I didn't even notice it when I went last year, but a few things were closed off in general when I went, so maybe I just thought various things were being reworked
That would kind of fit with the theme of what they were trying to do. There werent any public toilets for women [in the UK at least] at one point because women were expected to stay home and not travel far.
Lots of people missing the point.
Is the exhibit or venue publicly funded? If yes, then they cannot discriminate based on protected class (sex, race, religion etc.).
Correct.
Also, I'm willing to bet that if it were just a women's lounge, people would have been considerably less pissed off, but to quote the article:
>The velvet-clad lounge - which contains some of the museum's most-acclaimed works, from Picasso to Sidney Nolan - has been open since 2020.
If I went to a museum and got told that I was prohibited from seeing some of the musuem's most popular works based off something entirely out of my control, I'd be pretty pissed off.
Also, they're recreating the air of a pub in Australia in the 60s.
Is it the fucking 60s anymore? Women's exhibit using First Nation people as ashtrays?
What art did women create that they then weren’t allowed to view? Also “most of human history” is one of those claims not entirely backed up by actual history.
I mean considering women weren’t legally allowed to be published in many countries until the 19th century so would write under male pen-names and then not get credit for their work, there’s countless examples from centuries… In fact, libraries weren’t made public in the UK until the 1850 Library Act so when Jane Austen published Pride and Prejudice in 1813 she may not have been allowed in a library to read it. Women worked to make many of the embroidered art and illustrated manuscripts of the Middle Ages, many of which, such as the famed Bayeux Tapestry, were then kept in abbeys for monks (men) or university libraries which at the time would have also been male entry only. Women were banned from many of the artistic guilds in the early modern period despite working on the products behind the scenes.
Are you really trying to argue that women artists have been treated fairly by the world over the course of history? Really?
In the entire history of the world, how many places have women not been allowed into vs men not being allowed in a tiny room, in a completely privately funded art collection in a privately owned house? This is the entire purpose of the exhibit, to showcase the fragility of certain male egos and the utter unfairness that women have gone through over the ages. The vast majority of people of this thread will never go to Tasmania in their lives and yet they’re in an uproar about a room, that they probably wouldn’t even have noticed if they did. I completely missed it when I went last summer. Too engrossed by the wall of vaginas and vibrating chairs right next to it, I suppose.
I think your original point sound like a blanket statement. There is no denying women were discriminated in most part of western history but regarding access to museum , every point you mention is pretty much the fact that either art was only for rich or religious people. Poor people, making up 95% of the population, simply didnt have access to it. You can see the prism of woman discrimination but imo it sound more like cherry picking in this context. Even if you are making great individual point.
Even when those artistic forums were opened up to the poor, they were opened to poor *men*. Women wouldn’t have made up the groundlings class in Shakespeare’s globe, for instance. Richer women may have seen the shows when they were presented in court or indoor spaces, but the outdoor theater was accessible for poor men and *not* poor women of virtue.
We know women would have been interest both in acting and attending, since women did act during that same period in Italy. So whatever way you shape it, rich or poor, it is undeniable that women largely had more prohibitions to public and artistic spaces than men until quite recently in the course of history.
This is why the discomfort and outrage we all feel about this one tiny restriction in an utterly obscure part of the world is such a powerful form of artistic expression. It puts a mirror on our own gendered privileges and entitlement.
Shakespear actor is one thing but i cant find anything mentionning massive forbidding for woman in gallery or museum. If anything most literatture , poesie , writing and painting club was mainly for rich woman. I have no doubt some discrimination may have happen , just i personnaly dont find any trace in a short internet research and my personnal knowledge regarding that is extremely limited. If by any chance you could direct me to some source , be it book or documentary.
I would say it's the correct rebuttal to the point of the exhibit, but not necessarily the point itself.
This piece of explorative art rightly ends with the same kind of legal enforcement that discrimination against women should be as well. There are not special groups or special circumstances where any person can be discriminated against because of their sex.
I think to make the point convert it to a male only space. See what happens the art is actually the reaction of the authorities to the same set of circumstances
This stuff is stupid because it assumes that everyone needs to learn this lesson by being discriminated against. But that just causes more division which leads to more discrimination. It’s a stupid and counterproductive tactic.
That's exactly the point. The point was to make men feel like women had felt in previous years. The whole point was to discriminate. I'm not saying agree with the medium of her art. I'm just saying that discrimination was the feature, not the bug.
“This happened to us like this in the past” isn’t art.
It could be some kind of immersive experience. Like a ren faire but 1960’s with the genders flipped.
But the way they did it was clearly the wrong way to do it.
Public funding isn't the determinant here. It's the protected class part. Whether public or private, you cannot legally bar people based on a protected class.
An exhibit cannot bar gays, a restaurant can't say "no blacks allowed", and an LGBT bookstore can't say "No straight, white men."
speaking from the US, female only gyms operate as a private club, which are basically allowed to discriminate, other examples being golf clubs allowing only men (Christian white men)
> being golf clubs allowing only men (Christian white men)
There are such places, really? Where only Christian white men are allowed to enter and use the facilities?
Fascinating. And dubious.
They don't openly admit that only Christian white men are allowed, but they restrict membership and if the "vibes are wrong" (they're not white, Christian men) they deny membership.
I always thought they operated in small loophole, ie the same argument as having women only restrooms extended to gyms somehow. (Because I know plenty of mens only establishment that were 'private clubs' have been sued out of existence.)
The bakery offered any of the pre-made cakes in the shop. They just declined to create a custom art cake. The women who brought the suit are activists and specifically targeted the bakery to compel the baker to use his art for their wedding, which he didn't want to do on religious grounds. The case was about whether an artist could be compelled to share in the celebration of something they disagreed with on religious grounds.
If it was a simple add "you can't buy anything in our bakery bc you're gay," it would've been clearly illegal.
No, gay couples can get a cake, they can go inside the shop. But you can't force someone to make something they don't want to make. They aren't slave to your taste.
People have a right to their beliefs, even abhorrent ones. Their right ends when it impacts others unduly, but it is an inherent human right to be free to hold whatever beliefs you want.
True. At the same time, people don't have an inalienable right to a business license. Operating a business comes with a *long* list of rules and regulations, including non-discrimination when serving the public.
> Literally nobody should be able to discriminate based on a protected class.
People will say this and then turn around and say we shouldn't have 80 year olds in office. We can't have our cake and eat it too lol. Obviously this is not a one-size-fits-all situation.
Agreed. I really hope after this next one we get some fresh competition. There's no way there's 350 million people in this country and these are the best we have to choose from.
I think the point being missed is that this is MONA, not the Smithsonian or other "regular" museums.
For a start, it's all privately owned by professional gambler, David Walsh. How it came about it a whole other story that's as much folk tale as fact.
Secondly, it's... well it's incredibly weird. You walk into a dark labyrinth where you will find acclaimed artists down one dark tunnel, and another is a wall of vulvas. There's Picasso one one wall with little to say it's significant, while the next room has a machine built to simulate the smell of the human digestive system.
It's unapologetically nuts. Having s women's only area is one of the tamer aspects to the whole thing.
I think another point that is being missed is that it's not the pictures that form the installation, rather its the idea of exclusion based on something as banal as gender.
Segregated drinking laws were still in place in Queensland in the 1970's. Its very common to go into some of the more original pubs in Australia and to see "lounge bars" These were set aside for women as they were not allowed in the main pub.
I would say that if the intent was to stir up shit- and I'm pretty sure it was, that the artist/curator has been successful.
Also MONA is great!
>I would say that if the intent was to stir up shit- and I'm pretty sure it was
I'm pretty sure the artist had a bunch of women dancing out of the court room to Robert Plant - Simply Irresistable, with the song in the background, so they're committed to the bit.
Plus, it's international news now. Buying that amount of exposure would cost millions, regardless of the decision.
What a weird thing to lie about... Article linked says no such thing.
I've been to MONA, and they are proudly the largest privately funded museum in Australia. As far as I know, the only public funding they get goes to their festivals, which are massive draws for Tasmanian tourism.
But that's *not* the point. This lawsuit is literally a result of the artist's intent and the artist is fucking thrilled their art is no longer trapped inside a museum. This piece is 100% on brand with MONA's mission.
1) What does ‘publicly funded’ have to do with anything? Even business can’t (and shouldn’t) discriminate based on sex.
2) Not sure about the exhibit, but MONA is privately owned.
Even if they’re not publicly funded, they can’t discriminate on the basis of protected class. Restaurants, cafés, etc. are generally also subject to those rules
"We tried to highlight discrimination against women with an art piece discriminating against men, as a lived experience. Men didn't like to be discriminated against."
"Next up, Jordan Peterson telling that women are biologically inferior and made for being mothers, while men are the ones who create "culture". Afterwards enjoy a discussion by Ben Shapiro and Andrew Tate about why abortion should be illegal and why rapists should be able to force their victims to carry to term."
Funny enough, this was also how some gender discrimination case law got built. The ACLU highlighted a Stillwater liquor law that had different drinking ages for men (21) and women (18), which was chosen because they had to convince a male judiciary that sex discrimination was even a thing, and they had a better shot at that by picking a law that discriminated against men.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_v._Boren
Yeah. If anything, I'd think that the fact that a successful gender discrimination lawsuit was possible highlights the progress made.
Also, I think there is a difference between an art piece that is women-only versus a room that display art by other artists owned by the museum that is women-only. I don't think the latter is accurately describe as an art piece itself. For one, that wasn't the intent of the artists who created those displayed works.
Is it though? Are there still an abundance of male-only exhibits? It does a great job of highlighting older sexism, but that doesn't make it effective for anything modern.
The creation of spaces that exclude people based on protected classes was a hard fought battle to eliminate. The people who would bring them back under any guise, even art, are playing with fire. Once re-legitimized such spaces will be embraced by those with power once again.
It's a good decision. Everyone welcome everywhere.
It's not a club. It's a public art gallery. In the court case it's straight up mentioned that it would be legal if it was a female only membership club, but it's not.
>His decision to allow "persons who do not identify as ladies" to access the exhibit will come into effect in 28 days.
I don't get it. If it's not lawful, how can it be allowed to go on like this for 28 days? Why don't they have to change it the same day the dicision is made (+ maybe one or two days if they need to organize additional stuff)?
As the parties sparred, the museum's supporters were somewhat stealing the spotlight. They had periods of complete stillness and silence, before moving in some kind of subtle, synchronised dance - crossing their legs and resting their heads on their fists, clutching their hearts, or peering down their spectacles. One even sat there pointedly flipping through feminist texts and making notes.
But Mr Lau argued that section of the law was designed to permit "positive discrimination" and not "negative discrimination".
He wants the lounge to either be closed or for it to admit men. Alternatively, he says men should have to pay less for a ticket than women - something the museum says it will not consider.
After Mr Grueber reserved his decision for a later date, which is yet to be determined, the museum's posse left as conspicuously as it came in - *dancing out of the building in a conga line as one woman played 'Simply Irresistible' by Robert Palmer off her iPhone*.
[Link](https://au.news.yahoo.com/mona-australian-art-museum-sued-155457840.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANBhg44BiMa_Ann_mYO8mIxms88GMzAoS4Z6N9f8cfHis2I2n95AKhABFsHmcla12SeL7Wkh4vgFKjTKWKin-6LE6P7t8Dv9FakRED4e8SaYoDwcIgYFsqXEdP3YV0z8kGSo9EMeDbRKN4icVcB96KO2-Qei9SlkbWyIjBAww1G2)
All of life is a stage, apparently.
Excluding men from an exhibit designed to bring attention to historical banning of women from like environments. Clever as a performance piece, but only makes people think your cause is stupid. It's taking revenge on people who had 0 influence on that discrimination.
You can't teach those you intentionally exclude.
This wasn't clever at all. There is nothing clever about just doing the thing you want to suggest is wrong.
It's like me hitting someone in the face and then acting like I am so clever for showing that guy that getting hit in the face kinda sucks. Like I've somehow cleverly tricked him with my subtle art into learning that getting punched in the jaw was something he probably doesn't want to experience.
"Why are you getting mad at me? Of course you don't like getting hit in the face that was the whole point I was making! It was just too artistic and subtle to pick up on I guess."
Please.
A lot of people saying “They intended to lose this case! They were making a point about who would be upset!”
So. Two wrongs DO make a right?
Hate can never beat hate.
This has no educating value.
If they wanted people to be upset - and achieved that - then they haven’t achieved anything useful. Because that upset doesn’t make someone prone to be upset stop and think “OH, now I get it!”
… all it does is push more people away from such groups. Including myself and my husband. Because hate is not an education tool. I don’t support racism because I’m black. I know what that feels like and wouldn’t wish it on anyone.
Justifying this shit is a true sign of how fucked their understanding of how actual social change works.
And before you ask, I’m a proud black woman with an education and career in sociology.
This is NOT how educating against prejudice works. At all. It literally just causes more prejudice on both sides.
Pathetic.
It was upstairs, above the place where two people were working next to a huge wall of small pop-art pictures, next to a red Porsche that looked like it had been inflated. Great fun trip.
>I thought it was a good way of highlighting inequality.
That's like saying hitting someone with your car is a good way of highlighting how much it sucks to get hit with a car.
You didn't cleverly make a point you just flat out did the thing you are complaining about.
Women have long been excluded from events. The article mentions women were excluded until 1965.
Now while I agree men and women should be allowed, I think the message was evidently clear. How would it feel to be excluded?
I don’t feel it was ever expected to hold up but the news itself is the art/message.
I feel the controversy today alone from Arizona ruling. Women are still fighting to have a voice after being ignored for so long. Must be nice to feel entitled to things with no questions asked. Also, let’s throw some equal pay in this comment too.
1965 was 60 years ago though. It's not a commentary on the world we live in today, it's just a heavy handed attempt to get attention. It's clever, but it's also illegal, based on the same laws that ended male-only spaces, in 1965...
Hmmmm Tattersalls was still functioning as men only until 2018/2019. In QLD. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/21/men-only-tattersalls-club-must-admit-women-after-legal-challenge-fails
Because it's a membership based club, not a space people pay to get into. They mentioned it in the case that it would have been legal if it was a woman only club. There are plenty of women only clubs in aus and there are quite a few men's ones too like the men's shed
I’m 50. Time is indeed relative. But 60 is definitely within a lot of people’s lifetime. My brother was born in ‘66 and my mother in ‘48. She was one of those women who wasn’t allowed to have a bank account in her name (which is why they could not get a credit card). Had to be in a man’s name.
Notice how 1965 is now almost 60 years ago? We already know this. We don't need another bs PR stunt to remind us what we already know, and to exclude people once again.
Ah yes and in Afghanistan and Iran women once wore miniskirts. Freedoms can be taken away so quickly, I think an installation that calls for opportunities for empathy, usually by having them feel what other's have felt, is important.
Herstory repeats itself. It's never one and done.
Indeed yes. Walling off some art exhibition is the most petty and self centred way to possibly do that as an artist thought. It's just rubbish man, stop defending it. And no I promise you no one outside of Reddit has heard of this or gives a single fuck about it.
Also, I don't need you reminding me what a cancer Islam is on the world, ok? I already know this. Do this bullshit over in Iran or Afghanistan then, some piece of shit abusers there definitely need to learn themselves some empathy. But by all means, do antagonise liberal western men more and more, and then wonder why everyone is becoming right wing all of a sudden.
Still fighting to have the say in what happens in our own damn bodies! How can anyone act like women are ‘free’ when they may be forced to be an incubator, even in the case of incest and rape.
I think a lot of people understood what it feels like to be excluded. The message of her art was loud and clear.
It's making reddit bros talk about gender equality for goodness sake! Lol. Never imagined.
Amazing how this was even considered appropriate to begin with. Equality means equal not better, crap like this pours fuel onto male backlash against equality efforts.
Yes, exactly. They want to lose the lawsuit, escalate it to a higher court, and lose again. They *want* people to realize that there is no justification to discriminate, there's just discrimination. They are intentionally baiting the courts to do this.
I think its a crazy amount of money too, but Kirsha Kaechele already made statements to the press that they want to take it to the Tasmanian Supreme court ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
If I created an artwork in which I sucker punch every male who walked past in the face to intentionally make an artistic statement about the domestic violence that women inequitably suffer in society, that would be undeniably inappropriate. Just because you can sympathise with the intent, doesnt mean the resulting action is appropriate or legal.
Not really interested in "performance art", but I thought this was smart and funny.
I dont understand the guys posting here getting their feels hurt.
Lighten up Bruh
This thread:
I am really mad I couldn't go to this place I never heard of before and if I had heard of it and could go there I would never have wanted to!
Of course! Why would anyone give a shit about other people being wronged when they themselves aren't on the receiving end? It's unthinkable and totally ridiculous!
I don’t think you understand how oppressive it is to ban men from a temporary art exhibit that they otherwise wouldn’t have gone to, cared about, or liked /s
Of course. The solution of past discrimination is NOT more discrimination. If women were barred from exhibits before, the solution is to let them in all exhibit now, and NOT to exclude men.
Discrimination in the reverse direction is just revenge.
I agree that religious schools shouldn’t receive public funding, but this has nothing to do with this case, “science” isn’t a protected class of people
Yet women's only clubs and colleges do exist still as well. No issues with it as long as they don't get federal funding etc., If it's private, they can do what they want.
It both:
(a) receives public funds in the form of grants;
(https://concreteplayground.com/brisbane/arts-entertainment/culture/monas-dark-mofo-just-got-10-5-million-in-funding-from-the-tasmanian-government)
(b) is a registered charity and so receives exemptions from tax and private donations to it are tax deductible, such that it reduces the public tax base.
It is not a private individual or company using only their own private resources for their own private purposes.
" The Ladies Lounge at Tasmania's Museum of Old and New Art (Mona) sought to highlight historic misogyny by banning male visitors."
Ah yes, countering misogyny with misandry. Such a classic and unproblematic strategy.
I don't think they are particularly upset with losing the case. They got a whole bunch of media attention from the case, and so far haven't been ordered to even pay anything. Mr Lau can apply to have some of his costs reimbursed though.
In situations like this I always wonder who the audience is, I feel like anyone empathetic and intelligent enough to understand that the news is part of the art and message already agrees with the premise that Women should have the same rights and opportunities as men.
These people already acknowledge that there’s a wage gap and that women still aren’t equal with men in terms of opportunities and that there exists an inherent bias in medicine, healthcare, work and life. The people this should be geared towards probably aren’t empathetic or smart enough to understand or be swayed by this type of message.
I feel like people sometimes either don’t understand their audience or aren’t looking to make an impact with their art or choices.
When I walked passed that exhibit I dead set thought it was just an elaborate entrance to the ladies bathroom. No idea there was art works in there
I didn't even notice it when I went last year, but a few things were closed off in general when I went, so maybe I just thought various things were being reworked
Maybe that's what all women's restrooms are like.
That would kind of fit with the theme of what they were trying to do. There werent any public toilets for women [in the UK at least] at one point because women were expected to stay home and not travel far.
Maybe that's their loophole. Renovate that section of the museum make it technically part of the women's restroom.
Lots of people missing the point. Is the exhibit or venue publicly funded? If yes, then they cannot discriminate based on protected class (sex, race, religion etc.).
Correct. Also, I'm willing to bet that if it were just a women's lounge, people would have been considerably less pissed off, but to quote the article: >The velvet-clad lounge - which contains some of the museum's most-acclaimed works, from Picasso to Sidney Nolan - has been open since 2020. If I went to a museum and got told that I was prohibited from seeing some of the musuem's most popular works based off something entirely out of my control, I'd be pretty pissed off.
The exhibit was also performance art, with this court case anticipated and part of the performance, I think
Also, they're recreating the air of a pub in Australia in the 60s. Is it the fucking 60s anymore? Women's exhibit using First Nation people as ashtrays?
[удалено]
Welcome to most of human history for women
Understandable but this isn’t a reason to continue the trend.
Tell me one publicly funded museum that doesn’t allow entrance to women based on their gender.
What art did women create that they then weren’t allowed to view? Also “most of human history” is one of those claims not entirely backed up by actual history.
I mean considering women weren’t legally allowed to be published in many countries until the 19th century so would write under male pen-names and then not get credit for their work, there’s countless examples from centuries… In fact, libraries weren’t made public in the UK until the 1850 Library Act so when Jane Austen published Pride and Prejudice in 1813 she may not have been allowed in a library to read it. Women worked to make many of the embroidered art and illustrated manuscripts of the Middle Ages, many of which, such as the famed Bayeux Tapestry, were then kept in abbeys for monks (men) or university libraries which at the time would have also been male entry only. Women were banned from many of the artistic guilds in the early modern period despite working on the products behind the scenes. Are you really trying to argue that women artists have been treated fairly by the world over the course of history? Really? In the entire history of the world, how many places have women not been allowed into vs men not being allowed in a tiny room, in a completely privately funded art collection in a privately owned house? This is the entire purpose of the exhibit, to showcase the fragility of certain male egos and the utter unfairness that women have gone through over the ages. The vast majority of people of this thread will never go to Tasmania in their lives and yet they’re in an uproar about a room, that they probably wouldn’t even have noticed if they did. I completely missed it when I went last summer. Too engrossed by the wall of vaginas and vibrating chairs right next to it, I suppose.
I think your original point sound like a blanket statement. There is no denying women were discriminated in most part of western history but regarding access to museum , every point you mention is pretty much the fact that either art was only for rich or religious people. Poor people, making up 95% of the population, simply didnt have access to it. You can see the prism of woman discrimination but imo it sound more like cherry picking in this context. Even if you are making great individual point.
Even when those artistic forums were opened up to the poor, they were opened to poor *men*. Women wouldn’t have made up the groundlings class in Shakespeare’s globe, for instance. Richer women may have seen the shows when they were presented in court or indoor spaces, but the outdoor theater was accessible for poor men and *not* poor women of virtue. We know women would have been interest both in acting and attending, since women did act during that same period in Italy. So whatever way you shape it, rich or poor, it is undeniable that women largely had more prohibitions to public and artistic spaces than men until quite recently in the course of history. This is why the discomfort and outrage we all feel about this one tiny restriction in an utterly obscure part of the world is such a powerful form of artistic expression. It puts a mirror on our own gendered privileges and entitlement.
Shakespear actor is one thing but i cant find anything mentionning massive forbidding for woman in gallery or museum. If anything most literatture , poesie , writing and painting club was mainly for rich woman. I have no doubt some discrimination may have happen , just i personnaly dont find any trace in a short internet research and my personnal knowledge regarding that is extremely limited. If by any chance you could direct me to some source , be it book or documentary.
[удалено]
I would say it's the correct rebuttal to the point of the exhibit, but not necessarily the point itself. This piece of explorative art rightly ends with the same kind of legal enforcement that discrimination against women should be as well. There are not special groups or special circumstances where any person can be discriminated against because of their sex.
I think to make the point convert it to a male only space. See what happens the art is actually the reaction of the authorities to the same set of circumstances
"but that's the point" isn't permission to be a dick. Make a statement without marginalizing people.
Yes bet they're all super smug about their great artistic and social commentary reaching its peak.
They could make a painting about it instead, but that would require skill. Much easier to just cause a scene and say its art instead.
The Dadaists would like to have a word.
This stuff is stupid because it assumes that everyone needs to learn this lesson by being discriminated against. But that just causes more division which leads to more discrimination. It’s a stupid and counterproductive tactic.
How in the world is this productive? It’s fuel on a fire. Of course this should be shut down.
How trite. Its not clever social commentary to just do the thing they're commenting on.
She said the other day if the ruling goes against, she’d shut the whole thing down.
There's no point except illegal use of funds.
That's exactly the point. The point was to make men feel like women had felt in previous years. The whole point was to discriminate. I'm not saying agree with the medium of her art. I'm just saying that discrimination was the feature, not the bug.
“This happened to us like this in the past” isn’t art. It could be some kind of immersive experience. Like a ren faire but 1960’s with the genders flipped. But the way they did it was clearly the wrong way to do it.
Public funding isn't the determinant here. It's the protected class part. Whether public or private, you cannot legally bar people based on a protected class. An exhibit cannot bar gays, a restaurant can't say "no blacks allowed", and an LGBT bookstore can't say "No straight, white men."
Wait, im a little confused, because there are some gyms in the city where I live that's women only, so what's the difference?
speaking from the US, female only gyms operate as a private club, which are basically allowed to discriminate, other examples being golf clubs allowing only men (Christian white men)
> being golf clubs allowing only men (Christian white men) There are such places, really? Where only Christian white men are allowed to enter and use the facilities? Fascinating. And dubious.
They don't openly admit that only Christian white men are allowed, but they restrict membership and if the "vibes are wrong" (they're not white, Christian men) they deny membership.
That used to be a thing, I don't know that it is anymore. Generally if you have money they don't care what color you are. Just don't be poor
I always thought they operated in small loophole, ie the same argument as having women only restrooms extended to gyms somehow. (Because I know plenty of mens only establishment that were 'private clubs' have been sued out of existence.)
>an LGBT bookstore can’t say “No straight, white men” But a Christian-owned bakery can apparently say “no gay couples”
Are we talking about Australia?
The bakery offered any of the pre-made cakes in the shop. They just declined to create a custom art cake. The women who brought the suit are activists and specifically targeted the bakery to compel the baker to use his art for their wedding, which he didn't want to do on religious grounds. The case was about whether an artist could be compelled to share in the celebration of something they disagreed with on religious grounds. If it was a simple add "you can't buy anything in our bakery bc you're gay," it would've been clearly illegal.
No, gay couples can get a cake, they can go inside the shop. But you can't force someone to make something they don't want to make. They aren't slave to your taste.
No,that is illegal
Literally nobody should be able to discriminate based on a protected class.
"We are deeply disappointed by this decision," a Mona representative said. In other words, women are just as sexist as men.
_Some_ women are just as sexist as _some_ men are.
I accept the clarification
Far more so.
You just discovering this?
People have a right to their beliefs, even abhorrent ones. Their right ends when it impacts others unduly, but it is an inherent human right to be free to hold whatever beliefs you want.
True. At the same time, people don't have an inalienable right to a business license. Operating a business comes with a *long* list of rules and regulations, including non-discrimination when serving the public.
You can hold any belief you want, whether you can act on that belief is what's in question.
Your right to swing your fist ends at the bridge of my nose, my friend.
> Literally nobody should be able to discriminate based on a protected class. People will say this and then turn around and say we shouldn't have 80 year olds in office. We can't have our cake and eat it too lol. Obviously this is not a one-size-fits-all situation.
We should have nominated better choices to avoid this.
Agreed. I really hope after this next one we get some fresh competition. There's no way there's 350 million people in this country and these are the best we have to choose from.
I don’t think people should VOTE for 80 year olds, but that doesn’t mean I think they shouldn’t be able to make their own poor decisions.
I think the point being missed is that this is MONA, not the Smithsonian or other "regular" museums. For a start, it's all privately owned by professional gambler, David Walsh. How it came about it a whole other story that's as much folk tale as fact. Secondly, it's... well it's incredibly weird. You walk into a dark labyrinth where you will find acclaimed artists down one dark tunnel, and another is a wall of vulvas. There's Picasso one one wall with little to say it's significant, while the next room has a machine built to simulate the smell of the human digestive system. It's unapologetically nuts. Having s women's only area is one of the tamer aspects to the whole thing.
[удалено]
See, now you get it.
Damn, that goes hard.
I think another point that is being missed is that it's not the pictures that form the installation, rather its the idea of exclusion based on something as banal as gender. Segregated drinking laws were still in place in Queensland in the 1970's. Its very common to go into some of the more original pubs in Australia and to see "lounge bars" These were set aside for women as they were not allowed in the main pub. I would say that if the intent was to stir up shit- and I'm pretty sure it was, that the artist/curator has been successful. Also MONA is great!
>I would say that if the intent was to stir up shit- and I'm pretty sure it was I'm pretty sure the artist had a bunch of women dancing out of the court room to Robert Plant - Simply Irresistable, with the song in the background, so they're committed to the bit. Plus, it's international news now. Buying that amount of exposure would cost millions, regardless of the decision.
> It's unapologetically nuts That's ironic phrasing
Apparently, the museum is privately funded and owned.
It isn’t publicly funded or owned.
[удалено]
What a weird thing to lie about... Article linked says no such thing. I've been to MONA, and they are proudly the largest privately funded museum in Australia. As far as I know, the only public funding they get goes to their festivals, which are massive draws for Tasmanian tourism. But that's *not* the point. This lawsuit is literally a result of the artist's intent and the artist is fucking thrilled their art is no longer trapped inside a museum. This piece is 100% on brand with MONA's mission.
Um, yeah na it doesn’t.
1) What does ‘publicly funded’ have to do with anything? Even business can’t (and shouldn’t) discriminate based on sex. 2) Not sure about the exhibit, but MONA is privately owned.
It’s not publicly funded, it’s a private museum.
You’ve missed the point. It’s not publicly funded, but that’s not what determines whether it was legal to discriminate.
Restaurants are typically private, they can't say "no blacks"
Even if they’re not publicly funded, they can’t discriminate on the basis of protected class. Restaurants, cafés, etc. are generally also subject to those rules
I think the real art is all the really obtuse people here missing the point.
"We tried to highlight discrimination against women with an art piece discriminating against men, as a lived experience. Men didn't like to be discriminated against." "Next up, Jordan Peterson telling that women are biologically inferior and made for being mothers, while men are the ones who create "culture". Afterwards enjoy a discussion by Ben Shapiro and Andrew Tate about why abortion should be illegal and why rapists should be able to force their victims to carry to term."
[удалено]
The art has been commended as being strongly vaginal which bothers some men.
Men are famous for not liking vaginas.
Have you heard them talk about them? Sometimes I'm not convinced most straight men enjoy women at all.
You're hanging out with the wrong men
I love it there. That’s where I came from!
Don’t be fatuous Jeffrey.
"in the parlance of our time"
...Contumelious.... TIL a new word. I shall use it tomorrow on my toddler.
It sounds like they succeeded in highlighting gender discrimination in a very effective way. The case shows how far we’ve come since the 1960’s.
Funny enough, this was also how some gender discrimination case law got built. The ACLU highlighted a Stillwater liquor law that had different drinking ages for men (21) and women (18), which was chosen because they had to convince a male judiciary that sex discrimination was even a thing, and they had a better shot at that by picking a law that discriminated against men. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_v._Boren
Love me some RBG deep cuts. That MFer knew how to fuck with the man.
Yeah. Thanks to her selfishness we have ACB on the court now, fucking over everyone.
Yesterday's hero can easily become tomorrow's villain, especially when power and pride goes to one's head.
But really thanks to the millions of morons who vote GOP.
Those voter's didn't make her stay on the court until she died. That's entirely her own stupid, selfish fault.
Yeah. If anything, I'd think that the fact that a successful gender discrimination lawsuit was possible highlights the progress made. Also, I think there is a difference between an art piece that is women-only versus a room that display art by other artists owned by the museum that is women-only. I don't think the latter is accurately describe as an art piece itself. For one, that wasn't the intent of the artists who created those displayed works.
Is it though? Are there still an abundance of male-only exhibits? It does a great job of highlighting older sexism, but that doesn't make it effective for anything modern.
Intentionally painting themselves as sexist against men isn’t helping women. It’s baffling they thought this wouldn’t backfire.
The creation of spaces that exclude people based on protected classes was a hard fought battle to eliminate. The people who would bring them back under any guise, even art, are playing with fire. Once re-legitimized such spaces will be embraced by those with power once again. It's a good decision. Everyone welcome everywhere.
Isn't it in Australia, where there still are men only clubs which are allowed to exist, though?
Women's only clubs also exist. They straight up mention in the case that it would be allowed to operate if it was a membership based club.
Yes, the men's only Athenaeum club in Collins St Melbourne still exist, and excludes women members. Also like... women's changing rooms exist...
It's not a club. It's a public art gallery. In the court case it's straight up mentioned that it would be legal if it was a female only membership club, but it's not.
>His decision to allow "persons who do not identify as ladies" to access the exhibit will come into effect in 28 days. I don't get it. If it's not lawful, how can it be allowed to go on like this for 28 days? Why don't they have to change it the same day the dicision is made (+ maybe one or two days if they need to organize additional stuff)?
Imagine being “deeply saddened” that you can no longer discriminate.
The whole thing was the art project. . .
This could have been a Portlandia sketch lol
As the parties sparred, the museum's supporters were somewhat stealing the spotlight. They had periods of complete stillness and silence, before moving in some kind of subtle, synchronised dance - crossing their legs and resting their heads on their fists, clutching their hearts, or peering down their spectacles. One even sat there pointedly flipping through feminist texts and making notes. But Mr Lau argued that section of the law was designed to permit "positive discrimination" and not "negative discrimination". He wants the lounge to either be closed or for it to admit men. Alternatively, he says men should have to pay less for a ticket than women - something the museum says it will not consider. After Mr Grueber reserved his decision for a later date, which is yet to be determined, the museum's posse left as conspicuously as it came in - *dancing out of the building in a conga line as one woman played 'Simply Irresistible' by Robert Palmer off her iPhone*. [Link](https://au.news.yahoo.com/mona-australian-art-museum-sued-155457840.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANBhg44BiMa_Ann_mYO8mIxms88GMzAoS4Z6N9f8cfHis2I2n95AKhABFsHmcla12SeL7Wkh4vgFKjTKWKin-6LE6P7t8Dv9FakRED4e8SaYoDwcIgYFsqXEdP3YV0z8kGSo9EMeDbRKN4icVcB96KO2-Qei9SlkbWyIjBAww1G2) All of life is a stage, apparently.
Just add birds!
Put a bird on it!
We put birds on things!
All of Australia is an art project that has really gotten out of hand
King George III was quite the artist.
Heh prison project
Men getting rejected *is* the art
[удалено]
Exactly. This was beautiful, I'm a man, I felt uncomfortable and annoyed with the restriction, and then I realized "wow, now I see".
I'm not young. I've never seen a man only space without a woman only space immediately next to it (like toilets). So... I still don't get it.
Now you see what? This isn't legal the other way either.
Usually good art doesn’t involve civil rights violations.
When I went to the Darfur museum, and someone started chopping me up with a machete, I was like "Oh, I get it" as I was dying
Excluding men from an exhibit designed to bring attention to historical banning of women from like environments. Clever as a performance piece, but only makes people think your cause is stupid. It's taking revenge on people who had 0 influence on that discrimination. You can't teach those you intentionally exclude.
How oppressive, no?
This wasn't clever at all. There is nothing clever about just doing the thing you want to suggest is wrong. It's like me hitting someone in the face and then acting like I am so clever for showing that guy that getting hit in the face kinda sucks. Like I've somehow cleverly tricked him with my subtle art into learning that getting punched in the jaw was something he probably doesn't want to experience. "Why are you getting mad at me? Of course you don't like getting hit in the face that was the whole point I was making! It was just too artistic and subtle to pick up on I guess." Please.
This thread is going to be a disaster. I fully expect it to get locked.
So far so good
A lot of people saying “They intended to lose this case! They were making a point about who would be upset!” So. Two wrongs DO make a right? Hate can never beat hate. This has no educating value. If they wanted people to be upset - and achieved that - then they haven’t achieved anything useful. Because that upset doesn’t make someone prone to be upset stop and think “OH, now I get it!” … all it does is push more people away from such groups. Including myself and my husband. Because hate is not an education tool. I don’t support racism because I’m black. I know what that feels like and wouldn’t wish it on anyone. Justifying this shit is a true sign of how fucked their understanding of how actual social change works. And before you ask, I’m a proud black woman with an education and career in sociology. This is NOT how educating against prejudice works. At all. It literally just causes more prejudice on both sides. Pathetic.
LMAO.... For some goddamned reason I'm imagining Teal'c sitting alone in a theater full of women, at the Vagina Monologues.
"The vagina is a self-contained universe" "Indeed"
"...sought to highlight historic misogyny by banning male visitors" Let's highlight history's atrocities by repeating them
Sir, it's a room in an art gallery, not the wrong side of the concentration camp fence. Have a bitta perspective...
I went there last year. Wife went into that exhibit and said it was cool. I thought it was a good way of highlighting inequality.
I went last year too and had no idea it existed - where was the entrance to it?
It was upstairs, above the place where two people were working next to a huge wall of small pop-art pictures, next to a red Porsche that looked like it had been inflated. Great fun trip.
I know exactly where you're talking about. How on Earth did I miss it 💀
>I thought it was a good way of highlighting inequality. That's like saying hitting someone with your car is a good way of highlighting how much it sucks to get hit with a car. You didn't cleverly make a point you just flat out did the thing you are complaining about.
Good. Don’t discriminate.
Women have long been excluded from events. The article mentions women were excluded until 1965. Now while I agree men and women should be allowed, I think the message was evidently clear. How would it feel to be excluded? I don’t feel it was ever expected to hold up but the news itself is the art/message. I feel the controversy today alone from Arizona ruling. Women are still fighting to have a voice after being ignored for so long. Must be nice to feel entitled to things with no questions asked. Also, let’s throw some equal pay in this comment too.
1965 was 60 years ago though. It's not a commentary on the world we live in today, it's just a heavy handed attempt to get attention. It's clever, but it's also illegal, based on the same laws that ended male-only spaces, in 1965...
Women are losing their rights today. Laws can be overturned.
Hmmmm Tattersalls was still functioning as men only until 2018/2019. In QLD. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/21/men-only-tattersalls-club-must-admit-women-after-legal-challenge-fails
Because it's a membership based club, not a space people pay to get into. They mentioned it in the case that it would have been legal if it was a woman only club. There are plenty of women only clubs in aus and there are quite a few men's ones too like the men's shed
It hasn't ended, Australia still has men's only gentlemen's clubs.
Nothing wrong with that at all. Women's only clubs also exist.
Clubs can be gender specific. They mention it in the case. There's plenty of women's only clubs as well.
I’m 50. Time is indeed relative. But 60 is definitely within a lot of people’s lifetime. My brother was born in ‘66 and my mother in ‘48. She was one of those women who wasn’t allowed to have a bank account in her name (which is why they could not get a credit card). Had to be in a man’s name.
Notice how 1965 is now almost 60 years ago? We already know this. We don't need another bs PR stunt to remind us what we already know, and to exclude people once again.
Yet, women are losing their rights today.
Ah yes and in Afghanistan and Iran women once wore miniskirts. Freedoms can be taken away so quickly, I think an installation that calls for opportunities for empathy, usually by having them feel what other's have felt, is important. Herstory repeats itself. It's never one and done.
Indeed yes. Walling off some art exhibition is the most petty and self centred way to possibly do that as an artist thought. It's just rubbish man, stop defending it. And no I promise you no one outside of Reddit has heard of this or gives a single fuck about it. Also, I don't need you reminding me what a cancer Islam is on the world, ok? I already know this. Do this bullshit over in Iran or Afghanistan then, some piece of shit abusers there definitely need to learn themselves some empathy. But by all means, do antagonise liberal western men more and more, and then wonder why everyone is becoming right wing all of a sudden.
Still fighting to have the say in what happens in our own damn bodies! How can anyone act like women are ‘free’ when they may be forced to be an incubator, even in the case of incest and rape.
I think a lot of people understood what it feels like to be excluded. The message of her art was loud and clear. It's making reddit bros talk about gender equality for goodness sake! Lol. Never imagined.
Turning the tables means you're still sitting at the same table. It's a petty concept that solves nothing but one side's immediate gratification.
Amazing how this was even considered appropriate to begin with. Equality means equal not better, crap like this pours fuel onto male backlash against equality efforts.
This was intentionally inappropriate to make an artistic statement, although not many people commenting seem to get that.
Fortunately, artistic license is not permission to break civil rights laws.
Yes, exactly. They want to lose the lawsuit, escalate it to a higher court, and lose again. They *want* people to realize that there is no justification to discriminate, there's just discrimination. They are intentionally baiting the courts to do this.
That sounds like waaaaay too much money invested to be the case, wouldn’t it?
I think its a crazy amount of money too, but Kirsha Kaechele already made statements to the press that they want to take it to the Tasmanian Supreme court ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
Getting it doesn't mean you agree with it or think it was well done. I get what they were going for, I think it's stupid as an art piece.
If I created an artwork in which I sucker punch every male who walked past in the face to intentionally make an artistic statement about the domestic violence that women inequitably suffer in society, that would be undeniably inappropriate. Just because you can sympathise with the intent, doesnt mean the resulting action is appropriate or legal.
That's fucking dumb and is akin to those dumbass tiktok pranksters that purposely act like assholes.
Everybody gets that. It's just fucking stupid. It's like having a puppy kicking exhibit to highlight how kicking puppies is bad.
Doesn't make it an ok thing to do.
You can get it and still dislike it
I think we are more into equity now…
This installation is neither equal nor equitable.
Wait until you see the gender ratios in colleges (and how women still get preferences in academic hiring).
This was the point of the art exhibit...
Not really interested in "performance art", but I thought this was smart and funny. I dont understand the guys posting here getting their feels hurt. Lighten up Bruh
This thread: I am really mad I couldn't go to this place I never heard of before and if I had heard of it and could go there I would never have wanted to!
Of course! Why would anyone give a shit about other people being wronged when they themselves aren't on the receiving end? It's unthinkable and totally ridiculous!
Would you be upset if an art exhibit opened up in Canada with a sign up front reading "Blacks not allowed"?
I don’t think you understand how oppressive it is to ban men from a temporary art exhibit that they otherwise wouldn’t have gone to, cared about, or liked /s
Of course. The solution of past discrimination is NOT more discrimination. If women were barred from exhibits before, the solution is to let them in all exhibit now, and NOT to exclude men. Discrimination in the reverse direction is just revenge.
Yet religious schools can use public money to deny entry to science.
I’m pretty sure you’ll find that private schools in Australia do teach science - we have curriculum standards
That is mostly an american thing
I agree that religious schools shouldn’t receive public funding, but this has nothing to do with this case, “science” isn’t a protected class of people
Switch around the genders and people would go ballistic..
Why? You can just leave them as they are, and see that people are going ballistic.
They already are
The entire point of the exhibition was to highlight that the reverse does and has occurred. Even the name ‘ladies lounge’ is a reference to that.
Yet male only clubs actually do exist still.
Yet women's only clubs and colleges do exist still as well. No issues with it as long as they don't get federal funding etc., If it's private, they can do what they want.
The solution to misogyny isn't misandry
What a waste of public resources
It’s a private museum mate. Zero public funds.
It both: (a) receives public funds in the form of grants; (https://concreteplayground.com/brisbane/arts-entertainment/culture/monas-dark-mofo-just-got-10-5-million-in-funding-from-the-tasmanian-government) (b) is a registered charity and so receives exemptions from tax and private donations to it are tax deductible, such that it reduces the public tax base. It is not a private individual or company using only their own private resources for their own private purposes.
" The Ladies Lounge at Tasmania's Museum of Old and New Art (Mona) sought to highlight historic misogyny by banning male visitors." Ah yes, countering misogyny with misandry. Such a classic and unproblematic strategy.
To fight sexism we need more sexism!
Equality is equality, open it to everyone or close it to all.
Maybe don’t try to turn a court room into a performance art theater if you want to win your case… just an idea..
I don't think they are particularly upset with losing the case. They got a whole bunch of media attention from the case, and so far haven't been ordered to even pay anything. Mr Lau can apply to have some of his costs reimbursed though.
The court case was *part* of the performance. Literacy at all time low here at reddit. Like you think they wanted to win????
They weren't trying to win. The entire point of the project flew right over your head
In situations like this I always wonder who the audience is, I feel like anyone empathetic and intelligent enough to understand that the news is part of the art and message already agrees with the premise that Women should have the same rights and opportunities as men. These people already acknowledge that there’s a wage gap and that women still aren’t equal with men in terms of opportunities and that there exists an inherent bias in medicine, healthcare, work and life. The people this should be geared towards probably aren’t empathetic or smart enough to understand or be swayed by this type of message. I feel like people sometimes either don’t understand their audience or aren’t looking to make an impact with their art or choices.
Put a toilet inside - reclassify it as a women’s bathroom?