- 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.
I think it’s a problem of enforcement. It states they weren’t letting in people self identifying as ladies.
I get the point of the exhibit and it’s fair to make the statement. Her point was made and she got international attention. She loses me at the concept of having herself or staff determining genders at the point of access.
“Ms Kaechele described the Ladies Lounge as a response to the lived experience of women forbidden from entering certain spaces throughout history,” Mr Grueber said.
Fortunately, modern legislation prohibits sex-segregated art displays, so the practices Ms Kaechele is responding to are no longer legal in Australia.
If Ms Kaechele would like to campaign for a return to sex-segregated art displays, I am certain she would be displeased by the outcome of abolishing sex discrimination laws.
Sex segregated spaces are allowed thogh?, is it just art spaces that aren’t.
Women’s only gyms, women’s only swimming pools.etc
Some guy who lived near a ladies only pool in Sydney sued becase he wanted to use it but he lost.
That’s a shame. Between all the men’s only spaces and the women’s only spaces, nonbinary people lose.
It does seem to go against the thought provoking point of a modern art gallery
You know, in Australia, there’s men’s only homeless shelters and women’s only homeless shelters, but no nonbinary only homeless shelters. And of the mixed gender homeless shelters, very few of them have a designated space for nonbinary people or people of all genders. If you’re nonbinary and homeless, chances are you either live on the street, or in a men’s section or a women’s section. Now, given the issues nonbinary youth tend to suffer with transphobic parents, I daresay nonbinary people are one of the groups most in need of homeless shelters. Some homeless shelters have a mixed gender space, and that’s the right way to do it. This is more common with shelters that house families as well as individuals.
Speaking of, recent studies show that nonbinary people are more common than both trans men and trans women. As societal gender issues literacy increases, the number of nonbinary-identifying people just goes up and up, and it’s showing no sign of slowing down. Given that there are a billion nonbinary genders and only two binary genders, I wouldn’t be surprised if the current gender revolution ends up with most people nonbinary. Nobody fits the ideals of masculinity or femininity perfectly, and there’s more and more young people opting out of the binary entirely, even if they’re the kind of people who could have gone their whole lives being happy with their assigned gender in the old world.
That would be good. Non binary was rare among the queer community when I was a teen. Already, friends have asked me to chat with their kids who are coming out. I don’t have much to say, they’re more onto it than I ever was. I was surprised by the number until you mentioned it’s more common now
There’s plenty of people who think binary gender is just a phase humanity briefly went through. They think there’ll be no such thing as men or women within two hundred years.
I can say with certainty that there are no binary babies, because babies don’t have gender. Gender starts developing at 2-3, solidifies at 4, morphs to its adult form at puberty, and continues developing either until 25 or until death. There’s no such thing as a baby boy or a baby girl, and it’s barely even fair to call a toddler a boy or a girl. In a few generations, gendering babies will be seen as barbaric, the same way many people see circumcision or female genital mutilation today. Children will choose their own pronouns when they’re old enough to talk, and it’ll be they/them or it/its until then.
That’s the point of the court ruling right? It recognises the current climate when determining safety and disadvantage, not the past.
No she thinks it’s fair for women to discriminate against men, “for at least 300 years”.
Unfortunately this is what a lot of people who claim to be advocates of equality want. They don’t want actual equality, they want harmful inequality for the group that used to benefit from it. That doesn’t provide justice for anyone, it just perpetuates injustice, especially since many people who never actually benefitted from the previous inequality will be harmed by the reversed situation. We need true inclusivity, not this role reversal bullshit that so many popular ideologies espouse.
Edit: see this comment as evidence.
They don’t want actual equality, they want harmful inequality for the group that used to benefit from it.
…
Edit: see this comment as evidence.
Get some reading comprehension skills. Pushing back on pearl-clutchers claiming it’s “counterproductive” when they’re really just butthurt about it isn’t at all the same thing as “want[ing] harmful inequality.”
Point out where I actually endorsed the tactic – hint: you won’t be able to, because I did no such thing – or retract your false statement.
No thanks. I have no interest in engaging in your little debate games. Good day.
I’m not “engaging in little debate games.” I’m calling you out as a liar for falsely accusing me of being sexist.
I said good day.
FYI, you aren’t Willy Wonka. You don’t win just because you condescendingly try to dismiss me.
If your socio-policital point requires the infringement of someone’s rights, I’m immediately inclined to disagree with you.
Promoting equal opportunity by denying men seems counter productive. I feel sorry for all the young males who may want to see these pieces / who are studying fine art.
Even more ironic considering they’re paintings made by a male.
LOL, nah. Demonstrating exactly how hurtful the discrimination is by turning it against the group usually doing it is a very effective strategy. This notion that the historically-oppressed group needs to act all perfectly noble and correct in order to keep the legitimacy of its grievance is nothing but reactionary, pearl-clutching bullshit.
If those “young males” don’t like it, they should blame the old males who fucked it up for them. Otherwise, the only response a male can have to this that isn’t sexist is “well played.”
What is there to gain from punishing the current generation who’s more open to the idea of true equality? If anything you’re just pushing them towards being against the cause…
Nice try though lmao
The effect of the policy isn’t only on the “young males” that you’re so inordinately concerned about; it’s also on everyone who observes the situation.
If anything you’re just pushing them towards being against the cause…
Translation: “By demonstrating the hurtfulness of sexism to them, it’s women’s own fault men are becoming sexist!”
Wow, that’s right on up there with “if she weren’t wearing a sexy dress, she wouldn’t have gotten raped.” Got any more victim-blamey bullshit?
If you punish me for something I didn’t do. Then I’ll hate you. There’s nothing more to it.
If you wanna do “sexism against men because they are sexist towards women” you should at least do things that you suffer from. There are no men-only art galleries in Australia. How is this supposed to teach men “see how you feel? That’s how I feel every day”.
If you punish me for something I didn’t do. Then I’ll hate you. There’s nothing more to it.
If you lack the empathy to understand the bigger picture, that says more about you than it does them. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If you wanna do “sexism against men because they are sexist towards women” you should at least do things that you suffer from. There are no men-only art galleries in Australia. How is this supposed to teach men “see how you feel? That’s how I feel every day”.
They aren’t in a position to (for example) stop men from getting hired into executive positions, though. The lack of capacity for a discriminated minority to effectively retaliate in-kind is part of the point, is it not?
Moreover, what entitles you to decide for them what forms of protest are acceptable?
The fact that you managed to combine a “bootstraps” fallacy and “white moderate” paternalism (albeit applied to sexism instead of racism) so succinctly is honestly kinda impressive.
Well, if a company doesn’t hire an executive because she is a woman, paint their parking lot. Don’t need to make a company that hires no executive men.
Making a women-only art gallery accomplishes nothing.
This has nothing to do with rape victim blaming.
Really clutching straws here to prove your point…
and did not recognise how the experience of the Ladies Lounge can promote equal opportunity.
What a ridiculous argument, I don’t have much respect for the legal system but it got it right this time.
