Yeah this is a reason I think this is dumb. Who decides what a woman is here? Australia doesn’t even have bathroom laws discriminating against trans people as far as I know. How do they enforce this, by just telling people who they think look too much like a man to leave? By asking for their ID and only allowing in people who legally changed their gender?
Women’s safe spaces are important. This is not how to do it.
Is this the intent of the artist? Are they making a statement about gender identity? Was the baseless discrimination the art all along? This specific article doesn’t make it clear to me, but maybe I missed something.
brb gonna change my private school’s status to a urinal because I believe that women’s place is at home and therefore they shouldn’t get any education. For a good a good measure, I’ll do the same to the office building, the driving school, and the airline I own.
The point is to draw attention to the stupid laws and get it fixed. The initial premise is shocking and I can understand that it’s upsetting, and it’s okay to feel that way. No judgements here.
Just channel that anger towards the correct target
I know that it’s a rage-bait. I just looked up the shit they do in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia and threw some together for the defenders of gender segregation to see. Thought I was replying to someone so it’d be clear, but oh well, my fish memory.
Unless there is a woods in the bathroom, nope. But the bear will steal your picnic basket. (The assholes will also eat all the apples off your apple trees and break the limbs off of them in the process).
MONA is famous here for doing all sorts of controversial shit. This one time they sacrificed and butchered a cow live on stage. A women’s only space is tame and on brand. Everyone’s been baited
It’s actually pretty wild how successful it is. All of Walshie’s/MONA’s previous stunts have only generated local controversy. This one has transcended borders. Most of us here have grown pretty desensitised to Walshie’s antics so personally it’s quite fun seeing the world get a taste of undiluted Walshie.
Yup. Thousands of years of female exclusion - and it still continues in circles to this day, but one museum and now they’re crying about basically re-excluding women from everything as a “thought exercise.”
It’s honestly shocking how many people are missing the point.
They just need to read the article and it basically spells it out. The whole thing is meant to be shocking in order to draw attention to the stupid laws and get them fixed.
It’s right there, both the motive and the solution.
At least with the bear it was less well documented and kinda took some background knowledge and extra thought to understand. But this one is just RIGHT THERE spelled out in the article 🤷
Another fun fact, two men actually sued. One dropped the issue after being told the purpose of the art installation and realised he was about to be made a spectacle, the other went full steam ahead.
Gender may be a social construct, but I recognize that I’m privileged to not have to care too much about mine.
Now, the point of the exhibition was actually about historical men-only places where women experienced exclusion. The art is not only the exhibition itself, but also the sense of rejection that men feel in not being allowed in. I would be surprised if they didn’t allow transwomen and non-binary folk in, as there are many spaces that don’t welcome them even now.
The artist said she wants to demonstrate that gender is meaningless, I think a lot of people are painting their opinions over the artists because they assume because they’re sure their opinion is right that all right thinking people will agree. It’s similar with science, people assume the thing that feels scientific is right even when actual science disagrees.
men can just choose to identify as women if they want to go in because gender, according to the artist, is a meaningless construct. It’s a fairly common idea, people can choose to identify as any gender for any reason for any amount of time.
I’m having a hard time finding the article right now but I seem to recall that the artwork was curated in a way to showcase artwork that previously hung in men-only spaces.
I don’t disagree about the artist having that view of gender but I still think that there are people (both cis and trans) to whom their gender is very important for them, and again I recognize the privilege of feeling that gender is unimportant.
I think the idea of teaching laundry and ironing on Sundays is hilarious though
I feel that many things are important to me which I could choose to change at any time for any reason, I could choose to never speak to my parents if I choose to and many do but they’re still important to me.
But in some people and some cultures particularly the idea of never speaking to your parents again is unconscionable. I know because I was told I had no morals for decisions I made in my life that had no effect on anyone else. Different strokes for different folks. If a choice is incompatible with your worldview then it’s not a real choice.
In some cultures letting a gay or trans person live is unconscionable, there is no link between how random cultures feel and morality. There is no reason to base a progressive and modern society on cruel social traditions.
If you want to change your gender at this exhibit in Australia then you are free to do so, if your cultural baggage makes the idea disgusting to you then either work on that or choose to miss out on this art and many other beautiful things because maintaining hurtful traditions is more important to you.
Your last point is very true. Thank you for framing it like that.
Edit: That’s not to say your first point isn’t true, just that I believe that a distinction is necessary between choices that affect only oneself and choices that affect others. I just felt it was poignant how those choices and baggage that affect our worldview also narrow our experiences
What? I’m talking about actual men’s clubs where women weren’t allowed or wanted, until they were because you couldn’t have exclusionary rules like that
Was just saying how I wish there were women only gyms because I don’t feel comfortable in coed gyms. Men are fucking creeps and do not respect personal space in my gym going experience. The reason there are no women only gyms in California is because men’s rights groups sued them for discrimination. So basically there aren’t any safe places to go to the gym for people like me.
edit: good to see the lack of reciprocity or willingness to look at this issue for what it actually is from certain instances.
One is being exercised as a demonstration and if there were places for women, like gyms it would be out of a feeling for a need for safety. The other was used to implement and maintain a foundationally masculine and abusive structure of power.
Thank you. The reaction to this is vile. Thousands of years of bullshit for being a woman, one art exhibit, and now the dudes are screaming about re-restricting public space to women as if they came up with a thought provoking exercise.
Nope. I’m not supporting the feminist victim narrative here.
I’m just making a simple statement about what exclusive spaces do and do not mean. It’s not hateful to men to have women-only spaces.
Plenty of misandry exists in our culture, mostly fed by that victim narrative you’re espousing. But the simple act of making a woman’s club isn’t an example of misandry.
Um duh? Trans/NB inclusive woman only does kind of cut it. As long as cishet males watch transgender porn, sure all trans/nb/fem people belong to the protected space.
There just flat out is no solution to gender seperate spaces.
Allow only biological women/men? Transphobic, issues for some intersex people, and you now have transpeople that are clearly not the gender their birth sex suggests in the “”“right”“” bathroom, so even for transphobes this doesn’t work.
Have someone stand in front and judge if people are feminine/masculine enough? Absolutely not holy fuck
Allow people based on gender identity? Any bad actor can just pretend. Absolutely the easiest option though, and imo the best one if we have to seperate them. Thankfully also the one usually implemented.
Allow people based on the gender on their ID? Still sucks for trans people as getting that changed isn’t necessarily easy, plus assuming we don’t havr someone check everyone at the entrance, trans people would be more likely to have someone complain and have to justify themselves. If we make it as easy as it probably should be, bad actors can abuse it just the same.
Thinking about how to make women feel safer in for example gyms seems like a better long term solution for absolutely everyone, but also doesn’t feel like it’s talked about a lot.
The real problem is that gyms don’t pay enough to hire enough good employees. Most people who work at a gym are there because they have free access to the gym. Gym owners are cheap, mainly because gym-goers are cheap.
Have you ever been to a bank and felt unsafe? That’s much rarer because banks have spent a lot of time and money on making you feel safe. Any customers are under constant surveillance and usually on their best behavior.
The real problem is that gyms don’t pay enough to hire enough good employees. Most people who work at a gym are there because they have free access to the gym. Gym owners are cheap, mainly because gym-goers are cheap.
I can’t solve that problem. But me and a few like minded people might be able to pool our resources and open a gym for women only, where they can feel safe.
Even contemplating that "pretending a gender identity" is a backdoor for bad actors is preposterous though. No such evidence from all countries that have self-identification laws. On the contrary abusers and rapists are prevalent in all walks of life without even going through the fuss of "pretending to be trans". Scores of trans people use bathrooms all the same because they are cis-passing. Majority of women feeling ok with trans women using the bathroom. Cis people with non-conforming appearance getting targeted, prominently lesbians. So just the fact that this makes the list is unacceptable and an outcome of toxic evangelical propaganda on the subject. Bathroom usage by gender identity is enabling exactly zero predators. So please stop bringing it up.
Thinking about how to make women feel safer in for example gyms seems like a better long term solution for absolutely everyone, but also doesn’t feel like it’s talked about a lot.
That’s because it ends up being the bear meme discussion in microcosm. (At least every time I’ve seen it come up.)
Context - cisgendered man here, FWIW.
Every time I’ve seen any discussion of helping women to feel safer in any context, that discussion is full of men who are offended that women even feel the need to be safer, because they tend not to believe that sexual harassment is as common for women as every woman in my life has repeatedly told me it is. So the conversation becomes about the women being “oversensitive” (or similar euphamism/synonym), not about making the discussed environment safer.
I can’t fathom why I’d give a shit about not being able to go work out a particular gym because women wanted a place to feel safe, unless it was literally the only gym within 50 miles. (And I’m doubtful that’s a common scenario.)
So, the short version of this is that you feel explicit sex discrimination is not only acceptable but good, but only in cases where it makes women feel better?
Because I guarantee you most of the people who make the kinds of arguments you are here are not broadly in favor of businesses being allowed to discriminate with respect to sex in general, in large part because it would sometimes inconvenience women.
The short version is that I think safe places for people who have a reason to need them should be encouraged not discouraged. Focusing on equating that to scenarios where people are just being bigots feels fairly disingenuous to me.
I guarantee you that the folks who make the sorts of argument you and others are making here are broadly folks who live in an environment that is and has always been architected in a way that is generally safe and supportive for folks just like them and possibly not so much for folks who aren’t.
Edit:
Thinking about how to make women feel safer in for example gyms seems like a better long term solution for absolutely everyone, but also doesn’t feel like it’s talked about a lot.
That’s because it ends up being the bear meme discussion in microcosm. (At least every time I’ve seen it come up.)
I would also suggest that in your rush to imply I’m a hypocrite you don’t ignore the opening statement to the comment you replied to.
What I said always happens is what we are doing here. So if you have some constructive ideas on how to help women who need it to feel safer in particular spaces (like the gym for example) that works better than letting them open their own damn gym I’d love to hear them.
Women feel unsafe in presence of men? "Outrageous! NOtaLLmEn"
Trans women want to use the bathroom? "They will rape them because they are biologically men." OR "A male rapist will pretend to be trans to rape them".
You can't beat that logic. That's why the nazis like it. Next step is "black men".
and should have just moved to form their own men-only spaces
In CA? Those are illegal except in very narrow exceptions. In most other places they’d be subject to anger, protests, and might be illegal there too (state laws are all over the place on anything that’s up to the states).
Like Title IX, everyone loves the idea of a law mandating that you can’t discriminate right up until someone who’s an “acceptable” target for discrimination makes use of it. See basically any time a boy has invoked Title IX.
My personal favorite example of that being feminist philosopher and icon Mary Daly, who’s teaching career ended due to Title IX because she refused to teach male students.
MRAs are idiots
Ironically, MRAs would love to see the Equal Rights Amendment (so long as it doesn’t include the Hayden Rider or similar) or a federal version of Unruh passed more than anything else. But then it would immediately be used to attack things with explicit sex discrimination like differences in pricing based on sex, differences in facilities offered based on sex, Selective Service, VAWA (actually not sure if the last re-authorization cleaned up the relevant language or not) and the ACA (the contraceptive mandate explicitly only applies to contraceptives for women, including barrier and surgical methods - this means that for example there’s no requirement to cover vasectomy and if vasalgel or the like ever hits market there would be no requirement to cover that either). Likewise, if women are ever required to sign up for Selective Service it will launch dozens of lawsuits across a bunch of states because a bunch of states require men to provide their selective service number to qualify for various things.
Your comfort isn’t protected by law because it’s far too subjective. Discrimination laws are based on tangible, objective truths. It sucks that you don’t like going to the gym but the law leaves you in the lurch. You have to navigate those problems yourself because being a creep isn’t a crime. If that sounds callous, I don’t mean it to be, but if there were laws dictating social behavior and discriminatory spaces, this world would be a worse place than you can imagine.
The reason there are no women only gyms in California is because men’s rights groups sued them for discrimination.
California has one of the strongest anti-discrimination laws in the country, the Unruh Civil Rights Act: “All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.”
It turns out that yes, male is a sex and that means that no, you cannot discriminate against them as a business in California. The same men’s rights group put an end to differential pricing based on sex at bars (aka ladies’ night). You would likely be screaming about the sexism from the top of your lungs if a business refused to take women as customers, or charged women more for the same thing, or any of that sort of thing.
The group in question (NCFM) is better known for challenging Selective Service, and their VP and lawyer in charge of that case being murdered (the killer would then cross the country and shoot two more men [killing one and wounding the other] in a “misogynistic attack” against a federal judge [the two men were her husband and son] before killing himself). The judge in question presided over a different Selective Service related case that the killer had been a lawyer on.
Hypothetically, a gym could probably get away with women-only hours if they either also had a matching number of men-only hours or charged men a discounted rate adjusted for the fact they’re paying for less gym access.
You would likely be screaming about the sexism from the top of your lungs if a business refused to take women as customers, or charged women more for the same thing, or any of that sort of thing.
There’s a bar right down the street. Ah, excuse me, “private club” where this very thing is true. My reaction? shrug My wife’s reaction? shrug
There shouldn’t be such thing as gender x only spaces. Or race, or sexuality. The women aren’t wrong about their points, but that doesn’t make it an acceptable or thankfully, legal thing to do. I’m sure the guy who sued them did it for all the wrong reasons though. Both sides seem a bit slimy.
Why do we need girls locker rooms when we’ve had the technology for mixed gender locker rooms for generations? We call them doors and use them even in single gender bathrooms.
Certainly it’s inappropriate for sexual predators to be able to leer at girls or women, but there I also no need to have a lack of privacy from those of the same gender, if that’s what people wish.
Modern locker rooms can be built with individual stalls so I understand the point being made. Personally though, it’s less efficient to have a locker room with multiple single-serve rooms. Extra material, extra cost, decreased functional area, additional readying time. If you use a locker room frequently you know how invaluable all those things are.
So my work did something like this when they moved buildings. Our old locker room was a long rectangular room with lockers on one side, a bench on the other. No privacy once you were in that space.
New one is mixed usage private change rooms and showers. It’s a huge, huge, huge downgrade on the space. So, anecdotally, not on board. The old one still had bathroom stalls and private bathrooms if you needed it. I don’t understand the push to make it all uniform when that’s not the best use for the majority of the users. I’m not sorry about this opinion.
Not when you only need one large area rather than 2. Building double the showers and a shared area should be more efficient than having 2 sets of half for each gender.
It also makes it easier for families, non binary or trans people.
I mean, I can see where you’re coming from but locker rooms are a significant part of sport.
Comradery is built in locker rooms and they are where young athletes spend a large portion of their sporting time. This is especially true for certain sports needing significant prep time like (ice) hockey.
With young people already facing a loneliness crisis, we don’t need to be isolating them further to solve a non-problem.
Got this one from tumblr but its something along the lines of we go to the bathroom to shit, not have some special women fun time in there.
If there was a way to have my own room entirely without anyone else that’d be 100% preferred, but gender is the last thing im thinking about when someone’s peeking down the cracks of my stall
I’m all for segregation spaces as long as essential spaces are open to all such as hospitals, parks etc. There are women only gyms where I am and I used to go to them because I felt safer and more comfortable.
This is a slippery slope to things you wouldn’t want to be excluded from, if this appeal wins and creates precident to make much worse places. Thinking this is a feminist battle is narrow minded, selfish, and will absolutely backfire.
But the idea is that everyone can open their own and run it by the rules they want. If you or a group don’t like how one thing is run, there is freedom to open up the same thing but make it open for all. This museum is a private one, rather than run by the government, and therefore they can do what they like. The government ones should be open to all because they are elected by the public.
I’m not at all in favour of forcing everyone to comply to uniformity for the sake of inclusivity but I’m all for ensuring that there are spaces available that are inclusive and that there’s freedom to operate how you like, provided that it doesn’t hurt anyone.
So what you’re saying is I can open up a place, put a sign in front with ‘Irish need not apply’ and water fountain inside that says ‘colored only’, and that should be legal according to you?
Only if I’m allowed to open up a space next to you with a water fountain outside and allow everyone in.
In this context, your business plan would severely limit your customer base and therefore end up ruining your own finances than anything else, while my business plan will definitely get more customers.
You plan would only end up working if the society you’re living in is more racist than not, which is not the case in the real world. There’s no need to regulate everything when moral code can do the job just fine.
Or what will happen is all private businesses in communities high in inherent prejudice will exclude certain out groups and pressure any businesses that don’t to either conform or they’ll be boycotted, harassed, and/or vandalized until they go under.
Antidiscrimination law apply everywhere, regardless whether it’s government or public or private. Otherwise America would still have Jim Crow. The laws that stop that stop this too, for the same reason. Discrimination is wrong, full stop. I don’t give a fuck if women want their own spaces, be my guest, but barring people you don’t want and then crying about it is moronic.
I’ve been to lesbian bars with my sister and even though my sister is gay, I got glared at, got scoffs, and sighs. I could tell I wasn’t wanted. It kinda pissed me off, but whatever, I was there to drink with my sister and have fun. Imagine if that was a women only bar and my sister couldn’t bring me. Then imagine all the other lesbian bars my sister wanted to bring me too (because she liked them!) were the same. You get my point. I don’t want to live in that world. Some people do and I say, fuck those nearsighted fools.
Right. I see it similar to flavours. What if regulation stipulated that you needed to have food that everyone could eat? Nothing spicy. Must have meat options at veg restaurants etc. just so that no one would be discriminated against when they went out to eat. You’d miss out on different cultures, opportunities for innovation etc. Variety would die.
So, for context, I’m from Australia and familiar with the exact museum in this article. This museum is known for putting forward very provocative art. For example, there is a wall of plaster mould vaginas and they have a soap in the shape of a vagina called ‘Cunt on a rope’. Last time I was there, they had violent and sexual imagery (with warnings outside the entry). This exhibit is par for the course for MONA. The owner is rich enough to drag the court case to the highest level but the intent has been achieved. It got people talking.
I would consider water fountains to be part of public infrastructure and essential, and therefore doesn’t fit into the model that I’m putting forward.
I’m not proposing that essential things like roads, water etc. are segregated but, rather, private businesses can choose how they operate. The risk is public backlash and hurting the bottom line and other businesses can choose to be open and accepting.
For example, queer bars vs het bars. It’s not segregated per se, but a business can choose how they want to operate to draw in the customers they want.
Man I hate to say it but cutting off 50% of the population due to trauma is a tauma response and solely that.
Its horrible you ever had to go through that and not even knowing you personally if I had a time machine to help I would; but that was one bad person, not a bad populace.
On the other side of that, you can’t force something just because you’ve identified it as a trauma response. Deciding that women shouldn’t feel threatened by men (or the other way around) for them and taking away spaces they feel safe isn’t constructive, it’s cruel.
What about a space for rape victims, male or female? Spaces for survivors of things, people dealing with things, etc. are fine, and if those things only touch women, it’ll naturally only be women, or men who are (let’s argue good faith, here) trying to support someone else. Rape isn’t a female only problem, and so segregating it artificially may feel like a good idea at first glance, but creates other issues.
What about a space for black cop abuse survivors? I’d think that’s pretty inappropriate. It’ll already be mostly black, for sure, and a lot of that perspective will come through, but it’s not a black only issue.
I think the intent behind a safe space is that it is separated from potential triggers. So people who were abused by a man may wish to be in a space with no men, since the sight of men might bring up past trauma. Same for people abused by women. Putting men and women together, even though they have all experienced abuse, may still be exposing them all to the same triggers they want to avoid.
Of course all these people have the same right to having safe spaces, but those spaces don’t have to be in the same place.
How about if people who want to create safe spaces just create the safe spaces they want to create, and we try to respect their need instead of making sure they’ve covered every corner case an uninvolved third party can imagine?
I’m pretty sure that if there is a large enough community of people abused by mascots in a given locality, someone will create a safe space for those people. The presence of a “safe space for female rape survivors” doesn’t preclude someone who wants to from creating that, nor a safe space for male rape survivors.
The problem I see is bigots using that as cover for their bigotry. “Sorry, this golf club is a safe space for people triggered by black people and women.”
The government would have to decide that the discrimination we like is ok, but the discrimination we don’t like isn’t. Which has incredible potential for abuse when the wrong people end up in charge.
Here’s my problem with that (reasonable) viewpoint.
I think there is a fairly reasonable distinction that could be made between those two scenarios such that it should not be difficult to write the related laws in a way that handles both circumstances appropriately. You can phrase it as “the discrimination we like vs the discrimination we don’t like” but I think that’s overly reductive.
No one using this example (and there are a few) finds it hard to see the difference between a safe space for women and a club for bigots. If we can perceive that distinction, we can describe it with words, and we can legislate accordingly.
Otherwise, we’re deciding not to let people who need them have safe spaces because assholes might take advantage of our permissiveness. I’m not OK with that.
Yeah, I understand the intent. And it is a good intent, one of those “seemingly good ideas” I mentioned. There are still HUGE problems with it, particularly depending on how broad and public the group is.
I can agree to a need for a safe place in order to get past trauma. The issue is one of equal access and quality, I think. Specifically for something like sexual assault, I can easily imagine there being a lot of instances where there are only women-only groups available. In a way, situations like this, where we need a safe space for one group, can deprive the other group of safe spaces.
If we want to keep segregated spaces for things like this, fine, but there has to be some equality of access. If not with your specific group, then having a network with other groups, for instance. This is a huge, complicated topic with a lot of possibilities and nuance, and is a bit past the point of this post. The purpose of my previous comment was to refute the obvious strawman of the last commenter, equating an art installation to safe spaces for sexual assault survivors.
If we want to keep segregated spaces for things like this, fine, but there has to be some equality of access. If not with your specific group, then having a network with other groups, for instance. This is a huge, complicated topic with a lot of possibilities and nuance, and is a bit past the point of this post.
Why? Let’s pretend I’ve got fuck you money, and I’ve had some close personal experiences with family members or friends suffering through sexual abuse or rape. All those friends are women.
If I create a shelter for women who need to be safe from sexual abuse and predators and away from all likely triggers while they recover (or, say, a crazy museum for the same purpose) - what exactly obligates me to any of that? I’m taking my money and building a women’s shelter, because that’s the group I’ve got a personal connection with, and the group I want to help. Elon Musk can build a men’s shelter if he wants.
I’m not asking about laws, I’m asking about ethics. Why am I obligated to help EVERY group because I’ve chosen to help ONE group?
No pretend you have fuck you money and you are racist. Is it still OK to make a shelter for white people?
Its a complicated issue. In this case, the point of the piece is to highlight segregation. Even with laws protecting women, they are more likely to sufferviomebce or exclusion.
So we complain about people trying to shelter women under the current “complicated situation” because we’re afraid that a racist might take advantage if we allow it to happen? How about we let folks trying to make things better for women do their thing, and we cross that road when we come to it with the racists?
I think there is a fairly reasonable distinction that could be made (but which I’m far too weary after this rough day to try wordsmithing) between those two scenarios such that it should not be difficult to write the related laws in a way that handles both circumstances appropriately.
Otherwise, we’re deciding not to let people who need them have safe spaces because assholes might take advantage of our permissiveness. I’m not OK with that.
I also think there are already MANY defacto white-only places even today.
Maybe that makes sense for a party in someone’s home or whatever, but not in a museum.
No one goes to a museum to feel safe, because it is you know, a museum and not a safe house or something. If someone is so incredibly scared of the other half of humanity so they can’t go to a museum where they are allowed, they probably should go to therapy or stay at home instead of a museum.
Yeah I agree, I wasn’t trying to support having women only museums, just making a point why mixing men and women safe spaces together doesn’t make much sense.
I was just about to to write something exactly like this.
Being afraid of 49% of the planet so hard that going outside is impossible, what the fuck is going to a museum going to be like? Do they escort you from your car into the side entrance? And then what? Enjoy a museum or is it group therapy in there? To what end.
Being catatonically afraid is not the world’s problem (ie fighting a legal case).
Men and women are not the same. Rape is experienced differently for men and women. I’m not saying it’s worse for one than the other, but it literally involves that person’s genitals and is an intensely personal and gender specific thing.
The fact that you would lump male and female rape survivors together says a lot about how little experience you actually have with the subject.
There’s nothing wrong with having male-only rape survivor groups, especially if someone going through that trauma feels threatened by the other gender.
I didn’t read into this particular issue, but I know the museum in question, have been there a couple times, so some context:
it was founded by some eccentric multi millionaire, who basically just does whatever he wants. The museum was originally free for everyone, until eventually he realised he was draining money really fast, so now it’s only free for locals.
the museum changes it’s “theme” somewhat frequently. One time I was there the whole place looked like a grocery store, and the stairs to the actual museum was like hidden away in part of the store.
the museum seems to thrive on getting strong reactions from people. Much of the art inside is quite shocking or provocative. They have an app where you can rate how much you like each artwork, and apparently they actively remove artworks which are too universally liked.
So it doesn’t surprise me at all that the museum is trying to be women only, but I really doubt it will be permanent, and I suspect that the strong public reactions is exactly the point.
This BBC World article covers how the artist brought the artwork into the courthouse:
Tuesday started with a large group of women dressed in navy power suits, clad in pearls and wearing red lipstick marching into the hearing to support Ms Kaechele.
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.
After (Judge) 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.
Ms Kaechele has indicated she’ll fight the case all the way to the Supreme Court if needed, but she says - ironically - that perhaps nothing could drive the point of the artwork home more than having to shut it down.
“If you were just looking at it from an aesthetic standpoint, being forced to close would be pretty powerful.”
Also want to cite an interview with the artist:
As the hugely influential gender theorist Judith Butler argues, gender is a performative construct. To which I’d add: so is the legal system.
Interviewer: Do you mean to say that you think the judge might have been contributing to the art?
I can’t be certain that his ruling isn’t performance. His judge-like ‘comportment’ in the court, the flourish of his language in the ruling … He’s clearly a man interested in art. In his ruling, he compares me to Caravaggio—a great artist but he also murdered someone. I just served ladies champagne.
“The lounge, which contains some of the museum’s most-acclaimed works - from Picasso to Sidney Nolan - has been closed to the public since the court’s order.”
Both Pablo Picasso and Sidney Nolan were both men!
If they’re gonna play that ‘women only’ card, then they should remove all works created by men and move them to a proper open museum.
Point is, art is art, and a museum is a museum. Anyone mature enough should be allowed to enter any museum they want and view whatever exhibits they want.
That gender specific crap can and does end up going both ways. And it shouldn’t be that way, anywhere.
In a world where there are millions of men who actually believe women are advantaged over men in today’s society, it’s interesting to see the international uproar occurring over this single exhibit that made that belief actually true. A single exhibit at a sex museum in Tasmania that’s literally about gender discrimination.
I just have to completely disagree. Art has consistently served to challenge the status quo and provoke thought and discussion, and this exhibit has absolutely excelled in that regard.
Now the artist is moving on to explore existing discrimination exemptions under the law in Tasmania:
In fact the Lounge already possesses many of the redeeming qualities listed in the verdict that would make it eligible for an exemption under section 27 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas). Where it isn’t already eligible, a number of minor adjustments should bring us into compliance.
The law states that a person may discriminate on the ground of gender:
(a) in a religious institution, if it is required by the doctrines of the religion of the institution; or
(b) in education, if it is for the purpose of enrolment in one-gender schools or hostels; or
Quoting the law doesn’t make the laws right in any regard. I’m pretty sure that if you asked Picasso, if he were alive of course, that he would heavily protest the discrimination and encourage anyone mature enough to view his works.
Same typically goes for almost any artist. They didn’t go through the trouble of creating the art only to end up with others saying who does or doesn’t get to view it.
Matter of fact, did Picasso or any of the other artists leave a will? Or for any of the artists that might still be alive or with living descendants, do they get a word in about it?
Also Picasso was a renowned chauvinist and misogynist who had affairs with teenagers as a 70 year old and put out a cigarette on the cheek of the mother of two of his children
Not all Chauvins fit that stereotype. Would be nice if people would stop using my last name as a broad insult. But hell, I can’t expect discriminatory people to leave my family name out of their mouth.
That would be too much like a step in the right direction.
I’m gonna need an explanation for how using a word in context with its dictionary definition is “sexist.” Sorry this is unpleasant for you, but I’ve never come across someone with the last name “Chauvin” and been like “oh there goes that chauvinist.” Lots of last names have entered English as descriptors of things, eg sadism from the Marquis de Sade and masochism from Leopold von Sacher-Masoch.
chauvinism (n.)
1840, “exaggerated, blind nationalism; patriotism degenerated into a vice,” from French chauvinisme (1839), from the character Nicholas Chauvin, soldier of Napoleon’s Grand Armee, who idolized Napoleon and the Empire long after it was history, in the Cogniards’ popular 1831 vaudeville “La Cocarde Tricolore.” The meaning was extended to “excessive belief in the superiority of one’s race” in late 19c. in communist jargon, and to (male) “sexism” in late 1960s via male chauvinist (q.v.).
Anyway, the point is Picasso was terrible to women. Many women.
Your comments strike me as if you’d be the type to support adding the name “Karen” to the official dictionary as an official insult and ruin the name for more than a century.
Maybe you could reflect on that and actually try to help break that pattern, and help let innocent people have a name that isn’t insulted another century from now.
Or maybe you’d like to bring up Albert and Elsa Einstein? Sure, let’s just not appreciate the works of creative people because they did inappropriate things…
Yes, Nicholas is at the very top of my official knighted family tree. Again, it’s a family name. Should never have been used in any sort of derogatory adjective form, whether back in 1840 or in 1960, or anywhere in between or since.
Believe me, I know my roots, and I know that I don’t agree with the sexism use of my last name. You’re quoting a definition that came up in a very prejudiced era from the 1960s, back when certain people weren’t allowed to do certain things, such as drink from the wrong water fountain.
You sure do seem to know a lot about these antiquated discriminatory words don’t you? Have you considered trying to like not refer to dictionaries written in discriminatory times?
Back on point, yes I’ve gathered that Picasso wasn’t all that great of a dude. Neither was Mozart, he had a shit fetish. Does that stop people from appreciating their artistic works?
I think you have a backward view of what sexism in the 60s looked like, and at this point can’t tell if you’re trolling, since Nicholas Chauvin was a fictional character.
And my god man, I have no beef with Picasso and never said no one should appreciate Picasso’s works. I was arguing with you:
I’m pretty sure that if you asked Picasso, if he were alive of course, that he would heavily protest the discrimination and encourage anyone mature enough to view his works.
“Most certainly” according to what source? Every source I see says there’s zero historical evidence he ever existed, and many stories attributed to him have been traced to other actual historical figures.
Responding to your other comment here, I think you’re just completely missing the point. Again, I’m not saying no one should appreciate Picasso’s art. I’m saying that way back in the before-times, when we were talking about an art installation that challenges gender discrimination, you said Picasso would “heavily protest the discrimination,” but based on all available evidence, that’s what the French call “horseshit.”
And Karen is already in the dictionary. I know some Karens who are lovely people and who could care less about its common usage.
Every source you see has also been tainted by Derek’s horrible actions and the nature of the internet to corrupt information.
Like I said, get an official Chauvin family ancestry book (you know, those things made with paper), and read over the family tree, before the era of digital corruption.
My late grandmother had the official ancestry book.
There are other sources of information besides our now half bot/AI corrupted internet.
What does that (or even some of my own comments) have anything to do with the price of weed in Colorado? Whether you’re telling me the truth, or just trying to bullshit me, doesn’t matter.
My point is very simple, and nobody seems to be getting it now. Drop the prejudice words already. We don’t live in the 1800s, and honestly none of us ever did.
We’re descendants of our ancestors. We didn’t get to pick where we were born or in what year, or by what family name, but we can try dropping the discrimination of centuries past.
Continuing to use derogatory words and even references from back then only propagate the discrimination.
When any group uses offensive words and tactics against any ‘opposite’ group, they’re just propagating the problem.
My whole point is people should stop doing that, and realize they’re only propagating the problem.
All people are created equal. Men, women, light or dark. All born equal and should generally be treated as such. Yes some grow up to be bad apples, but damn, when they’re long dead, don’t blame their descendants.
Break the cycle.
Edit: My starting point was basically that any and all mature adults should have every right to visit any museum they want. It’s artwork and artifacts, not a brothel.
Also, and this is the last I’ll comment, since you brought up ancient dictionary terms. The N word used to be defined as a tool.
But I have better sense than to carry on antiquated offensive words in that way. I’d hope others can learn to try dropping offensive use of words in their modern vocabulary as well.
You’re not wrong though, Picasso and others were a bit pervy. So was Albert Einstein. And yes that’s very disappointing.
You have every right to object to their works if you want. That doesn’t mean that mature people shouldn’t be allowed to view and critique their works in their own way.
I hope we can agree to disagree, but yeah I don’t use the 1800’s definition of a ‘tool’, because it’s 2024 and I have more respect than to refer to antiquated dictionaries for insulting words.
Small point of order: MONA, despite how it sounds when pronounced as an acronym, is not a sex museum. It's the Museum of Old and New Art. You may return to your debate.
Personally, I'm finding the whole thing delicious. As someone who went to university in a building where the post-graduate / staff floor didn't have a female bathroom - likely because when it was built women were only expected to clean and serve tea in that space - I appreciate the artist and museum setting official legal precedent around this topic. And doing so with panache.
I appreciate you! I’ve admittedly never been to MONA and just picked a word from the Wikipedia intro:
MONA houses ancient, modern and contemporary art from the David Walsh collection. Noted for its central themes of sex and death, the museum has been described by Walsh as a “subversive adult Disneyland”.
It didn’t take me long to research into Sidney Nolan, but at the same time I do have more and more reason by the day to doubt historical facts found online… 🤷♂️
That was a sarcastic thought meant to make people think.
What they really should do is like not discriminate. It’s a museum, every person mature enough, men and women, should be welcome to go view whatever artwork and exhibits they have.
The amount of people/men who don’t get it is astonishing. Art isn’t just something you can put on a wall. This entire thing with excluding men is an art installation, supposed to generate emotions and a discussion about exclusion and gender disparity. And seeing how many men around the world are frothing at the mouth over an installation at a small museum at the end of the world it is an extremely powerful piece of art. I applaud the museum for this.
The end of the world is a fair description, but small is not. It is the largest privately funded museum in the Southern Hemisphere and has 6000m² (64583 ft²) of gallery space.
Yeah, well my late father was a painter, and his number one rule was that he didn’t paint stuff to be hidden away. One of his last wishes was to make sure people see his artworks.
It’s up to the people that view his works as to their thoughts and opinions.
“Maturity”, defined as being willing to accept explicit sex discrimination, so long as said discrimination penalizes men (as men are an acceptable target for discrimination)?
I appreciate some good trolling that doesn’t actually harm anyone. And in this case it also certainly generated discussion, so I’d say it’s more than trolling anyway.
The purpose is for men to suffer and be upset. That’s what this of art is, really - human suffering for its own sake. It’s quintessential trolling, which the artist has been quite open about.
There are still places that are men only. Women can’t join the freemasons for example, but you don’t see this sort of extremely angry reaction to that.
And I agree, this art piece is doing exactly what it was supposed to.
That’d be ideal, but I don’t really see that happening tbh. There’s a women’s version of the freemasons, but it’s not nearly as popular or active as far as I can tell.
Do you have any more examples other than the freemasons? I had assumed we were done with needless segregation (excluding bathrooms and such).
The only thing that makes sense in my mind is that male dominated spaces have non-explicit social barriers in place that are being approximated by the explicit barrier the museum has set up.
In the UK there’s golf clubs that have pretty toxic atmospheres and dress codes but aren’t legally allowed to bar women.
Sorry if this is super ignorant, I’m acknowledging the problem I just want to understand it better
I’m from the US, but here it’s mostly fraternal lodges that still ban women, and certain religious groups(which I don’t think those technically count due to separation of church and state). But the Order of Oddfellows, Fraternal Order of Eagles, Freemasons, and the Botherhood of St Andrew don’t initiate women. Im sure theres more but i dont know about them.
Granted those have some religious influence, but aren’t churches directly as far as I understand. Also the skull and bones, but they’re very secretive and that could have changed and no one would be the wiser.
I’m not sure about other countries laws, but in the US private institutions are more or less allowed to segregate by gender, but often there’s backlash and they lose money so most won’t go there. That’s why it’s mostly these secretive fraternal orders that still do it.
Add comment