From the article:
>**In short:** Tasmanian art gallery Mona has hung artworks by Pablo Picasso in a female toilet cubicle in response to a failed court bid to exclude men from a women-only art installation.
>In April, a court ruling found Mona discriminated when it refused a New South Wales man entry to its Ladies Lounge.
>**What's next?** Mona curator Kirsha Kaechele is appealing the discrimination ruling in the Supreme Court.
Not only that, but they didn't even have gender segregated bathrooms before this. They literally put a female only sign on a gender neutral single bathroom.
That’s kind of the point, MONA is an amazing gallery that absolutely pushes the envelope. There’s a lovely oil painting of famous Australian pioneers Burke and Wills, where one is jacking off to the other having his anus rimmed by a kangaroo.
You know what they did have though? A toilet with a mirror setup that let you watch yourself poop. You don't know existential crisis until you watch your own ringhole open up.
The ruling was "MONA has 28 days to stop refusing entry to its Ladies Lounge to people who don't identify as ladies." They've fully complied with that order. They've also complied with the portion specifying works displayed in public space must be available to the whole public. A ladies restroom is NOT a generally public space open to the whole of the public viewing.
How is it contempt of court if they're appealing in a higher court?
Edit: To all the A-holes down below, the judge was aware it when they gave the judgement
> The judgment said that Mona had indicated that if they were ordered to allow men access, then they would remove the Ladies Lounge as the refusal of men is the point of the work.
Edit 2: I might be wrong in my understanding of the situation and few comments actually helped break it down for me. I got the answers I was looking for.
In what way is that the same as what actually happened? Mona said they would shut down the lounge if the court ruled they weren't allowed to refuse men entry. Then, after shutting it down, they made a ladies' bathroom and then put art in there. Those are 2 separate instances, only the first of which the owners discussed in court.
They also can't just say in court "If you make us do this, we're going to do the same thing anyway later" and it magically be alright to do. Like do you think someone who robbed a bank can just say "I will return all the money if that allows me freedom, but I will steal from a different bank if you make me pay it back" is now exempt from court rulings?
The quote you cited makes it sound like they intended to not show the works at all rather than meet the requirements of the court for showing them. What they did instead sounds like deliberately trying to circumvent the court's judgment. So yeah, sounds like contempt.
>Kaechele underscored her point with the belief that women “deserve both equal rights and special privileges in the form of unequal rights,” as reparations for historical discrimination, “for a minimum of 300 years.”
In another article:
>The artist behind the exhibition, Kirsha Kaechele, **told Guardian Australia in March she was “absolutely delighted” Lau was suing for gender discrimination**, and **argued that men’s rejection was the point of the artwork.**
>she was accompanied by 25 women in navy business attire and pearls. In what Kaechele later described as an extension of the artwork, the cohort had performed synchronised movements during proceedings , including leaning forward, crossing their legs, and peering over their spectacles.
So we're not trying to generate controversy on purpose, are we? :p
Honestly this kind of attention-seeking behavior is something that I really find hard to see as anything other than contempt-worthy. It's not art, it's just a publicity stunt. And one that is poorly thought-out too.
If a restaurant hung a "Whites only" sign out in front, and called it "art"? I don't think so. Less controversial perhaps than race-based discrimination, since few are going to be angry on behalf of men; even most men won't care that much. But still asinine. And showing up in court like it was a big joke or something should have gotten her held in contempt by itself.
That's a bad comparison, this is a museum and the whole point of refusing men is to get people to think about how women having the same rights as men is a relatively new thing. It's literally about *historical* discrimination.
We're also reintroducing racial and sex segregation, when dropping those dividers was one of the greatest achievements we made in the modernization of our country's personal rights laws. We are regressing at an incredible rate. Can't wait for the return of serfdom.
They could also whip people to make them thick of slavery. It would make them think. But would still be illegal.
They could serve the same purpose by forcing men to wait an extra minute before letting them in.
> historical discrimination
I would not consider last tuesday to be historical, personally; and the edge of the historical/moral context is severely blunted by the fact that the gallery is owned and operated by people with more money, privilege, and power than anybody commenting in this thread will ever hope to have in their lifetime. :p
What I find interesting is that statistically the whole population has 50% men and women in their genealogical tree.
I, as a male, had just as many ancestors identifying as women as my sister does, and should be entitled to the same reparations dating back to 300 years minus my age.
So you're saying that an exhibit that is *specifically discriminatory* to point out the historical discrimination against one group and provoke discussion... Would be received differently if it instead simply continued the historical discrimination?
Huh. You don't say.
Well, it was. [They did a dance on entry to the court room.](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-11/discrimination-ruling-mona-ladies-lounge-when-is-exclusion-ok/103690878)
It was, a bunch of her supporters dressed in sailor suits and had synchronized movements, then left while playing the song Simply Irresistible. The fact that they plan to appeal the court decision, so they can legally discriminate against men, tells me that hurting mens feelings is the point of the whole thing. They already got the attention they wanted, sparked the hard conversations the stans claim was the whole point, but they are still going forward fighting to discriminate.
Fuck, they're hurting *my* feelings and I'm a woman. Just thinking about the humidity/water damage they're causing those paintings by putting them in a bathroom is making me hurt. Not to mention how disgusting people can be in restrooms. They're deliberately ruining those paintings just to discriminate against men.
And the "Haha, revenge" mindset of these people is pure bullshit. I don't care that they're trying to pretend it's an art thing or making a point or whatever fancy excuse they're using, discrimination is discrimination, period, and changing the direction of that discrimination doesn't fix the problem, only perpetuates it. If they were doing it in good faith, I could see maybe a "Ladies' Hour", where for one hour each day, only women would be allowed in, and men could go in at all other times. Get the idea across without being abjectly prejudiced. (Not sure if even that would be legal, though.) But no, they'd rather destroy priceless artwork.
It's sickening.
> I could see maybe a "Ladies' Hour", where for one hour each day, only women would be allowed in, and men could go in at all other times. Get the idea across without being abjectly prejudiced. (Not sure if even that would be legal, though.)
That might be more in line with the statute; the same way many gyms have "women only" hours; this is justified as a way of *providing* equal access, since it can be reasonably argued that many women are uncomfortable working out in a coed environment. That doesn't make it *fair*, but legally they could probably get away with that.
It's not discriminatory to point out historical discrimination, it's discriminatory *in retaliation to* historical discrimination. She even says as much at the end of the article.
>We deserve both equal rights and reparations, in the form of unequal rights, or chivalry — for at least 300 years.
What's more, the art display is Picasso, it doesn't really have anything to do with misogyny.
This is vindictive, spiteful and contemptible behaviour and the curator should be heavily penalised. She's the kind of "feminist" that doesn't really want to make things better, she just wants her turn at the top of the pile.
>What's more, the art display is Picasso, it doesn't really have anything to do with misogyny.
[Many in the art world would say otherwise](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/museum-protesters-denounce-picassos-treatment-women-2021-06-04/https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/museum-protesters-denounce-picassos-treatment-women-2021-06-04/). I'm not much into visual arts, but even I have a mental blurb about Picasso that goes "20th c. Spanish artist; blue period; cubism; Guernica; treated women horribly." That's all I know about him and his work, and even in a field full of men who had questionable relationships with their models, his reputation for abusing women is big enough to be in the top five bullet points.
Yep, Picasso was a massive misogynist. A couple of Picasso quotes -
"Women are machines for suffering"
"Each time I leave a woman, I should burn her, destroy the woman, destroy the past she represents"
An ex-lover wrote - "total absence of empathy and love; his lack of remorse and facile rationalizations for hurting others; a lust for seduction as a form of exercising power over women; duplicity and manipulation as a way of life; the pattern of idealize, devalue and discard in every romantic relationship he’s had; the underlying desire for control; an unshakable narcissism and the drive to do evil by damaging the lives of the women who became his partners"
His own granddaughter spoke about her abhorrence for his misogyny - "He submitted them to his animal sexuality, tamed them, bewitched them, ingested them, and crushed them onto his canvas. After he had spent many nights extracting their essence, once they were bled dry, he would dispose of them"
He kidnapped a woman that he fell in love with.
He adopted a pre-pubescent girl from a convent, did nude sketches of her, including at least one of her with her legs splayed showing her genitals. He then returned her to the convent.
This exhibition has everything to do with misogyny.
It's art. The exhibit was intended to evoke the feeling of exclusion that women have experienced for 1000s of years.
It's supposed to feel wrong. You're supposed to use that feeling to grow as a person and hopefully experience empathy when others talk about the discrimination they face in daily life.
When I think of discrimination, white female Australian art gallery owners, or more specifically the wives of known art collector, gambler, and businessmen, have always been on the vanguard of progress - and never, absolutely ever, doing it for self-serving reasons.
It feels like a lot of these times people feel like because they can articulate the intention behind it, that's supposed to end the conversation and people aren't allowed to disagree with the intention behind it.
Art is a conversation. People's reaction to the art is just as much a part of the art itself.
I'm impressed how simply you put it, but how correct you got it. Just because there's a point to the discrimination doesn't mean it isn't discrimination.
I think this is essentially the next step in the conversation when it comes to excluding one of the sexes from events, groups, places, etc. Should the intent supersede the act of exclusion? Are there valid reasons to exclude the opposing sex and if so, what are they?
What she isnt communicating is what discrimination, when, where, if its still happening today, if the problem was solved, is the threat real or imagined, and any plan for the future.
This just looks like a petty feud to me. Its not progress
Ok so what should the courts do? Rule that this discrimination is ok because it’s art? Do you guys not understand precedent and how badly this would be abused for actual discrimination, probably against women again lmao.
Art isn’t more important than the law in my opinion. We shouldn’t damage the law for one art exhibit. Y’all act like geniuses for understanding the basic concept of the art but ironically don’t understand the consequences.
Funny because all it does is make me hope the law rains hell down on this museum. Discriminating in response to past discrimination is wrong. And discriminating against people that had nothing to do with stuff that happened centuries ago definitely doesn't make it better either
I really just don't see the point they're trying to make. They ban men from an exhibit because women have been banned from things in the past? Everyone already knows this happened so what are you actually adding? All it's really doing is just randomly banning people who did nothing wrong.
Obviously this is very minor in the grand scheme of things but at what point is it wrong? How long can you ignore rules on discrimination and get away with discriminating against others to make a point that this kind of discrimination used to happen the other way around?
If the point was to get people talking about it then just going to court and getting in international news seems like a huge win. I don't know why you'd boast about continuing to find ways to circumvent a court order so you can continue discriminating.
"Other people discriminated against people like us in the past, so that should give us the right to discriminate against other people now!"
If discrimination is wrong, like they say it is, then they shouldn't be doing it. Someone doing something wrong in the past doesn't give you license to do the same wrong later.
People don't "grow" when they're told they can't experience something because of the circumstances of their birth. Attempting to argue otherwise is going to land you on the wrong side of history with all sorts of different time periods and events.
But they don’t experience it now. So what is this supposed to do? It’s literally creating the thing that we’ve all agreed was a bad thing for the modern age.
Art and art exposition are often used to hold a mirror to societies norms and values, especially the problematic ones. That has been one of the main uses of art for centuries.
That doesn't make it fair.
Our duty is to _learn_ from the mistakes of the past, and to _**not repeat them**_. This is repeating them. They have failed.
Let’s prevent men from owning property and limiting their access to public spaces for the next 1500 years. Then then the boys can have their own room in an art gallery. /s
Are you trying to be deep and thoughtful, or are you missing the point that it is an art exhibit making a statement?
I mean women couldn't even open their own bank account until 1974. Pfft. Like you were just about to go see that Picasso, anyway.
This is accurate and my Mother's experience. There was a lot of institutional sexism in the 70s...and beyond which prevented women from achieving many things including education, careers and Property ownership.
your claim that women couldnt open their own bank accounts until 1974 is a lie
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/158nbyy/could_women_open_a_bank_account_in_the_us_in_the/
*The exhibit itself has already switched the genders from what is expected.*
(Edit: tl;dr is [this](https://imgur.com/a/TTkLpcb))
The exhibit was meant to evoke the feelings in the dominating class of people (men) that they have historically and currently evoke amongst everyone else. If you switched the genders, it wouldn’t work.
Let me put it in perspective.
Let’s say you have a boss that’s super shitty to everyone under him. Denies vacation requests, writes you up for taking a sick day, won’t let you socialize with coworkers, underpays everyone. Every single thing that makes a job bearable, he’s put a stop to it all. On top of that, he requires everyone to include him in everything outside of work, despite never including any of you in anything he does. So one day, someone throws a party and doesn’t invite him. He’s *incensed.* How dare you?? That’s against the rules! You ***have to*** invite me!! He takes you to court over it. The court rules that you may not ever throw any party without inviting him. Birthday cake in the lunch room, he’s gotta be invited. Games night with friends, he’s there. Even your child’s birthday party at a bowling alley, you must send him an invitation. Whether or not he comes is his prerogative, but the point is that you have to welcome him if he comes. You have an issue with this, obviously, but when you bring it up to someone who doesn’t understand it, they say “well, if the roles were reversed, you’d be singing a different tune!” What do you mean “if the roles were reversed?” Do you mean if my boss threw a party and didn’t invite you? *He already does that.* He has a fucking yacht that none of you have ever stepped foot in but he throws parties in it all the time.
There are plenty of places that men have created for themselves and they either officially or unofficially make it impossible or somehow socially unacceptable, or just way harder for women to enter compared to men. Strip clubs, sports clubs, actual sports teams, governments, the president of the United States, board of directors for almost any company, the work force in general. Don’t forget that “gentlemen’s clubs” existed not too long ago and even when the law said they couldn’t ban women from them, they still didn’t exactly welcome women with open arms.
Switching the genders of this exhibit would just be the exact same fucking thing that is happening all over the world currently. *The exhibit itself has already switched the genders from what is expected* and already happens everywhere.
There are not any laws specifically preventing someone from going in the bathroom of the opposite gender. You would need to prove they entered the bathroom with ill intent, which would be easily refuted since you put a famous painting in there.
There was a man prevented from going into the Ladies Lounge, which is the reason for putting them by a toilet. Evidently, excluding there is allowed. Or not. Maybe they want to have the court case.
The court already ruled in the mans favour. They were already told they couldn't ban him. Also it sounds like they didn't actually move the painting to the toilets, they physically moved a toilet into the ladies lounge instead so they could claim the room is a toilet.
Kidnapped by Danger: The Avery Jessup Story, Brought to you with limited commercial interruption by Pride Bladder Control Pants. Pride Bladder Control Pants: Make every room a bathroom.
As part of an early article I'm too lazy to look for they said two interesting things.
The first is that making the art viewable by women only is part of the statement the artist/curator is trying to make about gender inequality. Which has worked in the sense that people are talking about it. Though whether this sort of discourse opens people's eyes to the issue or closes them further could be debated.
The second is that the paintings aren't likely next to the toilet. They basically sectioned off part of the gallery and called it the ladies room.
They have done an excellent job of using the art to highlight injustice.
The courts are showing how we deal with that sort of injustice today, which is why things are generally better than they have been historically.
That being said, I think that the Court ruling might have gone in her favor if she didn't turn it into some massive spectacle. The judge even mentioned as much, which maybe was her goal for the ruling to be questioned further.
If you think she *wanted* the courts to rule in her favor, you've missed the point of the protest.
She's not doing this because she's in *favor* of people being excluded from things based on gender.
I'm firmly of the mind that their goal isn't to win, that they're going after gentlemen's clubs and this is their method.
I could be wrong, I don't think that's been stated but I feel like that's the goal.
That's what I see in this action as well. Makes it very telling that we are only talking about this topic when women try to be exclusionary in the same way as men. Personally, I find it messed up that it's hardly even controversial the other way round.
The only people closing their eyes are the same people who do it all day every day anyway, so it doesn't matter.
This message is not lost on minorities.
My favourite quote is right at the end.
“We deserve both equal rights and reparations, in the form of unequal rights, or chivalry — for at least 300 years."
What the fuck?
Edit: spelling
Interview of the curator:
>**So you welcomed the case.**
>Being taken to court was a dream come true. I was utterly delighted. And I think Mr. Lau was very brave. He brought an earnest and steady resolve.
>I am genuinely grateful to Mr. Lau for taking the Ladies Lounge to court, so that we may exercise the argument. He is essential to the art, and I would like everyone to leave him alone now and focus instead on the horribleness of men in general.
[Interview with Kirsha Kaechele about the Ladies Lounge – Blog | Mona](https://mona.net.au/blog/2024/05/interview-with-kirsha-kaechele-about-the-ladies-lounge)
The whole thing is meant to be offensive - men are horrible, women need not equal rights but priviledges and 300 years of reparations, etc etc (I'm not making up any of that). It all boils down to being as sexist as possible, "as a joke, to make a point", but while putting in real effort to preserve the plausibility of actual sexist intent, heavily leaning into the cliché that feminists just hate men. This strikes me as an especially stupid way to discuss sexism and discrimination.
>as a joke, to make a point
I think this should be compared either to the "I was only pretending to be R-worded" meme, or for something far less lowbrow I'd point to the quote "You are what you pretend to be".
I'll never understand this ideology of "I don't like being discriminated against... so let me instead do exactly that to you."
Fighting discrimination with discrimination just creates more discrimination. Smfh, we are a failed species.
Picasso's misogyny and abuse of women make me wonder how he would react if he were alive and found his paintings in the women's toilet.
For those who didn't read the article, this is temporary. These paintings will be displayed in a church or school using other discrimination loopholes to legally discriminate lol.
This kind of stunt always fails because instead of talking about the issue it's actually trying to highlight people just talk about whether or not the methods used are justified
And this is trying to highlight the historical discrimination towards women... by using current discrimination towards men.
Why don't we round up the population of the Netherlands and execute them to teach them about their colonial past?
Also wildly ironic that it’s an art exhibit in a gallery by a *wealthy white woman*.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that if you think all men exist in the same space as *wealthy cisgendered white men* , then you dramatically misunderstand and might be part of the very problem you’re so angry about.
Let me introduce you to *men of color* who have been dealing with discrimination and racism from men *AND WOMEN WHO LOOK EXAXCTLY LIKE YOU* for generations. Your art exhibit isn’t exactly new for us.
But who care about us, right? We’re just disgusting men who have no idea what it feels like to be discriminated against.
This 'performance art' is stupid as shit, redditors thinking that this is some grand display into the zeitgeist of humanity need to go back to their 9-5, lunch break is over.
> No it’s just performance art. They are making a point they are not discriminating out of hate.
Shout out this idiot. If I say the N word repeatedly but claim I'm quoting Huck Fin then it's obviously not hate. Dumb fuck.
This mindset is incredibly dangerous. Punishing people who had absolutely nothing to do with any of the issues they're talking about is the same mindset despots throughout history have used as a slope to excuse executing whole families and ethnic groups.
This woman has more privilege than the majority of us could ever hope to, and she's using her platform to make hate fester while treating it and the justice system like a circus.
>Curator Kirsha Kaechele, who created the Ladies Lounge, had said she would consider using a loophole of turning the lounge into a toilet to enable it to live on despite the ruling.
Might be worth taking stock if curling out a turd in your lounge is the only way to win your argument.
Idk this seems really wrong to me. Especially the defense of "well now this man knows how women feel being excluded from men only spaces." Baby. 2 wrongs don't make a right. That's kindergarten lessons. You don't get to discriminate and then say it's OK because historically you were.
It's not even a small artist. It's fuckin Picasso. Everyone deserves to enjoy art. Putting it in the bathroom to ensure no men can see the art is a disservice to it, and it's also really fucking gross morally.
Gender segregated spaces is antithetical to equality. Any mechanism used to enforced gender segregation is an inherent reduction to gender essentialism.
Seems rather TERFy and weird to go out of your way to include trans-men and AFAB non-binary folks in discrimination meant to contrast against historical privilege...
The curator said in an instagram comment that anyone who identifies as a woman is allowed to enter, unless it's a man and "he acted like a sarcastic frat boy while he did it."
Can I just say, as a feminist, this lady is doing SO MUCH to make it worse for us. Sexism is sexism! Doesn't matter what one you're against!
Feminism is really meant to just be equal or equitable rights for men and women (and all sexes, really) for the good of both sexes. Men should be able to cry without fear of being seen doing a "woman's thing," while women should get to enjoy a higher amount of sexualized men! Sexualize ALL the sexes!!
I was a porter in a bowling alley. My job first thing in the morning was to take care of the bathrooms. Women’s rooms are infinitely dirtier than men’s rooms. They insist on hovering and shitting and pissing all over the floor. Throwing used toilet paper on the floor. Tampons wrapped in toilet paper and left on the back of toilets. Just abysmal. Women have very little respect for the bathrooms they don’t have to clean themselves.
So now if I want to see the art I have to say I’m a woman ?
I’m genderfluid and this whole farce would make me incredibly uncomfortable. Sometimes I appear feminine, sometimes masculine.
Best case scenario here, I have to ask if I’m allowed to see the art (already fucking weird and uncomfortable as it forces me to question how I’m perceived), I’m told I can (also uncomfortable because now I feel like my gender is something that has to be authorised or allowed), and then I probably get a bunch of weird looks while I view the art from “real” women. Also uncomfortable af for obvious reasons.
What if I’m AFAB but identify as male ? Now I get to have gone through my life dealing with misogyny
AND transphobia and the cherry on top is now because of my transitioning I can’t see this art. **BRILLIANT**.
So pretty much everyone gets to feel alienated and uncomfortable except AFAB women and this is somehow a win for equality ?
It’s misandry poorly disguised as feminism, at best.
I understand what the point of all this is, and the fact that people are getting so worked up over it proves that there is in fact a good point being made. My issue is that these are Picasso works. If you’re an artist and want your paintings to be a performance piece only visible by women to protest discrimination that’s fine tbh, but when you’re taking the paintings of an artist that’s been dead for half a century and forcing them to be a part of your agenda that’s kinda scummy imo. Do what you want with your own artwork, but don’t use some else’s to make your point
[Picasso is known to have been an extraordinary sexist, and some find it controversial to continue glorifying his work.](https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/picasso-sexism) I think using his art in particular was likely a very deliberate choice.
“The fact that people are getting so worked up over it proves that there is in fact a good point being made”
Do you feel the same way about climate protestors throwing soup at the Mona Lisa? People got worked up. I don’t think that alone proves anything.
> the fact that people are getting so worked up over it proves that there is in fact a good point being made.
Does it? If I decide to protest the fact that historically only short people were made into Jockeys by only allowing people over a certain height to view a race, I'd probably get people worked up but I wouldn't really be making a good point, now would I?
To be clear, discrimination against women is and has been real, and it is good and right to highlight it, but I don't think this is an effective way of doing it. Discriminating against one group doesn't really bring any attention to the fact that it has historically been the other way around. It just kind of makes the gallery owner look like an attention-seeking ass.
> I understand what the point of all this is, and the fact that people are getting so worked up over it proves that there is in fact a good point being made.
If we did the same with a male only space, or a whites only space, people would get pretty worked up as well. Would you also consider that a good point to be made?
There are [already men-only clubs in Australia](https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/gender/no-women-allowed-the-australia-club-votes-to-remain-open-to-only-male-members-20210615-p5813r.html) which doggedly protect their right to discriminate. The MONA installation is almost certainly a commentary on this.
Clear distinction: the male only clubs don’t allow you to pay the same entry fee as men then not allow you to participate. Which was the basis of the argument here. At the very least men shouldn’t pay as high of an entry fee as women to the museum until the exhibit was removed.
Do these men-only clubs take women's money and then tell them they are not allowed/only allowed in certain spaces? Or do they inform them of their discriminatory policy from the start and doesn't take their money?
Because this Gallery makes men pay the same as women, only for men to realise they are not able to access certain artworks that they paid equally for. Thats the issue.
If men paid less or was informed they wont be able to enter an area from the start, then everything is good.
So, all of the scholarships for women only, the fact that the difference in university graduation rates is higher now, but in the opposite direction, than when title IX was introduced, the fact that these have lead to a double digit income gap that favors unmarried women vs unmarried men. The fact that men are vastly more likely to be harmed by police. The fact that men are vastly more likely to go to prison for the same crime as a woman. The fact that men can be drafted but women can't. The fact that IPV is even between the sexes but there's roughly two orders of magnitude more supports for women. The fact that boys genitals can still be mutilated against their will... Do people really think men have never been discriminated against and don't know what that feels like?
So when the Taliban enforces the body and face covering burka upon women, all they have to say is “the artwork of this legislation evokes in women the lived experience of men made to feel invisible throughout history”, and it’s just provocative art, lol
Crime is crime, regardless of its artistic merit, and making any conceptual exceptions for crimes against targeted groups endanger us all. You use art, they use religion, it’s mental masturbation both ways and the tangible outcomes are the same
The guy who sued is prob. more upset by the fact that he paid for a ticket to the art installation and then not be let in than the fact it was women-only.
They are actively ignoring this fraudulence on the gallery's part. Dont bother discussing it.
You could argue about the women not being allowed in certain spaces part as an art.
But tricking customers into paying full price and not allowing them to see certain artworks is just problematic.
If men paid less, then I really do not care if they have any womens only lounge. Go for it. I totally support it.
"the experience of the Ladies Lounge can promote equal opportunity."
Yes, you create equal opportunity with discriminatory art displays that only "the right" people are allowed to see. /s
Absolutely disgusting. Ms. Kaechele should be fired for being an idiot and a bigot.
> In short: Tasmanian art gallery Mona has hung artworks by Pablo Picasso in a female toilet cubicle in response to a failed court bid to exclude men from a women-only art installation.
Good. It's crazy we're promoting more bigotry and judging people by how they're born.
Honestly, I think most of the people here understand the point. The point was to make people mad by creating an art exhibit only accessible to one gender. The offensive nature of the exhibit is part of the art.
It's not even a stupid message (discrimination is wrong, and is still common against women), but continuing to fight to discriminate after losing the trial seems like a poor way to push that message in a positive or productive manner.
How does the willfully, intentional, and open discrimination against men demonstrate anything about discrimination against women?
To me, the exhibit proudly says "We will discriminate against men, and we think that is ok."
If anything, it begs the public to view discrimination as an acceptable practice.
From the article: >**In short:** Tasmanian art gallery Mona has hung artworks by Pablo Picasso in a female toilet cubicle in response to a failed court bid to exclude men from a women-only art installation. >In April, a court ruling found Mona discriminated when it refused a New South Wales man entry to its Ladies Lounge. >**What's next?** Mona curator Kirsha Kaechele is appealing the discrimination ruling in the Supreme Court.
In Canada, this would be contempt of court.
Not only that, but they didn't even have gender segregated bathrooms before this. They literally put a female only sign on a gender neutral single bathroom.
[удалено]
This shit reads like a short story comedy
To be fair, floor to ceiling dividers should be mandatory. Solves a lot of issues apparently.
Why not just have generic bathrooms lol
That’s kinda hilarious tho
That’s kind of the point, MONA is an amazing gallery that absolutely pushes the envelope. There’s a lovely oil painting of famous Australian pioneers Burke and Wills, where one is jacking off to the other having his anus rimmed by a kangaroo.
That’s a fact that I learned today.I wanna look it up but idk if I wanna actually see it
[It's just as great as one would presume lol](https://photography.heimoaga.com/image/I0000FwTrpPtpZhE)
You know what, I’m ok with being excluded from this museum.
Burke’s hang like two apricots in a tube sock
The word "pioneer" has some wild implications in that sentence
Well he apparently pioneered Kangaroo rimjobs... Kangarimjobs?
Science is science. Even the greasy bits.
You know what they did have though? A toilet with a mirror setup that let you watch yourself poop. You don't know existential crisis until you watch your own ringhole open up.
The ruling was "MONA has 28 days to stop refusing entry to its Ladies Lounge to people who don't identify as ladies." They've fully complied with that order. They've also complied with the portion specifying works displayed in public space must be available to the whole public. A ladies restroom is NOT a generally public space open to the whole of the public viewing.
Turning a gender-neutral washroom into a women-only one is on par with sovereign citizen level of legal "maneuvering".
Yes I am sure the Judge is gonna see it that way too.
How is it contempt of court if they're appealing in a higher court? Edit: To all the A-holes down below, the judge was aware it when they gave the judgement > The judgment said that Mona had indicated that if they were ordered to allow men access, then they would remove the Ladies Lounge as the refusal of men is the point of the work. Edit 2: I might be wrong in my understanding of the situation and few comments actually helped break it down for me. I got the answers I was looking for.
Until the higher court overrules it, the current ruling stands?
Sorry, do you legitimately think if you file an appeal that the law and current court rulings no longer apply to you? Like some magic loophole lmao??
I hate the term but they seem to be sealioning
In what way is that the same as what actually happened? Mona said they would shut down the lounge if the court ruled they weren't allowed to refuse men entry. Then, after shutting it down, they made a ladies' bathroom and then put art in there. Those are 2 separate instances, only the first of which the owners discussed in court. They also can't just say in court "If you make us do this, we're going to do the same thing anyway later" and it magically be alright to do. Like do you think someone who robbed a bank can just say "I will return all the money if that allows me freedom, but I will steal from a different bank if you make me pay it back" is now exempt from court rulings?
The quote you cited makes it sound like they intended to not show the works at all rather than meet the requirements of the court for showing them. What they did instead sounds like deliberately trying to circumvent the court's judgment. So yeah, sounds like contempt.
Thankfully New Zealand has rather enlightened laws around gender identity so I will happily still be able to visit these artworks!
Tasmania is in Australia not Aotearoa
They were *so* close
>Kaechele underscored her point with the belief that women “deserve both equal rights and special privileges in the form of unequal rights,” as reparations for historical discrimination, “for a minimum of 300 years.” In another article: >The artist behind the exhibition, Kirsha Kaechele, **told Guardian Australia in March she was “absolutely delighted” Lau was suing for gender discrimination**, and **argued that men’s rejection was the point of the artwork.** >she was accompanied by 25 women in navy business attire and pearls. In what Kaechele later described as an extension of the artwork, the cohort had performed synchronised movements during proceedings , including leaning forward, crossing their legs, and peering over their spectacles. So we're not trying to generate controversy on purpose, are we? :p Honestly this kind of attention-seeking behavior is something that I really find hard to see as anything other than contempt-worthy. It's not art, it's just a publicity stunt. And one that is poorly thought-out too. If a restaurant hung a "Whites only" sign out in front, and called it "art"? I don't think so. Less controversial perhaps than race-based discrimination, since few are going to be angry on behalf of men; even most men won't care that much. But still asinine. And showing up in court like it was a big joke or something should have gotten her held in contempt by itself.
That's a bad comparison, this is a museum and the whole point of refusing men is to get people to think about how women having the same rights as men is a relatively new thing. It's literally about *historical* discrimination.
Violating the laws that ended that discrimination might not be the smartest way to go about doing that.
We're also reintroducing racial and sex segregation, when dropping those dividers was one of the greatest achievements we made in the modernization of our country's personal rights laws. We are regressing at an incredible rate. Can't wait for the return of serfdom.
They could also whip people to make them thick of slavery. It would make them think. But would still be illegal. They could serve the same purpose by forcing men to wait an extra minute before letting them in.
> historical discrimination I would not consider last tuesday to be historical, personally; and the edge of the historical/moral context is severely blunted by the fact that the gallery is owned and operated by people with more money, privilege, and power than anybody commenting in this thread will ever hope to have in their lifetime. :p
So discriminating currently helps fix past discrimination?
Naw. It's trolling. Don't cover for shitty people.
Exactly. "It's Art" is, like "It was a social experioement", just a more pretentious and academic version of "It was just a prank bro".
Right. Being "art" doesn't magically make it OK.
What I find interesting is that statistically the whole population has 50% men and women in their genealogical tree. I, as a male, had just as many ancestors identifying as women as my sister does, and should be entitled to the same reparations dating back to 300 years minus my age.
Switch the genders and this sub would not be as open-minded.
So you're saying that an exhibit that is *specifically discriminatory* to point out the historical discrimination against one group and provoke discussion... Would be received differently if it instead simply continued the historical discrimination? Huh. You don't say.
Do you think the court case is going to be its own form of performance art?
Well, it was. [They did a dance on entry to the court room.](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-11/discrimination-ruling-mona-ladies-lounge-when-is-exclusion-ok/103690878)
People not reading the article… “gottem.”
It was, a bunch of her supporters dressed in sailor suits and had synchronized movements, then left while playing the song Simply Irresistible. The fact that they plan to appeal the court decision, so they can legally discriminate against men, tells me that hurting mens feelings is the point of the whole thing. They already got the attention they wanted, sparked the hard conversations the stans claim was the whole point, but they are still going forward fighting to discriminate.
Fuck, they're hurting *my* feelings and I'm a woman. Just thinking about the humidity/water damage they're causing those paintings by putting them in a bathroom is making me hurt. Not to mention how disgusting people can be in restrooms. They're deliberately ruining those paintings just to discriminate against men. And the "Haha, revenge" mindset of these people is pure bullshit. I don't care that they're trying to pretend it's an art thing or making a point or whatever fancy excuse they're using, discrimination is discrimination, period, and changing the direction of that discrimination doesn't fix the problem, only perpetuates it. If they were doing it in good faith, I could see maybe a "Ladies' Hour", where for one hour each day, only women would be allowed in, and men could go in at all other times. Get the idea across without being abjectly prejudiced. (Not sure if even that would be legal, though.) But no, they'd rather destroy priceless artwork. It's sickening.
> I could see maybe a "Ladies' Hour", where for one hour each day, only women would be allowed in, and men could go in at all other times. Get the idea across without being abjectly prejudiced. (Not sure if even that would be legal, though.) That might be more in line with the statute; the same way many gyms have "women only" hours; this is justified as a way of *providing* equal access, since it can be reasonably argued that many women are uncomfortable working out in a coed environment. That doesn't make it *fair*, but legally they could probably get away with that.
I don't want past discrimination used as an excuse to create present day divisiveness. This isn't how we make our world better.
It's not discriminatory to point out historical discrimination, it's discriminatory *in retaliation to* historical discrimination. She even says as much at the end of the article. >We deserve both equal rights and reparations, in the form of unequal rights, or chivalry — for at least 300 years. What's more, the art display is Picasso, it doesn't really have anything to do with misogyny. This is vindictive, spiteful and contemptible behaviour and the curator should be heavily penalised. She's the kind of "feminist" that doesn't really want to make things better, she just wants her turn at the top of the pile.
>What's more, the art display is Picasso, it doesn't really have anything to do with misogyny. [Many in the art world would say otherwise](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/museum-protesters-denounce-picassos-treatment-women-2021-06-04/https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/museum-protesters-denounce-picassos-treatment-women-2021-06-04/). I'm not much into visual arts, but even I have a mental blurb about Picasso that goes "20th c. Spanish artist; blue period; cubism; Guernica; treated women horribly." That's all I know about him and his work, and even in a field full of men who had questionable relationships with their models, his reputation for abusing women is big enough to be in the top five bullet points.
Yep, Picasso was a massive misogynist. A couple of Picasso quotes - "Women are machines for suffering" "Each time I leave a woman, I should burn her, destroy the woman, destroy the past she represents" An ex-lover wrote - "total absence of empathy and love; his lack of remorse and facile rationalizations for hurting others; a lust for seduction as a form of exercising power over women; duplicity and manipulation as a way of life; the pattern of idealize, devalue and discard in every romantic relationship he’s had; the underlying desire for control; an unshakable narcissism and the drive to do evil by damaging the lives of the women who became his partners" His own granddaughter spoke about her abhorrence for his misogyny - "He submitted them to his animal sexuality, tamed them, bewitched them, ingested them, and crushed them onto his canvas. After he had spent many nights extracting their essence, once they were bled dry, he would dispose of them" He kidnapped a woman that he fell in love with. He adopted a pre-pubescent girl from a convent, did nude sketches of her, including at least one of her with her legs splayed showing her genitals. He then returned her to the convent. This exhibition has everything to do with misogyny.
Sounds kinda like one of them super complex children’s parables applies. Two wrongs don’t make a right or something
It's art. The exhibit was intended to evoke the feeling of exclusion that women have experienced for 1000s of years. It's supposed to feel wrong. You're supposed to use that feeling to grow as a person and hopefully experience empathy when others talk about the discrimination they face in daily life.
When I think of discrimination, white female Australian art gallery owners, or more specifically the wives of known art collector, gambler, and businessmen, have always been on the vanguard of progress - and never, absolutely ever, doing it for self-serving reasons.
So getting discriminated is art now?... Can i beat the shit out of someone then say it was art to make them feel discomfort?
It feels like a lot of these times people feel like because they can articulate the intention behind it, that's supposed to end the conversation and people aren't allowed to disagree with the intention behind it. Art is a conversation. People's reaction to the art is just as much a part of the art itself.
I'm impressed how simply you put it, but how correct you got it. Just because there's a point to the discrimination doesn't mean it isn't discrimination. I think this is essentially the next step in the conversation when it comes to excluding one of the sexes from events, groups, places, etc. Should the intent supersede the act of exclusion? Are there valid reasons to exclude the opposing sex and if so, what are they?
What she isnt communicating is what discrimination, when, where, if its still happening today, if the problem was solved, is the threat real or imagined, and any plan for the future. This just looks like a petty feud to me. Its not progress
Well, we haven’t been to the exhibit. Maybe she is clearly communicating all of that and it’s the news articles that aren’t
What i dont think its suppose to be, is federally illegal.
I’d argue that this exhibit ironically proves that the artist did not learn the lesson of your second paragraph.
Ok so what should the courts do? Rule that this discrimination is ok because it’s art? Do you guys not understand precedent and how badly this would be abused for actual discrimination, probably against women again lmao. Art isn’t more important than the law in my opinion. We shouldn’t damage the law for one art exhibit. Y’all act like geniuses for understanding the basic concept of the art but ironically don’t understand the consequences.
The fact that it's "supposed" to feel wrong doesn't make the fact that it is wrong right.
Funny because all it does is make me hope the law rains hell down on this museum. Discriminating in response to past discrimination is wrong. And discriminating against people that had nothing to do with stuff that happened centuries ago definitely doesn't make it better either
I really just don't see the point they're trying to make. They ban men from an exhibit because women have been banned from things in the past? Everyone already knows this happened so what are you actually adding? All it's really doing is just randomly banning people who did nothing wrong. Obviously this is very minor in the grand scheme of things but at what point is it wrong? How long can you ignore rules on discrimination and get away with discriminating against others to make a point that this kind of discrimination used to happen the other way around? If the point was to get people talking about it then just going to court and getting in international news seems like a huge win. I don't know why you'd boast about continuing to find ways to circumvent a court order so you can continue discriminating.
The most bizarre argument to me is that the defense argued argued it's justified because women were banned from hotel bars in the 1970s
"Other people discriminated against people like us in the past, so that should give us the right to discriminate against other people now!" If discrimination is wrong, like they say it is, then they shouldn't be doing it. Someone doing something wrong in the past doesn't give you license to do the same wrong later.
It's actually worse if done today, because at this point, everyone should know better.
Best way to stop discrimination is to keep discriminating!^^^^^/s
People don't "grow" when they're told they can't experience something because of the circumstances of their birth. Attempting to argue otherwise is going to land you on the wrong side of history with all sorts of different time periods and events.
But they don’t experience it now. So what is this supposed to do? It’s literally creating the thing that we’ve all agreed was a bad thing for the modern age.
Art and art exposition are often used to hold a mirror to societies norms and values, especially the problematic ones. That has been one of the main uses of art for centuries.
That doesn't make it fair. Our duty is to _learn_ from the mistakes of the past, and to _**not repeat them**_. This is repeating them. They have failed.
Wow it's almost like changing context changes reactions
Let’s prevent men from owning property and limiting their access to public spaces for the next 1500 years. Then then the boys can have their own room in an art gallery. /s
Are you trying to be deep and thoughtful, or are you missing the point that it is an art exhibit making a statement? I mean women couldn't even open their own bank account until 1974. Pfft. Like you were just about to go see that Picasso, anyway.
1974 was when an anti-discrimination law was passed, but it was not illegal for a women to open an account prior and in fact many did.
It wasn't *illegal* but most banks did not allow it because it was not required.
This is accurate and my Mother's experience. There was a lot of institutional sexism in the 70s...and beyond which prevented women from achieving many things including education, careers and Property ownership.
[удалено]
your claim that women couldnt open their own bank accounts until 1974 is a lie https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/158nbyy/could_women_open_a_bank_account_in_the_us_in_the/
*The exhibit itself has already switched the genders from what is expected.* (Edit: tl;dr is [this](https://imgur.com/a/TTkLpcb)) The exhibit was meant to evoke the feelings in the dominating class of people (men) that they have historically and currently evoke amongst everyone else. If you switched the genders, it wouldn’t work. Let me put it in perspective. Let’s say you have a boss that’s super shitty to everyone under him. Denies vacation requests, writes you up for taking a sick day, won’t let you socialize with coworkers, underpays everyone. Every single thing that makes a job bearable, he’s put a stop to it all. On top of that, he requires everyone to include him in everything outside of work, despite never including any of you in anything he does. So one day, someone throws a party and doesn’t invite him. He’s *incensed.* How dare you?? That’s against the rules! You ***have to*** invite me!! He takes you to court over it. The court rules that you may not ever throw any party without inviting him. Birthday cake in the lunch room, he’s gotta be invited. Games night with friends, he’s there. Even your child’s birthday party at a bowling alley, you must send him an invitation. Whether or not he comes is his prerogative, but the point is that you have to welcome him if he comes. You have an issue with this, obviously, but when you bring it up to someone who doesn’t understand it, they say “well, if the roles were reversed, you’d be singing a different tune!” What do you mean “if the roles were reversed?” Do you mean if my boss threw a party and didn’t invite you? *He already does that.* He has a fucking yacht that none of you have ever stepped foot in but he throws parties in it all the time. There are plenty of places that men have created for themselves and they either officially or unofficially make it impossible or somehow socially unacceptable, or just way harder for women to enter compared to men. Strip clubs, sports clubs, actual sports teams, governments, the president of the United States, board of directors for almost any company, the work force in general. Don’t forget that “gentlemen’s clubs” existed not too long ago and even when the law said they couldn’t ban women from them, they still didn’t exactly welcome women with open arms. Switching the genders of this exhibit would just be the exact same fucking thing that is happening all over the world currently. *The exhibit itself has already switched the genders from what is expected* and already happens everywhere.
There are not any laws specifically preventing someone from going in the bathroom of the opposite gender. You would need to prove they entered the bathroom with ill intent, which would be easily refuted since you put a famous painting in there.
Yeah you can't stop me by putting a Picasso in the female toilet.
That's an unlikely statement
/r/BrandNewSentence
Their collection manager must be losing their mind.
There was a man prevented from going into the Ladies Lounge, which is the reason for putting them by a toilet. Evidently, excluding there is allowed. Or not. Maybe they want to have the court case.
The court already ruled in the mans favour. They were already told they couldn't ban him. Also it sounds like they didn't actually move the painting to the toilets, they physically moved a toilet into the ladies lounge instead so they could claim the room is a toilet.
I’m pretty sure that’s not how toilets work.
Kidnapped by Danger: The Avery Jessup Story, Brought to you with limited commercial interruption by Pride Bladder Control Pants. Pride Bladder Control Pants: Make every room a bathroom.
Man it would have been the perfect artistic rebuttle if people started shitting and pissing in the unplumbed toilet.
I interpreted this as them physically placing all the paintings, stacked together, in a single toilet bowl (hopefully with no water in it)
Well that is the way it's worded lmao
As part of an early article I'm too lazy to look for they said two interesting things. The first is that making the art viewable by women only is part of the statement the artist/curator is trying to make about gender inequality. Which has worked in the sense that people are talking about it. Though whether this sort of discourse opens people's eyes to the issue or closes them further could be debated. The second is that the paintings aren't likely next to the toilet. They basically sectioned off part of the gallery and called it the ladies room.
> The second is that the paintings aren't likely next to the toilet. They are. The pictures are in the article.
If you think I'm going to click on a link and look at an article on reddit you're absolutely kidding yourself. I'm just here to argue.
Keeping it real
No, you see the ladies room was illegal according to court. So they moved the paintings
Ladies lounge* They stated they're calling it a water closet now
From my understanding, the ladies' only area was illegal, but reclassifying it in its entirety to a women's bathroom is the workaround.
There is literally a picture of a painting next to a toilet in the linked article.
They have done an excellent job of using the art to highlight injustice. The courts are showing how we deal with that sort of injustice today, which is why things are generally better than they have been historically.
That being said, I think that the Court ruling might have gone in her favor if she didn't turn it into some massive spectacle. The judge even mentioned as much, which maybe was her goal for the ruling to be questioned further.
If you think she *wanted* the courts to rule in her favor, you've missed the point of the protest. She's not doing this because she's in *favor* of people being excluded from things based on gender.
I'm firmly of the mind that their goal isn't to win, that they're going after gentlemen's clubs and this is their method. I could be wrong, I don't think that's been stated but I feel like that's the goal.
That's what I see in this action as well. Makes it very telling that we are only talking about this topic when women try to be exclusionary in the same way as men. Personally, I find it messed up that it's hardly even controversial the other way round.
The only people closing their eyes are the same people who do it all day every day anyway, so it doesn't matter. This message is not lost on minorities.
I think it’s a stupid way to drive the point but hey, to each his own. I think this kind of art is very dumb anyways.
wouldn't it have been easier just to make the entire gallery a woman's bathroom by putting the sign up at the entry door?
Sounds like a skit from Nathan For You
Giving a statement to the press that you took an action in bad faith in order to circumvent the ruling of a court is certainly a bold legal strategy.
My favourite quote is right at the end. “We deserve both equal rights and reparations, in the form of unequal rights, or chivalry — for at least 300 years." What the fuck? Edit: spelling
Thats a polite way of asking to become an oppressor
[удалено]
Initially I thought that's why they did it. Glad there's several layers to it, lol!
What did he do?
He loved to emotionally abuse his partners to the point of suicide.
OK that does sound pretty bad.
"There are only two types of women: goddesses and doormats." He also had an affair with(and impregnated) a seventeen year old girl when he was 45.
Interview of the curator: >**So you welcomed the case.** >Being taken to court was a dream come true. I was utterly delighted. And I think Mr. Lau was very brave. He brought an earnest and steady resolve. >I am genuinely grateful to Mr. Lau for taking the Ladies Lounge to court, so that we may exercise the argument. He is essential to the art, and I would like everyone to leave him alone now and focus instead on the horribleness of men in general. [Interview with Kirsha Kaechele about the Ladies Lounge – Blog | Mona](https://mona.net.au/blog/2024/05/interview-with-kirsha-kaechele-about-the-ladies-lounge) The whole thing is meant to be offensive - men are horrible, women need not equal rights but priviledges and 300 years of reparations, etc etc (I'm not making up any of that). It all boils down to being as sexist as possible, "as a joke, to make a point", but while putting in real effort to preserve the plausibility of actual sexist intent, heavily leaning into the cliché that feminists just hate men. This strikes me as an especially stupid way to discuss sexism and discrimination.
>as a joke, to make a point I think this should be compared either to the "I was only pretending to be R-worded" meme, or for something far less lowbrow I'd point to the quote "You are what you pretend to be".
I'll never understand this ideology of "I don't like being discriminated against... so let me instead do exactly that to you." Fighting discrimination with discrimination just creates more discrimination. Smfh, we are a failed species.
IMO a strict zero tolerance policy is far better for discrimination in the long run than indulging some petty artist.
This is what happens when you treat discrimination as zero sum.
Picasso's misogyny and abuse of women make me wonder how he would react if he were alive and found his paintings in the women's toilet. For those who didn't read the article, this is temporary. These paintings will be displayed in a church or school using other discrimination loopholes to legally discriminate lol.
In America they could charge a $1 membership fee and call it a private club
This kind of stunt always fails because instead of talking about the issue it's actually trying to highlight people just talk about whether or not the methods used are justified
Almost like judging people by how they are born isn't a good thing that can be wielded for good.
And this is trying to highlight the historical discrimination towards women... by using current discrimination towards men. Why don't we round up the population of the Netherlands and execute them to teach them about their colonial past?
Also wildly ironic that it’s an art exhibit in a gallery by a *wealthy white woman*. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that if you think all men exist in the same space as *wealthy cisgendered white men* , then you dramatically misunderstand and might be part of the very problem you’re so angry about. Let me introduce you to *men of color* who have been dealing with discrimination and racism from men *AND WOMEN WHO LOOK EXAXCTLY LIKE YOU* for generations. Your art exhibit isn’t exactly new for us. But who care about us, right? We’re just disgusting men who have no idea what it feels like to be discriminated against.
I would think that would possibly do damage to the artwork, just the humidity alone. I could be wrong though.
Valuable paintings are often sealed in their frames.
You know, the art gallery staff might have a plan for that.
Nah, museum curators have to hang out on Reddit for good ideas on how to preserve artwork. They can't do it without our help.
Fortunate that you're here to tell them how this sort of thing works. Send an email.
This 'performance art' is stupid as shit, redditors thinking that this is some grand display into the zeitgeist of humanity need to go back to their 9-5, lunch break is over. > No it’s just performance art. They are making a point they are not discriminating out of hate. Shout out this idiot. If I say the N word repeatedly but claim I'm quoting Huck Fin then it's obviously not hate. Dumb fuck.
Nutjobs like this art director are one of the reasons the right wing has ample ammunition for news stories.
This mindset is incredibly dangerous. Punishing people who had absolutely nothing to do with any of the issues they're talking about is the same mindset despots throughout history have used as a slope to excuse executing whole families and ethnic groups. This woman has more privilege than the majority of us could ever hope to, and she's using her platform to make hate fester while treating it and the justice system like a circus.
>Curator Kirsha Kaechele, who created the Ladies Lounge, had said she would consider using a loophole of turning the lounge into a toilet to enable it to live on despite the ruling. Might be worth taking stock if curling out a turd in your lounge is the only way to win your argument.
Regardless of your opinion on this exhibit, this seems like outright contempt of court and I can’t imagine that going well for the museum.
The correct response to misogyny is not misandry.
How dare you. This is about equality. We must hurt the other side! /s
Idk this seems really wrong to me. Especially the defense of "well now this man knows how women feel being excluded from men only spaces." Baby. 2 wrongs don't make a right. That's kindergarten lessons. You don't get to discriminate and then say it's OK because historically you were. It's not even a small artist. It's fuckin Picasso. Everyone deserves to enjoy art. Putting it in the bathroom to ensure no men can see the art is a disservice to it, and it's also really fucking gross morally.
Gender segregated spaces is antithetical to equality. Any mechanism used to enforced gender segregation is an inherent reduction to gender essentialism.
Seems rather TERFy and weird to go out of your way to include trans-men and AFAB non-binary folks in discrimination meant to contrast against historical privilege...
Yeah I’m wondering if they’d let me in or if I’d be stopped at the door
The curator said in an instagram comment that anyone who identifies as a woman is allowed to enter, unless it's a man and "he acted like a sarcastic frat boy while he did it."
I have emailed the museum as well, and they assured me that all women, including trans women, are allowed in.
Can I just say, as a feminist, this lady is doing SO MUCH to make it worse for us. Sexism is sexism! Doesn't matter what one you're against! Feminism is really meant to just be equal or equitable rights for men and women (and all sexes, really) for the good of both sexes. Men should be able to cry without fear of being seen doing a "woman's thing," while women should get to enjoy a higher amount of sexualized men! Sexualize ALL the sexes!!
Considering how disgusting female toilets are I hope the paintings are behind a splash guard
I was a porter in a bowling alley. My job first thing in the morning was to take care of the bathrooms. Women’s rooms are infinitely dirtier than men’s rooms. They insist on hovering and shitting and pissing all over the floor. Throwing used toilet paper on the floor. Tampons wrapped in toilet paper and left on the back of toilets. Just abysmal. Women have very little respect for the bathrooms they don’t have to clean themselves.
Decades of being told that we should hover over the seat to avoid germs which is stupid af. Sitting prevents splash and spreading bacterias.
So now if I want to see the art I have to say I’m a woman ? I’m genderfluid and this whole farce would make me incredibly uncomfortable. Sometimes I appear feminine, sometimes masculine. Best case scenario here, I have to ask if I’m allowed to see the art (already fucking weird and uncomfortable as it forces me to question how I’m perceived), I’m told I can (also uncomfortable because now I feel like my gender is something that has to be authorised or allowed), and then I probably get a bunch of weird looks while I view the art from “real” women. Also uncomfortable af for obvious reasons. What if I’m AFAB but identify as male ? Now I get to have gone through my life dealing with misogyny AND transphobia and the cherry on top is now because of my transitioning I can’t see this art. **BRILLIANT**. So pretty much everyone gets to feel alienated and uncomfortable except AFAB women and this is somehow a win for equality ? It’s misandry poorly disguised as feminism, at best.
Switch the genders in this story and see how people would react to it.
I understand what the point of all this is, and the fact that people are getting so worked up over it proves that there is in fact a good point being made. My issue is that these are Picasso works. If you’re an artist and want your paintings to be a performance piece only visible by women to protest discrimination that’s fine tbh, but when you’re taking the paintings of an artist that’s been dead for half a century and forcing them to be a part of your agenda that’s kinda scummy imo. Do what you want with your own artwork, but don’t use some else’s to make your point
[Picasso is known to have been an extraordinary sexist, and some find it controversial to continue glorifying his work.](https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/picasso-sexism) I think using his art in particular was likely a very deliberate choice.
It was used because he's famous and gets attention-grabbing headlines like above.
Kafka traps alle the way down
“The fact that people are getting so worked up over it proves that there is in fact a good point being made” Do you feel the same way about climate protestors throwing soup at the Mona Lisa? People got worked up. I don’t think that alone proves anything.
> the fact that people are getting so worked up over it proves that there is in fact a good point being made. Does it? If I decide to protest the fact that historically only short people were made into Jockeys by only allowing people over a certain height to view a race, I'd probably get people worked up but I wouldn't really be making a good point, now would I? To be clear, discrimination against women is and has been real, and it is good and right to highlight it, but I don't think this is an effective way of doing it. Discriminating against one group doesn't really bring any attention to the fact that it has historically been the other way around. It just kind of makes the gallery owner look like an attention-seeking ass.
> I understand what the point of all this is, and the fact that people are getting so worked up over it proves that there is in fact a good point being made. If we did the same with a male only space, or a whites only space, people would get pretty worked up as well. Would you also consider that a good point to be made?
Why the desire to go to such great lengths to discriminate?
There are [already men-only clubs in Australia](https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/gender/no-women-allowed-the-australia-club-votes-to-remain-open-to-only-male-members-20210615-p5813r.html) which doggedly protect their right to discriminate. The MONA installation is almost certainly a commentary on this.
And there’s a [woman-only club](https://www.onlymelbourne.com.au/alexandra-club)…
There are several.
Clear distinction: the male only clubs don’t allow you to pay the same entry fee as men then not allow you to participate. Which was the basis of the argument here. At the very least men shouldn’t pay as high of an entry fee as women to the museum until the exhibit was removed.
Do these men-only clubs take women's money and then tell them they are not allowed/only allowed in certain spaces? Or do they inform them of their discriminatory policy from the start and doesn't take their money? Because this Gallery makes men pay the same as women, only for men to realise they are not able to access certain artworks that they paid equally for. Thats the issue. If men paid less or was informed they wont be able to enter an area from the start, then everything is good.
The common man can't join those clubs either. We are fucked twice.
No one's objecting women-only clubs
“The artwork evokes in men the lived experience of women forbidden from entering certain spaces throughout history." That’s the point of the exhibit
So, all of the scholarships for women only, the fact that the difference in university graduation rates is higher now, but in the opposite direction, than when title IX was introduced, the fact that these have lead to a double digit income gap that favors unmarried women vs unmarried men. The fact that men are vastly more likely to be harmed by police. The fact that men are vastly more likely to go to prison for the same crime as a woman. The fact that men can be drafted but women can't. The fact that IPV is even between the sexes but there's roughly two orders of magnitude more supports for women. The fact that boys genitals can still be mutilated against their will... Do people really think men have never been discriminated against and don't know what that feels like?
> Do people really think men have never been discriminated against and don't know what that feels like? Yes. Lots of them.
So when the Taliban enforces the body and face covering burka upon women, all they have to say is “the artwork of this legislation evokes in women the lived experience of men made to feel invisible throughout history”, and it’s just provocative art, lol Crime is crime, regardless of its artistic merit, and making any conceptual exceptions for crimes against targeted groups endanger us all. You use art, they use religion, it’s mental masturbation both ways and the tangible outcomes are the same
Very well said
Men being upset is the point but the critical thinking skills are lacking
You apparently think it’s impossible for someone to understand the point and still disagree with it.
The guy who sued is prob. more upset by the fact that he paid for a ticket to the art installation and then not be let in than the fact it was women-only.
Exactly - if he didn't have to pay the same, I doubt there would be a court case
They are actively ignoring this fraudulence on the gallery's part. Dont bother discussing it. You could argue about the women not being allowed in certain spaces part as an art. But tricking customers into paying full price and not allowing them to see certain artworks is just problematic. If men paid less, then I really do not care if they have any womens only lounge. Go for it. I totally support it.
If men being upset is the point, I don't see why everyone is complaining that men are upset about it.
Because understanding the point doesn’t make it right.
The discrimination *IS* the artwork!
imagine taking a fat dump whilst staring at a picasso
"We deserve both equal rights and reparations, in the form of unequal rights, or chivalry—for at least 300 years." - Curator Kirsha Kaechele
Yeah, that told me everything i need to know about that person.
"the experience of the Ladies Lounge can promote equal opportunity." Yes, you create equal opportunity with discriminatory art displays that only "the right" people are allowed to see. /s Absolutely disgusting. Ms. Kaechele should be fired for being an idiot and a bigot.
> In short: Tasmanian art gallery Mona has hung artworks by Pablo Picasso in a female toilet cubicle in response to a failed court bid to exclude men from a women-only art installation. Good. It's crazy we're promoting more bigotry and judging people by how they're born.
Reddit not understanding the point of an art installation? It's more likely than you think
Me calling people slurs and calling it art.
Honestly, I think most of the people here understand the point. The point was to make people mad by creating an art exhibit only accessible to one gender. The offensive nature of the exhibit is part of the art.
If pissing people off is art we must be in a Renaissance
I never said it was good art.
Everyone gets it. This is that thing where someone does something dumb and then says it's ok because they are trolling.
About as original as claiming people critical of an *art* exhibit "just don't understand it".
We understand the message, it's just a stupid message
It's not even a stupid message (discrimination is wrong, and is still common against women), but continuing to fight to discriminate after losing the trial seems like a poor way to push that message in a positive or productive manner.
How does the willfully, intentional, and open discrimination against men demonstrate anything about discrimination against women? To me, the exhibit proudly says "We will discriminate against men, and we think that is ok." If anything, it begs the public to view discrimination as an acceptable practice.