Perhaps women should take on The Melbourne Club next and see how quickly men change their mind on the subject?
I understand the guy’s argument in this case seems to be the fact he bought a ticket at the same price as a woman but was excluded from one of the exhibits, but the overarching point of sexual discrimination works both ways.
Sometimes I believe women’s only spaces need to exist for some instances of women who experienced trauma to feel safe and be able to start their healing without their nervous systems taking over.
However, this doesn’t sound like that. This sounds like exclusion.
Protesting misogyny through misandry - what a fabulous idea! Next, how about a protest against childhood obesity by starving a couple of kids to death?
Doing a shitty thing to protest a different shitty thing only multiplies the amount of shit instead of reducing it…
Because thinking he’s the victim of an injustice by being denied entry in an exhibit about sexism shows a total lack of empathy for people less privileged than him.
I consider the court case to be part of the exhibit. Intentionally or not, the plaintiff is part of the exhibit; the judge, the ruling, and even your criticism.
The women who brought these cases against men’s clubs were similarly denigrated for ruining the “good thing” the clubs had going for them.
If you think men not being allowed to look at art is actually comparable to the systemic misogyny women have to deal with you’re exactly the type of person the piece is highlighting.
The problem is that this kind of approach doesn’t solve or work towards improving anything. Mysogynists are just going to double down if they’re treated this way, even if an art exhibit is miniscule compared to the other issues.
It’s the same as how incels are pushed further into extremism after all other groups exclude and push them away. Those people are looking for a community and a place to fit in, and if the only place that will take them is awful and negative they’ll settle there and radicalise. The goal should be to open a constructive discussion and change minds, not just throw more stuff onto the fire.
The goal should be to open a constructive discussion and change minds
You just explained how they don’t have a logical position, just a kneejerk reaction to having their behaviour pointed out - you are only fooling yourself if you think there’s a constructive discussion available. Grow up and make them fear physical retribution if they keep spreading such abhorrent views.
Species is not a protected classification, so the law in question wouldn’t apply. You may run into issues with various municipal pest, leash, or vagrancy laws.
Host it on private property outside of any city limits and you shouldn’t run into any issues though.
I’m not really a fan of the whole “we’ll be intolerant so you know what it feels like” but it’s also the only way I can really know what it feels like as a white man from a middle class family. I’m on the fence on this one.
The more interesting thing to me is… They were modeling a thing that was popular in the 60s, according to the article. It’s an art display to protest something from 60+ years ago. A lot of the people who would go to such an exhibit weren’t alive, and certainly weren’t adults at the time.
There are surely problems that women face today but I don’t see how this helps shine any light on that or does anything at all for it.
I think downvoters have forgotten the paradox of tolerance. That said, intolerance should be applied at the individual level (ie don’t tolerate a nazi because they are a nazi), not by group (like the scenario this thread is about did).
I mean, overwhelmingly people aren’t racially discriminated against for being white so I’m not sure what it is you’re trying to back up.
Sure it happens. The one that’s closest to home for me in that list is Northern Ireland. White Catholics here were abused, but it was by white people so nothing to do with the colour of their skin. Honestly such a terrible example with absolutely no understanding for historical context.
I’ve spent non-trivial time in the Middle East. Sure I’m not at the same social class as Arabs there but I was sure fucking glad I wasn’t brown.
China, wot? Yeah people stare at me but nobody was nasty. If anything I was a novelty.
White people in South Africa were gonna get what they were gonna get in a post apartheid world where they pillaged and oppressed until quite recently. That doesn’t make it right but it makes it inevitable.
They’re all very poorly thought out, edge case examples with the exception of Zimbabwe unless I’m missing others that I’m not aware of.
The Irish have been abused and degrqded by the British for Centuries. Still are, not nearly like they used to be, but its still there.
I know very well. I’m Irish. Pretty sure still have our own “and the Irish” section in British airports as a holdover from the troubles. The point I’m making is that it had nothing to do with being white and I haven’t met any British people trying to abuse or degrade me for being Irish. My sister lives there and is married to an English man so I visit frequently.
China: I didn’t experience any overt racism there because of the colour of my skin. We have derogatory words for basically everyone in English but it doesn’t mean people use them. Hell, we call the British “Tans” if we’re feeling belligerent towards them. “Paddy” has lost all meaning as a slur against the Irish.
Middle east: Sure. There I did experience it but it was incredibly mild and as I said I was very glad I wasn’t brown.
Anyway, my main point was this:
overwhelmingly people aren’t racially discriminated against for being white
And I feel that it stands and yes there are exceptions but the historical weight of racism hasn’t fallen on white people because of the colour of their skin.
I don't have to; I know from personal experience what it's like to be right and correct. I recommend you abandon you current beliefs and try not being wrong yourself.
Slavic slaves in the Roman empire predate the social construct of whiteness. Implying they were oppressed because they were white is one of the stupider things I've read on the Internet today.
Okay, modern day. Look at the DEI initiatives. Literally just systemic racism against white people (and Asian people, but thats not what this argument is about), thats why they keep getting slapped down in court, and now having laws directly passed against even teaching them because they are so racist.
I don't have to; I know from personal experience what it's like to be right and correct. I recommend you abandon you current beliefs and try not being wrong yourself.
Maybe one day you'll wake up and realize that you don't know everything and are not always "right and correct." One day maybe you'll realize that others have lived experiences that are different than yours, but maybe not and you'll just float through life thinking your experience and your views are The Truth.
The concept of “white” as a race dates back to WW2, at most. Before then, being from France was as ethnically important a distinction as being from England, Spain, Germany, Ireland, or China. Due to the long history of conflict amongst European nations, there was no unified sense of race due to something as simple as skin color.
When the Irish immigrated to the US, they were considered equivalent to black people by Americans and competed for the same jobs.
The British, inspired by the American ethnic cleansings of the Native American tribes, attempted to ethnically cleanse the Irish from Ireland for their land. That’s what the famine in Ireland actually was. There was a scarcity of potatoes, but otherwise there was plenty of food - so long as you were British. In fact, there’s a statue of a Native American in northern Ireland commemorating the Native tribes’ aid during the famine, because they recognized what the British were doing and were one of the few groups to send supplies to the Irish. Nobody else cared, because they were Irish, not (insert country here).
The concept of “white” as a race dates back to WW2, at most.
Wow I'll make sure to tell all my black friends, I'm sure that'll endear me to them.
When the Irish immigrated to the US, they were considered equivalent to black people by Americans and competed for the same jobs.
Well, this is just completely false, you're completely disconnected from reality. Irish were never blocked from whites-only schools were they? Irish people were never subject to interracial marriage laws afaik. Were any Irish ever entirely excluded from being able to immigrate to the U.S.? I know it's popular among certain groups to pretend certain Europeans faced the same disadvantages as formerly enslaved African-Americans but frankly it's incredibly insulting and tone deaf as fuck.
Theory is fine you guys but you need to actually go out into the world and interact with people sometimes.
I am…unclear on what you’re actually arguing about. You went from arguing that white people are oppressed for being white and/or that white as a unified race wasn’t the invention of racism to separate the white European ethnicities from black people, to straw-manning me to argue that white people were never oppressed the same way black people have been (and continue to be).
Both me and the OP are saying that the idea of a single “white” race was the invention of racists. To separate white Europeans from other people. Before the white supremacists coined the term white as a race, your race was French, Swedish, Irish, British, Russian, etc. White is just a label to lump all these Europeans from disparate cultural backgrounds who hated each other’s guts together to form a unified front against “the savage black man” and “the Asian menace.”
And nobody has ever been oppressed for being white. When was the last time you heard of somebody being passed over for a job because they were too white, or the cops going around arresting all the white people off the streets. White people probably suffer the same treatment as other foreigners in xenophobic countries, but they’re not singled out for being white.
What bullshit? Do you think that white people are oppressed? Or that the idea of white as a race wasn’t the product of a bunch of racists who wanted to prove the superiority of white people over black people?
Again you're trying to conflate things which are not the same (war captives and society-wide anti-Blackness actualizing in dehumanization and chattel enslavement. )
and using weak "seems obvious" "can't imagine" arguments to do it.
If a captured ship had white and non-white non-muslims on it, do you imagine only the white non-muslims would be enslaved and everyone else let go?
No, because being oppressed while being white is not being oppressed for being white.
Further, your comment about albinism proves you understand race to be a social construct.
the same appears to be true here, just with "non-muslim" being the back-engineered justification
You can't change race by reciting The Shahada.
And irrespective anything you have said white people have never been oppressed for being white; the original assertion which started this discussion that is only tangentially related to an OP about women excluding men from an art exhibit (they didn't want to go to anyway) as performance art.
assuming i did, declaring war just so you can capture whites to sell as slaves seems kind of oppress-y to me
given that the point of contention here is whether or not it was ultimately because they were white or because they were non-muslim, i'm not sure what point you're trying to make by re-classifying piracy as an act of war?
Capitalize Black.
i didn't use any capital letters in my response, including on "muslim" which you'd capitalize for the same reasons you're arguing to capitalize "black"
also, your linked source says to capitalize "white", which you've done at no point so far
And "Yes." on both counts.
i feel like we've hit bedrock then
i'm not sure how to convince you that pirate raids that went all the way to iceland just to avoid "muslims" probably wouldn't raid a settlement consisting of black non-muslims
You can't change race by reciting The Shahada.
i feel like you're intentionally missing my point here
And irrespective anything you have said white people have never been oppressed for being white
you restating a thing doesn't make that thing true though...?
not really sure there's much point in going on further with this since it seems like we have pretty different reads on the topic at hand that aren't going to be brought into alignment through further discussion
assuming i did, declaring war just so you can capture whites to sell as slaves seems kind of oppress-y to me
Where are you getting the were targeted for being white and not for being targets of opportunity?
you restating a thing doesn't make that thing true though...?
It remains true whether or not I restate it, Was restated for you benefit since you seem to be willfully ignoring it.
I'm not sure how to convince you ... probably wouldn't raid a settlement consisting of black non-muslims
Where are you getting that? You seem to be working backwards from wanting white people to have been oppressed.
Arabs absolutelyenslaved Black Africans. Any Europeans who found themselves enslaved by Barbary pirates were not targeted or oppressed for being white (as has never happened to anyone, ever); some of the Barbary pirates wereEuropean.
They should just make it a small art exhibit out front, then 2 bathrooms, the mens is normal, with some basic art, but the women’s bathroom has a bar and cocktail lounge and the extra amenities. Then the business wouldn’t be excluding men, it would just be providing them a different experience in the bathroom which I feel like they’d have a much better time defending in court. But it also seems like this whole thing was done as a form of activism and it looks like one of the intents is for this business to close down so they can be martyrs.
I’m not really an artsy type person, more of a logical minded person, so it really wouldn’t be something I would do. But as a logical thinker I’m good at coming up with creative logical solutions to puzzles. I’d be better as a consultant.
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 the artist had opened an exhibit of her own work only to women, I could defend that as artistic expression. However, this is simply a museum being sexist and then saying “It’s just art bro!”
With that said, apparently the museum is privately funded. I tend to think that this ought to mean it can be sexist if that’s what the people running it want (as a matter of principle, not as a matter of Australian law).
I read in another thread that the women-only rule was an art installation and they were happy when the guy sued, because it created the publicity they were looking for.
I feel like running a museum is a lot more like a form of expression than running a cafe is. “Who is the audience for art?” seems like a topic where a government-imposed “correct answer” is more of a problem than it would be if the topic were “Who eats a sandwich?”
The answer to “who the audience of art” is is a lot more inclusive than that of “who eats a sandwich.” Literally every human consumes art. It is probably one of the most fundamentally human things. Not every human eats sandwiches.
That said, if you’re allowed to exclude people by class (a price in entry) then obviously some amount of exclusion is allowed. Not that it should be allowed, but it is.
I (a white person) wouldn't knowingly going into such a Cafe, but I still allow them to exist. It is a matter of defending - as much as possible - the right of others to do things I find stupid. There are lines, but I try to use them to cover as little as possible: all lines can be used against me.
I don’t mind other people doing things that are stupid. I do mind other people doing things that are harmful. The difficult part is finding where that line is, if and how to legislate it and what the implications are on other important societal values.
In this example of a cafe refusing to serve people based on race, I’m personally totally fine with that being illegal.
How do you ban such a cafe while also banning slavery? How do you draw a line between permissible and impermissible compulsory labor when you’re drafting your Constitution to reign in future politicians?
I think the reasoning is that since having a job is essential for almost everyone, by making it illegal to have a job in which one may refuse to deal with members of a protected class, the government is effectively compelling everyone who needs a job to deal with them, which might be seen as a form of forced labor.
From the libertarian point of view, being compelled to do something is bad even if that thing itself isn’t all that difficult or unpleasant. I’m a pretty stubborn, libertarian-leaning person myself and I would resent doing even all my favorite things in the world if the government were making me do them.
I still wouldn’t make the comparison to slavery myself, but I think that most people are missing how much anti-discrimination laws actually do restrict freedom of speech and of association because most people weren’t going to engage in that sort of speech/association anyway. I would compare them to laws against boycotting Israel.
I still wouldn’t make the comparison to slavery myself
You’re the one who made the comparison to it being slavery? There are plenty of things you’re not allowed to say, why are you fighting against this instead of the right to make bomb threats?
No I’m not, @quindraco is. As for bomb threats, the violate the non-aggression principle in a way that simply choosing to peacefully opt out of interacting with a person or group of people does not.
(And, for the record, I think that the Civil Rights Act in the USA is, on the whole, a good thing. I just don’t think it’s costless.)
I replied to you because you defended their position. So yes you are.
Who do you propose should enforce this non-aggression principle? And why do you think it’s okay to tell someone what to say just because you find it aggressive? Just admit you’re fine with limiting my freedom of speech you just think racists should be allowed to say what they wish as long as it isn’t your definition of aggressive and move on.
how about having to wear out body and mind to earn money to not be excluded from the wealth society has produced? Or is that the part you gladly submit to?
Libertarians don’t see it in those terms. Wealth doesn’t belong to society, and therefore there’s no implication that all members of society are entitled to it. Not having any wealth sucks and so does having to do onerous work in order to survive, but it’s easy to imagine how if you were rich, you wouldn’t want your money taken away and given to the poor, and so it’s hard to fault the rich for feeling that way too.
So you’d be fine with a towns only hospital receiving a patient in the ER while the only doctor on the clock refuses to treat the patient based on them being part of a protected class? Or do we need to create a law that says doctors can’t discriminate but everyone else can?
To deny access to any one group on the basis of an immutable characteristic of their physical being is a dangerous precedent to set for a government. It just gives a license to discriminate against any out group. I believe you have a right to do whatever you want, so long as doing so does not violate the rights of others.
To take it to a logical extreme, would you defend the right to drink and drive, given that stupid people should be allowed to do stupid things, even if it is incredibly dangerous to the drinking party and everyone else around them? No? Then don’t tolerate the intolerance of others. That’s how the social contract frays.
It’s the privately funding thing, I’m sure Australia has men’s clubs like the Eagles, Masonic, etc. My guess is that if they offered tickets to purchase, there would be the discrimination? You can’t sell something and not offer it to everyone. OTOH, that doesn’t make sense because we have timed tickets and members only tickets here in the US, do they have something like that in Australia?
The problem with letting private businesses discriminate is that it often leads to total discrimination. A single racist towing company would be a huge problem. A racist grocery store could be the only one in town. Sure you might not go to a racist bar, but what if the fire or police chief frequents that place?
You think it’s unheard of that a police officer can be a racist? Have you come here from an alternate timeline or something? If so can I come back with you?
Idk how I feel about this. I will say however, any time I’ve ever seen feminist principles be applied exclusionary, it’s always additionally accompanied by TERF shit. It’s a very quick pipeline from “no boys allowed” to “no trans allowed”. The lines dividing can be so blurry… I don’t think it’s a good mindset.
I’ll bring this up only once, because not only do I not want to deal with backlash, I also dont want to stand in the way of progress or hurt anyone who is trans, but: Notice how society mostly freaks out about Trans Women, and Trans Men are an afterthought in that outrage. Its because Misandry is playing a not insignificant part in this. A key thing about transphobes is they arent seeing Trans Women as Women, and its their ideas on how MEN are that are informing their vitrol. So you are seeing those two go hand in hand for a reason
Edit: Fuck it, I need to clarify: Trans Women are WOMEN, Trans Men are MEN
Yup, trans men are “poor deluded women and victims of the patriarchy” and trans women are “predators trying to invade women’s spaces”. And that’s if trans men are even thought of at all.
The lounge is a tremendously lavish space in our museum in which women can indulge in decadent nibbles, fancy tipples, and other ladylike pleasures—hosted and entertained by the fabulous butler. And as is always the case with Kirsha’s dinners and feasts, you are a participant in what she sees as the art itself, part of a living installation. Any and all ladies are welcome.
Any and all ladies doesn’t sound like they are excluding people that may not have been born female. It sounds, at least to me, that it includes said person group.
Add comment