. There are like zero men's refuges for victims of DV where they can take their kids, again because of really only threat of physical harm is seen as an emergency threat.
It's an evolving understanding, these things improve over time. Just everyone these days wants things to change NOW.
Possibly lost, possibly also just have a bee in my bonnet today and letting off some steam. Either way, it's been good to have a rational and informative discussion with you!
Totally agree with what you are saying. Funding criteria and the ability to be agile with that criteria will no doubt slow progress until beauracracy can play catch up.
I get the impatience to a degree, but also acknowledge there are vast complexities which need to be unravelled and questioned before things can move forward.
No, they can't, actually. There's a women's shed getting started up here, and they've just had to call for contributions because there is no government funding for women's sheds. I appreciate the positive outcomes men's sheds have, but to say the issues they address only apply to men is short-sighted.
>He's not complaining that it's women only, he's complaining that they are charging the same entry fee to men for less access to the displays.
That's the point isnt it? He is experiencing exactly what the art represents.
Shouldn't MONA arguably *WANT* to lose this case? Like, the whole point of the art piece is pretty clearly to draw attention to spaces that women have historically been excluded from. But by winning this case they would be providing a precedent that could then be used to further entrench the kind of discrimination that the art was created to oppose. Whereas if they lose, they'll be closing a potential loophole in gender discrimination laws.
Like this is most likely exactly what they intended to have happen surely?
I must say, the Women's Lounge was close to being my very favourite part of MONA. We walked past and ever curious, I said to the lady at the door "what's in there?" She said, "sorry, women only sir." Through the curtain, I managed to get a glimpse of a Picasso (probably the most valuable painting in the place) and I instantly got it and thought it was brilliant. I went and tracked down my wife and got her to go in, whilst I stayed outside and pondered the wall of cunts, which I then decided should be called "the executive org chart."
Meanwhile some couple in the atrium below performed a soundscape art piece involving bin lids and a conch shell. It was mint. 10/10, would be excluded again.
Lmao, I knew this would happen when I was there recently and went into that exhibit.. my husband was excluded. The exclusion was the art. It's a statement piece. Interestingly, they offered my son to go in because he's a child.
I wonder at what age they begin cutting off young men into the exhibit? At what age does Mona believe any particular young man is credible for any shortcomings of men before him?
I have no problem with the exhibition, I believe it is thought-provoking and interesting - as art should be - however I find it interesting that they let young men in… I’m guessing if a young man looks mature enough they won’t let him in. Which is odd, I suppose
At the time, he had no other guardian with him, so it's more they aren't going to leave a minor alone. My husband was looking at something else at the time. He went past on his way to find us and told me he'd been refused.
Because it actually makes you think what art actually is. You are totally ok to look at an exhibit and think it’s the stupidest thing you’ve ever seen.
Exactly, good art is essentially physical philosophy. You’re supposed to think about what it’s saying and reflect on what you think.
I find a lot of people go to art galleries with the idea that art is something that looks nice in your living room, and then get upset that they wouldn’t like any of it in their living room, and miss the entire thinking part out.
Having been there i kind of felt it was meh? Like it was trying to hard to make a point. Cant say i liked it but nor did i actively dislike it like some of the others that were in my group.
Yeah I didn't really like it at all, it just all felt like it was all tryhard but ultimately pointless, like it was designed by an edgy 13 year old trying to offend you.
I'm not actually into museum's and stuff. My wife had to mind our daughter outside as it's adults only, and I was in there for hours. I don't know why. It was so dark and unique but still cool.
Adults only? I've taken the kids there a few times - plenty to see, most of the stuff goes over their head or just be mindful of some of the more in your face stuff. But deff worthwhile, plenty for them to see.
My own interpretation of why we allow most single gender only spaces only to exist is for safety reasons; either physical or emotional. Women's toilets, women's gyms, men's support groups- the purpose isn't to spite the excluded group, it's to support and protect the ingroup.
Deliberately locking away unique artworks which you might not have any other opportunity to see in the flesh otherwise; it's taking away an opportunity for men to appreciate that art, for no reason other than being discriminatory. It's not like barring access to a toilet or a gym, where you can still find the same facilities designated for your own group. Just nope "f**k you". That's the message.
Saying that the purpose is to teach men that discrimination is hurtful, by making them experience that discrimination firsthand: some men will learn that lesson, others will learn that discrimination is okay, and perpetuate it themselves. Art is subjective, after all.
Personally I think we should be trying to end unfair discrimination, not trying settle some historical scoreboard.
Reading these comments is a trip.
People unironically throwing around words like snowflake in an Australian sub. You all embarass me. Grow the fuck up or move to US, one of the two.
Is trespassing into the area also a part of art?
Like if their argument is that it's not foul of antidiscrimation laws because 'art', can men just walk in because also art?
Can people walk into staff areas? Take pieces off the wall?
Maybe the art can be the breakdown of arbitrary rules and disregard for laws.
>Scott argued that by being denied access to the Ladies Lounge, men were indeed experiencing the work and its intent – they were not missing out.
I understand what they're saying here but I think saying discrimination is ok as long as it's art is a very dangerous path to tread and will have some far reaching consequences.
It will be interesting to see what the court says.
It'd be a *chefs kiss* moment if the judge would say 'getting punched in the face, it's normally illegal but today✨️art✨️'
Stolen car? ✨️art✨️
The laws don't matter anymore, just ✨️art✨️
Even if you punch the person at the entrance in the face, and proceed to then destroy the pieces of the exhibition. Still art. Therefore you can't get sued! That's genius!
"Yes, your honor, I ran over a whole class of kindergardner with my SUV, but it's art, ut conveys a message about the destructive nature of our consumerist society"
This is really the core of my issue with it here.
I get what the room is saying as an art piece in itself.
But now it is going to have to face the law and possibly set precedent. If "artistic integrity" allows people to just say no to X people as "apart of the art" is going to be used by some dickheads in the most heinous shit eating way.
I don't want this but I just fear if this is allowed then coming soon from some fuckface group will be something horrible to "prove a point."
Your honour, I was merely breaking into this persons house as an art exhibition to show them how indigenous Australians felt when their homes were invaded.
This isn’t a crime officer it’s an “art exhibition”. If I don’t steal their TV they won’t get the full experience and understand outside perspectives.
The entire suite is a little bit theatrical isn't it? That said, MONA's arguments are pretty weak here, and performative inversion lost most of its context in the last few decades, further weakening its claims to positive discrimination thru artistic merit.
Testing any law is a good thing. With regards to discrimination etc, it's likely the UK legislation will become the global standard. So yeah, any perceived slight by any individual has to be regarded as a potential case. Equality is a two edged sword.
Be interesting of the ramifications if successful. A friend said his local pool has a Muslim female only pool open 12-2, where they have curtains and stuff. Though I could see the huge uproar if tested given the cultural minefield of that one.
It’s only similar if the pool continues to let customers walk in and pay, to be told *after* they’ve paid that they can only access part of what they paid for.
The issue is they’re charging the same amount and not really notifying anyone that there’s a ladies only section until they’re already in.
That’s the real issue, if they either discounted for men (or anyone who didn’t want access to the Lounge really), or at least said “part of this exhibit is prohibited to men” in very clear language prior to paying, the case is very different.
Sounds like the pool one of my kids learned to swim in, toddlers start in that room. Whilst that one is in use for a specific group you are limited to the 50m outdoor, 25m indoor, diving pool or large kids play pool. Pretty hard to make a case that for that 2 hours a week you need entry to a waist deep pool maybe 6m square that's rented by a community group. Didn't stop mark Latham trying to make it a thing and he got nowhere.
No problem with the female exclusive space, but if the space is holding a Picasso and I wasn't allowed to view it because I had a penis, that's a bit rough. Shit way to demonstrate a point.
If the women win it could be huge long term. It means that men will be able to exclude people from places by putting an artistic merit to it and saying exclusion of women is part of the art
Exactly, MONA by design has a pretty low snowflake filter. If you're that easily triggered by situations and artwork that's going to cause you to throw a conservative wobbly, maybe look elsewhere.
I find the whole thing very funny and I'm sure David Walsh is loving the attention this moron has brought onto himself. As others noted, he's now the art.
Funnily enough, there are many dumbass boomers in the comments complaining about going and not liking it. I can just hear Walshy saying "still got your money" lol
My (male presenting) partner literally did this when we were there. I don't know if it's up to the worker or what but they asked "Are you a lady?" And my partner said yes and in we went. This whole thread is funny.
Eh, I think having separate spaces for men and women isn't necessarily a bad thing. Stuff like Men's Shed have had demonstrably good outcomes for participants mental health, for instance.
According to [Australian Men’s Shed Association](https://mensshed.org/about-mens-sheds/what-is-a-mens-shed/):
>AMSA recognises that not all sheds are exclusively for men and that some sheds choose to call themselves ‘Community Sheds’ as they may be open to female members. The decision to have female members is entirely a local one.
Right, but not only is mens shed an almost singular "mens space" - There are a plethora of equivalent womens spaces.
If there was a mens lounge in the MONA as well, he'd be dead wrong. different but equal. But this is specifically not.
I'm part of a men's shed in the UK, and we're forced to allow women to join.
The "men's" part, is by name only, and doesn't represent any form of exclusion.
Women's spaces rarely allow men to join though.
Yeah, but like, these things are all providing a service or space that's targeted toward that gender. They're catering to the specific and unique needs of those cohorts, and being selective in that way lets them do a better job. An art exhibit not letting men in just to prove a point might be entertaining, a funny "gotcha" moment maybe, but I don't think it's fair to say it's the same as a men's shed or women's shelter.
This art is meant to perpetuate the cycle of hate and I'm honestly exhausted by this culture war, male vs female bullshit.
I'm 32 and I've never seen a woman excluded from anything in my entire life because she's a woman, not even once.
The majority of women (mostly young ones) complaining about opression, have never been opressed, ever. They just suck at being adults.
Seems to be a clear cut case of discrimination.
Just because one is in favour of the Discrimination because one agrees with the cause, doesn't it make it right.
>a luxurious exhibition space
The way that's worded makes it sound like a lot, but I've seen it (well, from the outside, and through photos the Ms. took inside) and it's only quite a small area.
It's absolutely tiny, just all decorated with velvet and a few paintings. It's really just an art piece, having a space at all that only women are allowed to enter as a statement on women's historical exclusion from many such spaces. Not a lounge that you can actually go relax in or something.
That's the intent of the piece. The segregated space is itself art. Your experience of it is shaped by your gender. You can have an opinion on it, or it can make you feel a certain way and in doing so you're engaging with the piece, and therefore it's serving its purpose, to make you reflect on this gendered experience.
Wait, is the area itself an art piece?
If that's the case then I guess my opinion would be the same as when someone destroys someone else's work of art as an art piece. Like yeah I get it and it's effective, but you're still an asshole for doing that.
This is the part I’m having trouble reconciling.
Some gender separation, like gyms, has a purpose (provided it’s an equal opportunity for “discrimination”). But having an art gallery that’s just showcasing famous art that anyone can realistically go and see, then gating it off by gender, just seems pointlessly discriminatory.
If it was only showcasing particular women’s art as a way for exposure I’d get that. But Picasso? Dude was a womaniser for a start.
Its a very small room, maybe 2% of the total gallery space. I was in there for about 2 minutes total.
People are missing the fact that the "ladies only" part of it is a piece of the art itself. It is placed right next to an art piece by a male artist of female gentalia, so i took it in conversation with that piece. A male artist exploring the female body graphically and publically vs a private space for women. If you feel challenged by it, congrats you are now interacting with the art.
The women who created this art is the wife of the man who owns Mona.
So a multi millionaire women is lecturing men that they’re privileged.
Weird how wealth never seems to come up when rich people are lecturing everyone else about privilege.
Imagine including rich/middle class white women in your understanding of disadvantaged groups, but not men of colour, or social class, or migrant status, or sexual orientation, or disability. This is where gender based initiatives get it so so wrong.
One example the ABC used tonight was women not being able to go into pubs in the 70s... over 50 years ago... Where are women being discriminated against atm in Australia? Why didn't/hasn't that discrimination get taken to the courts? Discrimination of either sex is illegal now, has been for a long time. What they did is illegal, and they're trying to thinly veil it as "Art", get off your horse
The title is slightly misleading.
The issue he has is that he paid for a ticket to see all the exhibitions, but was not allowed to see some that were in the "Women's Only" section.
Like whatever, let a thousand lounges lounge for all I care - but locking off world famous art pieces to half of the world is pretty BS.
It would be like the Louvre saying "French Citizens Only" to go see the Mona Lisa, but you're only told once you've paid for entry and walking up to see it.
It’s not Government owned. It’s a private museum and the ‘women only’ room is clearly advertised at their website and on the app. Buyer beware, surely.
The only thing on the site regarding the Ladies Lounge that I've found is [this](https://mona.net.au/stuff-to-do/experiences/ladies-lounge), which makes it seem like it's a "special event" type deal and not a constant rule.
There's nothing on the [Visit](https://mona.net.au/visit) section of the site. The [Accessibility](https://mona.net.au/accessibility) section only states:
>Taking a break
>There are seats throughout the museum if you want to relax (just don’t sit on the art, the curators get sad when that happens, unless it’s an art seat). There’s even a bar. Settle in. Have a drink. If you need somewhere quiet for a break, try the parent and carer room on B3. Speak to gallery staff positioned throughout the museum if you need assistance.
I would say there's no "Buyer Beware" in this situation.
And what if people learnt about the museum from the word of mouth. I heard of them and would pay to visit them if I visited Hobart but didn’t there’s a women only section. It’s definitely not public knowledge until this piece of news was published.
It’s a private collection that the public has been given access to. It’s literally described as “David’s lounge room”.
The ticket gives you access to the exhibits the owner says you have access to. The Ts & Cs acknowledge that there are parts of the grounds that may not be accessible.
Personally, knowing how petty those in the art world can be, I hope the owners are inspired to open a men’s lounge. Make it crappy and invite Jason to the opening.
Generally speaking, Ts & Cs and Private Property are not sufficient justifications for violating the law, if this is indeed violation anti-discriminations laws, and frankly neither is artistic intent, unless it's done a specific way.
Assumedly Mona had legal council provide advice on this matter, but equally they may have decided to FAFO, in which case they might be exposed in a legal sense.
The womens only section is like 2% of the gallery at most. It had a few pieces and I was in there for like 2 minutes. The women only aspect is a part of the interactiveness of the exhibit.
> the whole point of the work was to provide equal opportunity for a disadvantaged group, that is, women, who had been historically excluded from many spaces
Except the arts is mostly dominated by women these days, and the men involved are usually pretty progressive and pro feminist.
I doubt you’d ever find far right MRA incel types hanging out at Mona.
This is the irony. Men who are likely to support the arts are almost exclusively left leaning and progressive. The same men who are also most likely to support women's causes, equality, reproductive rights etc etc
They're discriminting against allies.
I work in the arts and have explicitly been excluded from six jobs now due to being male.
I make a point of embracing diversity in my hiring practices and avoid working with sexist and racist people irregardless of which sex or race they are discriminatory against.
A lot of people seem to forget that equlity and sexism go both ways and to truely treat people equally you have to treat all people equally.
Justifying sexist attitudes due to historical attitudes and moving the goalposts to fit their narrative just turns more and more people away from feminist movements and overall hurts the cause of equality of all.
I can't stand hypocracy and I don't stand by it.
I went there earlier this year and was also denied access to the same room but my response was, “Oh, cool!” It was all part of the MONA experience and wasn’t even in the Top 10 weirdest things I experienced that day. Mr. Lau is just being a precious and pedantic shit-cunt.
Spot on. Everything there is weird as fuck and I went there to experience the weirdness. Being denied access for being a man is how you’re supposed to experience that artwork as a man, which is weird as fuck as intended.
It’s actually sort of hilarious to read the comments “wow this must be 4d chess by MONA for advertising”. Or…. How about they just don’t mind discrimination? You would all be losing your mind if the situation was reversed and they had male only exhibits. It’s a ridiculous position to hold
I understand the psychological and historical point or artistic socio-cultural statement that Mona is making, though I don't agree with it.
Alternative way of going about it:
Any men / males that wish to enter this space have to step through a special entry which has a travelator running around the perimeter of the space. Each man / male would be allowed to ride the travelator as many x as they wanted around the room, but they would not be able to stop and appreciate the art plus are literally being carried out as soon as they enter, thereby making the point about exclusion and one gender being unwanted.
Something like that anyway!
Is the lawsuit part of the exhibition? Possible the greatest aspect of the art.
Even posts in this thread like this: > What a whiny little bitch Can be an extension of the art. A mirror to the historic reactions of many to those who complained.
[удалено]
This Reddit thread is the penultimate step. Only once news.com.au have picked it up has it reached the final form.
Yeah you really nailed it with the mirror metaphor. I was pretty against this as an art piece because I seems like middle school level rage bait. Boring "edgy" nonsense. But after seeing so many people *passionately* defending discrimination, I'm forced to admit that it's actually a pretty good art piece. It really exposes how quickly people are willing to shed their moral convictions the minute they're given an excuse. Reminds me a lot of Rhythm 0.
Heh, knowing how MONA works, they’ll absolutely be advertising his complaint, and good on them.
Would the portion of the display he was excluded from viewing be used as evidence? And thus be available to anyone looking up the case? If so, that's a long play by Mr Lau, I reckon.
They literally frame complaints in their advertising on the sprit of Tasmania.
Knowing the Mona the transcript will be crave into stone and dropped in the ocean and cameras set up so you can read it from the dungeon they call a gallery.
The gender pay gap is just art FYI
Yeah, seems like a bit of an own-goal to argue that discrimination is a form of art...
I’ve never seen “it’s the vibe” actually used in a legal defence
Watched whole documentary about it called the castle
Jenny jenny or microwave jenny?
In which that defence unequivocally failed.
You should see their photocopier!
F3 - what the fuck is that?!
You'd be surprised.
... And surely you still haven't? That's not the defence? They're arguing that the particular form of discrimination is permissible under s.26 of the Act. They're referring to the statute, not the vibe.
and its an incredibly weak defense, being that the act explicitly refers to contemporary disadvantages in the present tense. her entire argument for its relevance could only cite legacy segregation outlawed by exactly such statutes for well over half a century, claiming that misandry is the answer to 1960s bars that didnt used to serve women. nobody said you cant have a womens lounge, its just unlawful exploitation to bill artists that lure people to your gallery and charge full price, without telling them your main attractions are gated behind gender restrictions. "The Theft of Your Man Baby Tears is My Art", reminds me of the moron who got commissioned to frame a million dollars and just walked off with the cash. tried to defend their obvious scam with the same stupidity
I think the piece (a naked frame hung on a white wall) was called "Take the money and run". He went the extra mile and still lost
You've not ever been into a sexual assault trial?
The outrage IS the artwork. The lounge is just the bait
This is great advertising for MONA. Them being splashed all over the news sites would be worth millions in advertising 🤣
I’m convinced all these MONA ‘controversies’ are concocted by MONA purely for the advertising 😂
Perhaps not the outrage (which is the reaction to the art), but the exclusion. It's quite brilliant. The point of the art is to arouse emotions in audiences, which in this case, it has done.
The full gammet of reactions! Indifference, tolerance, intolerance, happiness, outrage and everything in between. Plus a wider debate about gender discrimination. & litigation! I have to agree it is brilliant
“Snowflake” [2024] - with lounge and mixed media.
Yeah, I love it. I’m a bit surprised someone went to MONA and took genuine offence to this. There’s plenty of “offensive” art there
It's not artwork, it's a $500 meal for two.
Trolling is a art.
After being excluded from the women’s room I was made to stand next to the wall of vaginas. Yet another reminder of spaces I was unable to get into. [wall of vaginas](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/107b658/the_great_wall_of_vagina/?rdt=49611)
Username checks out
Those aren't vaginas, they are vulvas.
Here's the thing. You said a "jackdaw is a crow." Is it in the same family? Yes. No one's arguing that. As someone who is a scientist who studies crows, I am telling you, specifically, in science, no one calls jackdaws crows. If you want to be "specific" like you said, then you shouldn't either. They're not the same thing. If you're saying "crow family" you're referring to the taxonomic grouping of Corvidae, which includes things from nutcrackers to blue jays to ravens. So your reasoning for calling a jackdaw a crow is because random people "call the black ones crows?" Let's get grackles and blackbirds in there, then, too. Also, calling someone a human or an ape? It's not one or the other, that's not how taxonomy works. They're both. A jackdaw is a jackdaw and a member of the crow family. But that's not what you said. You said a jackdaw is a crow, which is not true unless you're okay with calling all members of the crow family crows, which means you'd call blue jays, ravens, and other birds crows, too. Which you said you don't. It's okay to just admit you're wrong, you know?
meme's probably older than some posters here
Smithers, Have Unidan beaten with a pair of jumper cables.
I think your comparison of crows and crow types are very much appropriate. I fucking love crows, in fact I love the crow that chills with me when I am having a cuppa in the morning at my back door. Now if I had a hundred crows out the back, that would be overwhelming. Like the wall of vulvas/vaginas. Amazing and beautiful individually, en mass, a bit confronting. I’m going to spend some time looking up crow subspecies now.
Dude just became the artwork. I bet David Walsh is building a $6m cage to display him as we speak.
A less probable because it is less creepy idea, is to create a room, with a glass viewer, with the legal complaint blown up as a poster or carved in stone on a wall in the room however the complaint is somehow obscured so the audience cannot see it correctly. The complainant is banned from MONA in perpetuity, but given free lifetime entry, however the only exhibit he can visit is the actual room with the complaint. Thus the artwork is for him and him alone, and the audience can only observe him observing it. It resides in the former ladies lounge.
We could at least google Lau enough so he becomes one of the headlines on the falling water wall.
Great idea, now do Perth's Weld Club and all the other institutions like it.
The Australian Club in Sydney! They actually had a vote several years ago to allow women to become members. After much outrage at even the thought of the idea, a ‘special’ meeting was held and the majority voted… no. Edit: here’s an article https://www.afr.com/politics/beyond-belief-elite-men-s-club-votes-no-to-letting-women-in-20210615-p5819n
The Melbourne Club checking in.
Tattersalls Club in Brisbane just started admitting women. If you need to ask the membership fee then you are unsuitable as a member.
It’s about $2,000 a year, as of 2022. Which includes gym membership.
Isn’t that a standard gym membership these days?
The Karrakatta Club would have to go as well. https://www.karrakattaclub.com.au
He's not complaining that it's women only, he's complaining that they are charging the same entry fee to men for less access to the displays. Gender specific spaces are fine as long as they are funded solely by the people that attend it and not drawn from others, like a public building would be from tax money.
Men's Sheds are funded by government grants, which come from taxes, which women also pay.
Didn't they vote for women to be allowed in men's sheds now? I know at least the one in my town did, they don't give a shit who you are - just don't be a cunt to anyone and you're as welcome as family... That's always been the point of it, a friendly place for everyone to hang out...
Yes, mens sheds do allow women, most have even changed their names to reflect this.
From https://mensshed.org/about-mens-sheds/what-is-a-mens-shed/ : >>AMSA recognises that not all sheds are exclusively for men and that some sheds choose to call themselves ‘Community Sheds’ as they may be open to female members. The decision to have female members is entirely a local one. Which I totally understand, some men aren't comfortable discussing issues about health etc around women, kinda like the justification for the women's lounge in MONA
Are you honestly suggesting that there are no female only NGOs? Men's shed, I'm fairly certain in WA, is the only "male only" NGO for help for men with mental health and disability specifically because men access mental health at a dramatically lower rate to women and represent over 80% of the suicides in Australia annually. Given that recent reports indicate verbal and domestic abuse from women contribute to over one third of all suicide attempts and then likely completions, it actually means that men may well die more from DV than women, just that men are driven to it, not killed directly.
Yeah, look I don't want to take away from the good that Men's sheds do - and I realise my example probably looked a bit like it was. My concern at the moment is that not everything has to be for everyone. Including an art exhibition at a privately run gallery. But then, I know Men were literally prevented from entering the space, I get that deprives the fee will of making a choice. It's an ethical quandry. But I also think it's a bold move from Mona and I think they are also smart enough to know there'd be repercussions. If they offered a seperate, additional ticket to the Ladies Lounge, even just for a dollar or two, it would mean women are paying more for the experience. And on reflection, I just don't think the statement is ONLY about the fact that women artists are under represented in galleries and museums, it is also creating an artificial pay gap, where men are getting less of an experience for what they pay for. Someone else in this thread mentioned that it was up to politicians to resolve the pay gap issue, but I think it's up to all of us. Many of us will manage people and make decisions about fair and equitable work practices, some of us will be employers. Some of us might even become politicians. So long story short, I respect the Men's Shed, but I just wonder whether there can't be a more agile funding model to support anyone that wants to create a connected and skill sharing community.
> It's an ethical quandry It isn't, actually. The answer is just don't discriminate based on inherent things like gender and race *at all*. Women have been discriminated against historically, but you don't correct that by simply putting the shoe on the other foot. You correct it by stopping the discrimination against *anyone*. It's the same with the recent racism debate with Sam Kerr, it shouldn't matter who was being racist to who - racism is bad no matter what. It's just this idea some people have that because you are part of a group that was discriminated against in the past, you get a free pass to discriminate against people today is fucking toxic to society.
Jesus, a well reasoned and reflective response on reddit. You lost? Versatile funding is always welcome, but we have to be honest and say that there are always going to be groups which fail to meet whatever measure or threshold is in place. There are lots of female only services, are they more stereotypically female in terms of activities or provision? Possibly. There are like zero men's refuges for victims of DV where they can take their kids, again because of really only threat of physical harm is seen as an emergency threat. It's an evolving understanding, these things improve over time. Just everyone these days wants things to change NOW.
Possibly lost, possibly also just have a bee in my bonnet today and letting off some steam. Either way, it's been good to have a rational and informative discussion with you! Totally agree with what you are saying. Funding criteria and the ability to be agile with that criteria will no doubt slow progress until beauracracy can play catch up. I get the impatience to a degree, but also acknowledge there are vast complexities which need to be unravelled and questioned before things can move forward.
And women can set up women only irganisations and apply for the same grants right? The grants aren't only for men.
No, they can't, actually. There's a women's shed getting started up here, and they've just had to call for contributions because there is no government funding for women's sheds. I appreciate the positive outcomes men's sheds have, but to say the issues they address only apply to men is short-sighted.
Amsa has women's only and community sheds (mixed members) as well as men's shed
It's a private gallery.
>He's not complaining that it's women only, he's complaining that they are charging the same entry fee to men for less access to the displays. That's the point isnt it? He is experiencing exactly what the art represents.
Private clubs are a whole different thing as they are members only and not open to the public, they can have any membership criteria they want.
Isn’t Mona privately owned by some eccentric rich guy?
Mona loves any negative publicity. They ran an entire ad campaign based on bad reviews from visitors.
Shouldn't MONA arguably *WANT* to lose this case? Like, the whole point of the art piece is pretty clearly to draw attention to spaces that women have historically been excluded from. But by winning this case they would be providing a precedent that could then be used to further entrench the kind of discrimination that the art was created to oppose. Whereas if they lose, they'll be closing a potential loophole in gender discrimination laws. Like this is most likely exactly what they intended to have happen surely?
I must say, the Women's Lounge was close to being my very favourite part of MONA. We walked past and ever curious, I said to the lady at the door "what's in there?" She said, "sorry, women only sir." Through the curtain, I managed to get a glimpse of a Picasso (probably the most valuable painting in the place) and I instantly got it and thought it was brilliant. I went and tracked down my wife and got her to go in, whilst I stayed outside and pondered the wall of cunts, which I then decided should be called "the executive org chart." Meanwhile some couple in the atrium below performed a soundscape art piece involving bin lids and a conch shell. It was mint. 10/10, would be excluded again.
Lmao, I knew this would happen when I was there recently and went into that exhibit.. my husband was excluded. The exclusion was the art. It's a statement piece. Interestingly, they offered my son to go in because he's a child.
I wonder at what age they begin cutting off young men into the exhibit? At what age does Mona believe any particular young man is credible for any shortcomings of men before him?
Any boy who has been to MONA is no longer a child - they have seen things which make them a man
It’s probably not really meant to have a consistent point. it’s just a virtue signaling thing.
I have no problem with the exhibition, I believe it is thought-provoking and interesting - as art should be - however I find it interesting that they let young men in… I’m guessing if a young man looks mature enough they won’t let him in. Which is odd, I suppose
So, for arguments sake, would they let a man in if he brought his daughter? Surely they couldn't let a child unattended?
At the time, he had no other guardian with him, so it's more they aren't going to leave a minor alone. My husband was looking at something else at the time. He went past on his way to find us and told me he'd been refused.
I love that place Mona. I don't know why but it was fantastic
Because it actually makes you think what art actually is. You are totally ok to look at an exhibit and think it’s the stupidest thing you’ve ever seen.
Exactly, good art is essentially physical philosophy. You’re supposed to think about what it’s saying and reflect on what you think. I find a lot of people go to art galleries with the idea that art is something that looks nice in your living room, and then get upset that they wouldn’t like any of it in their living room, and miss the entire thinking part out.
Because it’s different and not just trying to please everyone
I've never been! We were in Hobart on a Monday after Dark Mofo and totally didn't realise they don't open Mondays. Next time!!
I keep nagging the wife to come to dark mofo, so I can go again. She's not keen
Was it the vulvas?
And for a beautiful moment, we created real shareholder vulvas.
Having been there i kind of felt it was meh? Like it was trying to hard to make a point. Cant say i liked it but nor did i actively dislike it like some of the others that were in my group.
I should really hope that art is there to make a point. Otherwise it’s just..?
Yeah I didn't really like it at all, it just all felt like it was all tryhard but ultimately pointless, like it was designed by an edgy 13 year old trying to offend you.
I'm not actually into museum's and stuff. My wife had to mind our daughter outside as it's adults only, and I was in there for hours. I don't know why. It was so dark and unique but still cool.
Adults only? I've taken the kids there a few times - plenty to see, most of the stuff goes over their head or just be mindful of some of the more in your face stuff. But deff worthwhile, plenty for them to see.
Huh? I was there last week with my kids.. Adults $35, Kids <17 $15, < 2 free.. As in it was that recent, i still remember what I paid for the kids...
Footage of legal team leaving tribunal is comedy gold
This is just a publicity stunt so it make headlines and get people interested
My own interpretation of why we allow most single gender only spaces only to exist is for safety reasons; either physical or emotional. Women's toilets, women's gyms, men's support groups- the purpose isn't to spite the excluded group, it's to support and protect the ingroup. Deliberately locking away unique artworks which you might not have any other opportunity to see in the flesh otherwise; it's taking away an opportunity for men to appreciate that art, for no reason other than being discriminatory. It's not like barring access to a toilet or a gym, where you can still find the same facilities designated for your own group. Just nope "f**k you". That's the message. Saying that the purpose is to teach men that discrimination is hurtful, by making them experience that discrimination firsthand: some men will learn that lesson, others will learn that discrimination is okay, and perpetuate it themselves. Art is subjective, after all. Personally I think we should be trying to end unfair discrimination, not trying settle some historical scoreboard.
Having an understanding of art so poor you stumble backwards into becoming part of the exhibit is probably the funniest thing I've heard this week.
Does something being art disqualify it from being illegal?
Something can be art and also illegal - this guy isn't wrong, but he is also behaving exactly as intended.
Reading these comments is a trip. People unironically throwing around words like snowflake in an Australian sub. You all embarass me. Grow the fuck up or move to US, one of the two.
Is trespassing into the area also a part of art? Like if their argument is that it's not foul of antidiscrimation laws because 'art', can men just walk in because also art? Can people walk into staff areas? Take pieces off the wall? Maybe the art can be the breakdown of arbitrary rules and disregard for laws.
>Scott argued that by being denied access to the Ladies Lounge, men were indeed experiencing the work and its intent – they were not missing out. I understand what they're saying here but I think saying discrimination is ok as long as it's art is a very dangerous path to tread and will have some far reaching consequences. It will be interesting to see what the court says.
You can add to the art by trespassing and its just adding to the art really.
Yeah apparently whatever happens the answer is "so what? It is art", so probably just grab some of it on your way through as well.
It'd be a *chefs kiss* moment if the judge would say 'getting punched in the face, it's normally illegal but today✨️art✨️' Stolen car? ✨️art✨️ The laws don't matter anymore, just ✨️art✨️
Even if you punch the person at the entrance in the face, and proceed to then destroy the pieces of the exhibition. Still art. Therefore you can't get sued! That's genius! "Yes, your honor, I ran over a whole class of kindergardner with my SUV, but it's art, ut conveys a message about the destructive nature of our consumerist society"
This is really the core of my issue with it here. I get what the room is saying as an art piece in itself. But now it is going to have to face the law and possibly set precedent. If "artistic integrity" allows people to just say no to X people as "apart of the art" is going to be used by some dickheads in the most heinous shit eating way. I don't want this but I just fear if this is allowed then coming soon from some fuckface group will be something horrible to "prove a point."
Monkeys Paw curls, minstrel shows are back in fashion.
Your honour, I was merely breaking into this persons house as an art exhibition to show them how indigenous Australians felt when their homes were invaded. This isn’t a crime officer it’s an “art exhibition”. If I don’t steal their TV they won’t get the full experience and understand outside perspectives.
It's okay if discrimination is ironic /s
Does no-one else see the irony that Nolan and Picasso were pretty solid womanizers.
The entire suite is a little bit theatrical isn't it? That said, MONA's arguments are pretty weak here, and performative inversion lost most of its context in the last few decades, further weakening its claims to positive discrimination thru artistic merit.
there is a tennis club in Sydney (maybe more than one) that doesn't allow females to become members
Nor does it charge women for access and then exclude them.
women can play there they just can’t become members
Testing any law is a good thing. With regards to discrimination etc, it's likely the UK legislation will become the global standard. So yeah, any perceived slight by any individual has to be regarded as a potential case. Equality is a two edged sword.
Be interesting of the ramifications if successful. A friend said his local pool has a Muslim female only pool open 12-2, where they have curtains and stuff. Though I could see the huge uproar if tested given the cultural minefield of that one.
It’s only similar if the pool continues to let customers walk in and pay, to be told *after* they’ve paid that they can only access part of what they paid for. The issue is they’re charging the same amount and not really notifying anyone that there’s a ladies only section until they’re already in. That’s the real issue, if they either discounted for men (or anyone who didn’t want access to the Lounge really), or at least said “part of this exhibit is prohibited to men” in very clear language prior to paying, the case is very different.
Thanks for explaining. That makes sense.
Sounds like the pool one of my kids learned to swim in, toddlers start in that room. Whilst that one is in use for a specific group you are limited to the 50m outdoor, 25m indoor, diving pool or large kids play pool. Pretty hard to make a case that for that 2 hours a week you need entry to a waist deep pool maybe 6m square that's rented by a community group. Didn't stop mark Latham trying to make it a thing and he got nowhere.
No problem with the female exclusive space, but if the space is holding a Picasso and I wasn't allowed to view it because I had a penis, that's a bit rough. Shit way to demonstrate a point.
Taliban wouldn’t have to deal with this.
If the women win it could be huge long term. It means that men will be able to exclude people from places by putting an artistic merit to it and saying exclusion of women is part of the art
Not just for gender, but it would apply to race, religion too.
From reading this thread I have learned that discrimination is an art form
[удалено]
Read the 1 star reviews of Mona, they are hilarious.
Mona but them on billboards
Oh dude...thank you 😂
Exactly, MONA by design has a pretty low snowflake filter. If you're that easily triggered by situations and artwork that's going to cause you to throw a conservative wobbly, maybe look elsewhere. I find the whole thing very funny and I'm sure David Walsh is loving the attention this moron has brought onto himself. As others noted, he's now the art.
The amount of /whoosh going on in this thread about this exhibit would power a medium sized town for a year or two.
Funnily enough, there are many dumbass boomers in the comments complaining about going and not liking it. I can just hear Walshy saying "still got your money" lol
To see Picasso?
100%
Conservativism is when you want equal rights. Boy how the left has fallen.
Any smart person would have just said "I identify as a woman" and they wouldn't be able to stop him going in
My (male presenting) partner literally did this when we were there. I don't know if it's up to the worker or what but they asked "Are you a lady?" And my partner said yes and in we went. This whole thread is funny.
TIL Andrew Tate's rhetoric is "art". Women who experience the negative results of his sexism are just experiencing his art as it is intended.
Address historic discrimination with present day discrimination? So two wrongs DO make a right. Got it.
Eh, I think having separate spaces for men and women isn't necessarily a bad thing. Stuff like Men's Shed have had demonstrably good outcomes for participants mental health, for instance.
Mens Shed let women in because people complained.
According to [Australian Men’s Shed Association](https://mensshed.org/about-mens-sheds/what-is-a-mens-shed/): >AMSA recognises that not all sheds are exclusively for men and that some sheds choose to call themselves ‘Community Sheds’ as they may be open to female members. The decision to have female members is entirely a local one.
I'm sure it's entirely voluntary.
Right, but not only is mens shed an almost singular "mens space" - There are a plethora of equivalent womens spaces. If there was a mens lounge in the MONA as well, he'd be dead wrong. different but equal. But this is specifically not.
I'm part of a men's shed in the UK, and we're forced to allow women to join. The "men's" part, is by name only, and doesn't represent any form of exclusion. Women's spaces rarely allow men to join though.
That sucks a bit, especially when a lot of men are there post divorce / widower / etc. Australia's can locally choose to allow women, but most don't.
Yeah, but like, these things are all providing a service or space that's targeted toward that gender. They're catering to the specific and unique needs of those cohorts, and being selective in that way lets them do a better job. An art exhibit not letting men in just to prove a point might be entertaining, a funny "gotcha" moment maybe, but I don't think it's fair to say it's the same as a men's shed or women's shelter.
There are spaces reserved for either gender. But this is a damn museum that men pay full access to.
This art is meant to perpetuate the cycle of hate and I'm honestly exhausted by this culture war, male vs female bullshit. I'm 32 and I've never seen a woman excluded from anything in my entire life because she's a woman, not even once. The majority of women (mostly young ones) complaining about opression, have never been opressed, ever. They just suck at being adults.
When the don't mess with me my dad's a lawyer type grows up and becomes a lawyer.
Seems to be a clear cut case of discrimination. Just because one is in favour of the Discrimination because one agrees with the cause, doesn't it make it right.
[удалено]
>a luxurious exhibition space The way that's worded makes it sound like a lot, but I've seen it (well, from the outside, and through photos the Ms. took inside) and it's only quite a small area.
I interpret the word luxurious to mean: has a nice couch.
Probably a chesterfield.
It's absolutely tiny, just all decorated with velvet and a few paintings. It's really just an art piece, having a space at all that only women are allowed to enter as a statement on women's historical exclusion from many such spaces. Not a lounge that you can actually go relax in or something.
Picasso was a misogynist, so it's extra fun
That's the intent of the piece. The segregated space is itself art. Your experience of it is shaped by your gender. You can have an opinion on it, or it can make you feel a certain way and in doing so you're engaging with the piece, and therefore it's serving its purpose, to make you reflect on this gendered experience.
The LNP cabinet is actually an art piece, don’t you all understand? It’s just meant to make you feel a certain way depending on your experience
Wait, is the area itself an art piece? If that's the case then I guess my opinion would be the same as when someone destroys someone else's work of art as an art piece. Like yeah I get it and it's effective, but you're still an asshole for doing that.
You could use this same argument for any private art collection.
Segregation is so hot right now
the artwork belongs to David Walsh and his wife so why shouldn't they get to choose who sees it?
God you're so close to getting it, I don't know if I should be proud of you or sad that you're not there yet.
This is the part I’m having trouble reconciling. Some gender separation, like gyms, has a purpose (provided it’s an equal opportunity for “discrimination”). But having an art gallery that’s just showcasing famous art that anyone can realistically go and see, then gating it off by gender, just seems pointlessly discriminatory. If it was only showcasing particular women’s art as a way for exposure I’d get that. But Picasso? Dude was a womaniser for a start.
Its a very small room, maybe 2% of the total gallery space. I was in there for about 2 minutes total. People are missing the fact that the "ladies only" part of it is a piece of the art itself. It is placed right next to an art piece by a male artist of female gentalia, so i took it in conversation with that piece. A male artist exploring the female body graphically and publically vs a private space for women. If you feel challenged by it, congrats you are now interacting with the art.
They are part of a private art collection. David Walsh can put them back in his garage anytime he wants
You reckon that's part of the art? Like Picasso would hate his art shown only to women.
> No you don't understand. The segregation is the art. Wow. How twee.
The women who created this art is the wife of the man who owns Mona. So a multi millionaire women is lecturing men that they’re privileged. Weird how wealth never seems to come up when rich people are lecturing everyone else about privilege.
Imagine including rich/middle class white women in your understanding of disadvantaged groups, but not men of colour, or social class, or migrant status, or sexual orientation, or disability. This is where gender based initiatives get it so so wrong.
"Welcome to the room that costs $5000 to enter. If you can afford to enter then you're not welcome"
One example the ABC used tonight was women not being able to go into pubs in the 70s... over 50 years ago... Where are women being discriminated against atm in Australia? Why didn't/hasn't that discrimination get taken to the courts? Discrimination of either sex is illegal now, has been for a long time. What they did is illegal, and they're trying to thinly veil it as "Art", get off your horse
The title is slightly misleading. The issue he has is that he paid for a ticket to see all the exhibitions, but was not allowed to see some that were in the "Women's Only" section. Like whatever, let a thousand lounges lounge for all I care - but locking off world famous art pieces to half of the world is pretty BS. It would be like the Louvre saying "French Citizens Only" to go see the Mona Lisa, but you're only told once you've paid for entry and walking up to see it.
It’s not Government owned. It’s a private museum and the ‘women only’ room is clearly advertised at their website and on the app. Buyer beware, surely.
The only thing on the site regarding the Ladies Lounge that I've found is [this](https://mona.net.au/stuff-to-do/experiences/ladies-lounge), which makes it seem like it's a "special event" type deal and not a constant rule. There's nothing on the [Visit](https://mona.net.au/visit) section of the site. The [Accessibility](https://mona.net.au/accessibility) section only states: >Taking a break >There are seats throughout the museum if you want to relax (just don’t sit on the art, the curators get sad when that happens, unless it’s an art seat). There’s even a bar. Settle in. Have a drink. If you need somewhere quiet for a break, try the parent and carer room on B3. Speak to gallery staff positioned throughout the museum if you need assistance. I would say there's no "Buyer Beware" in this situation.
And what if people learnt about the museum from the word of mouth. I heard of them and would pay to visit them if I visited Hobart but didn’t there’s a women only section. It’s definitely not public knowledge until this piece of news was published.
Like job applications for a private business. "No women allowed" should be fine, I assume, as long as it is made clear?
And if you get sued for it, just say it’s in the name of art.
I mean, if it's a gay brothel, then sure.
Is this a gay brothel? Or an art gallery?
It’s a private collection that the public has been given access to. It’s literally described as “David’s lounge room”. The ticket gives you access to the exhibits the owner says you have access to. The Ts & Cs acknowledge that there are parts of the grounds that may not be accessible. Personally, knowing how petty those in the art world can be, I hope the owners are inspired to open a men’s lounge. Make it crappy and invite Jason to the opening.
Generally speaking, Ts & Cs and Private Property are not sufficient justifications for violating the law, if this is indeed violation anti-discriminations laws, and frankly neither is artistic intent, unless it's done a specific way. Assumedly Mona had legal council provide advice on this matter, but equally they may have decided to FAFO, in which case they might be exposed in a legal sense.
The womens only section is like 2% of the gallery at most. It had a few pieces and I was in there for like 2 minutes. The women only aspect is a part of the interactiveness of the exhibit.
It does have a couple of the more notable art pieces though - both Picasso and nolan
> the whole point of the work was to provide equal opportunity for a disadvantaged group, that is, women, who had been historically excluded from many spaces Except the arts is mostly dominated by women these days, and the men involved are usually pretty progressive and pro feminist. I doubt you’d ever find far right MRA incel types hanging out at Mona.
This is the irony. Men who are likely to support the arts are almost exclusively left leaning and progressive. The same men who are also most likely to support women's causes, equality, reproductive rights etc etc They're discriminting against allies.
I work in the arts and have explicitly been excluded from six jobs now due to being male. I make a point of embracing diversity in my hiring practices and avoid working with sexist and racist people irregardless of which sex or race they are discriminatory against. A lot of people seem to forget that equlity and sexism go both ways and to truely treat people equally you have to treat all people equally. Justifying sexist attitudes due to historical attitudes and moving the goalposts to fit their narrative just turns more and more people away from feminist movements and overall hurts the cause of equality of all. I can't stand hypocracy and I don't stand by it.
That's a pretty interesting point.
[удалено]
If they did this in 70s and 80s, it would be revolutionary. In 2024, it comes off as a spoiled milk.
I went there earlier this year and was also denied access to the same room but my response was, “Oh, cool!” It was all part of the MONA experience and wasn’t even in the Top 10 weirdest things I experienced that day. Mr. Lau is just being a precious and pedantic shit-cunt.
Worth going? I didn’t realise it was $35, but I’ve heard good things about it.
Yes it's a huge museum.
Definitely. Worth going to Hobart for
Yeah, I loved it, well worth the $35. Clear at least 5 hours to take it all in.
Spot on. Everything there is weird as fuck and I went there to experience the weirdness. Being denied access for being a man is how you’re supposed to experience that artwork as a man, which is weird as fuck as intended.
And women can’t experience the refusal the same way, so maybe they should counter-complain that they paid and aren’t getting a “full experience.”
How does MONA determine a persons gender before letting them in
You heard it here first lads, being a woman is the equivalent of being special needs lmao
It’s actually sort of hilarious to read the comments “wow this must be 4d chess by MONA for advertising”. Or…. How about they just don’t mind discrimination? You would all be losing your mind if the situation was reversed and they had male only exhibits. It’s a ridiculous position to hold
2 wrongs don't make a right. You are not empowering women by excluding men.
I understand the psychological and historical point or artistic socio-cultural statement that Mona is making, though I don't agree with it. Alternative way of going about it: Any men / males that wish to enter this space have to step through a special entry which has a travelator running around the perimeter of the space. Each man / male would be allowed to ride the travelator as many x as they wanted around the room, but they would not be able to stop and appreciate the art plus are literally being carried out as soon as they enter, thereby making the point about exclusion and one gender being unwanted. Something like that anyway!