252
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by BrikoX@lemmy.zip to c/globalnews@lemmy.zip

Australia's Mona asked a court to reverse its ruling that allowed men inside a women's only space.

Archived version: https://archive.ph/oHT6U

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] TheControlled@lemmy.world 81 points 3 weeks ago

There shouldn't be such thing as gender x only spaces. Or race, or sexuality. The women aren't wrong about their points, but that doesn't make it an acceptable or thankfully, legal thing to do. I'm sure the guy who sued them did it for all the wrong reasons though. Both sides seem a bit slimy.

[-] Kacarott@feddit.de 55 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I didn't read into this particular issue, but I know the museum in question, have been there a couple times, so some context:

  • it was founded by some eccentric multi millionaire, who basically just does whatever he wants. The museum was originally free for everyone, until eventually he realised he was draining money really fast, so now it's only free for locals.
  • the museum changes it's "theme" somewhat frequently. One time I was there the whole place looked like a grocery store, and the stairs to the actual museum was like hidden away in part of the store.
  • the museum seems to thrive on getting strong reactions from people. Much of the art inside is quite shocking or provocative. They have an app where you can rate how much you like each artwork, and apparently they actively remove artworks which are too universally liked.

So it doesn't surprise me at all that the museum is trying to be women only, but I really doubt it will be permanent, and I suspect that the strong public reactions is exactly the point.

[-] TheControlled@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago

I kind of suspected this. Usually forseeble controversy like this is a ploy, especially with art and art spaces.

[-] TassieTosser@aussie.zone 6 points 3 weeks ago

Depends on how much money the exhibit draws. Iirc the Wall of Vaginas was supposed to be temporary but it's still up as far as I know.

[-] KISSmyOSFeddit@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago

So there shouldn't be girls' locker rooms either?

[-] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 22 points 3 weeks ago

Why do we need girls locker rooms when we’ve had the technology for mixed gender locker rooms for generations? We call them doors and use them even in single gender bathrooms.

Certainly it’s inappropriate for sexual predators to be able to leer at girls or women, but there I also no need to have a lack of privacy from those of the same gender, if that’s what people wish.

[-] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 14 points 3 weeks ago

Locker rooms are a little different than bathrooms.

[-] refalo@programming.dev 7 points 3 weeks ago

Apparently you've never been in a locker room before.

[-] iegod@lemm.ee 10 points 3 weeks ago

Modern locker rooms can be built with individual stalls so I understand the point being made. Personally though, it's less efficient to have a locker room with multiple single-serve rooms. Extra material, extra cost, decreased functional area, additional readying time. If you use a locker room frequently you know how invaluable all those things are.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Sethayy@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 weeks ago

Got this one from tumblr but its something along the lines of we go to the bathroom to shit, not have some special women fun time in there.

If there was a way to have my own room entirely without anyone else that'd be 100% preferred, but gender is the last thing im thinking about when someone's peeking down the cracks of my stall

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (38 replies)
[-] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 42 points 3 weeks ago

Whew, if the bear meme didn't bring out the usual crowd of assholes, this sure did.

[-] HauntedCupcake@lemmy.world 21 points 3 weeks ago

It's honestly shocking how many people are missing the point.

They just need to read the article and it basically spells it out. The whole thing is meant to be shocking in order to draw attention to the stupid laws and get them fixed.

It's right there, both the motive and the solution.

At least with the bear it was less well documented and kinda took some background knowledge and extra thought to understand. But this one is just RIGHT THERE spelled out in the article 🤷

[-] TassieTosser@aussie.zone 10 points 3 weeks ago

Another fun fact, two men actually sued. One dropped the issue after being told the purpose of the art installation and realised he was about to be made a spectacle, the other went full steam ahead.

[-] TassieTosser@aussie.zone 12 points 3 weeks ago

MONA is famous here for doing all sorts of controversial shit. This one time they sacrificed and butchered a cow live on stage. A women's only space is tame and on brand. Everyone's been baited

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] TacoButtPlug@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 weeks ago

Yup. Thousands of years of female exclusion - and it still continues in circles to this day, but one museum and now they're crying about basically re-excluding women from everything as a "thought exercise."

[-] Thcdenton@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

Does a bear shit in the ladies restroom?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] over_clox@lemmy.world 40 points 3 weeks ago

Well isn't that about some hypocritical shit?!

From the article...

"The lounge, which contains some of the museum's most-acclaimed works - from Picasso to Sidney Nolan - has been closed to the public since the court's order."

Both Pablo Picasso and Sidney Nolan were both men!

If they're gonna play that 'women only' card, then they should remove all works created by men and move them to a proper open museum.

[-] protist@mander.xyz 37 points 3 weeks ago

You're doing the thing the artist intended lol

[-] over_clox@lemmy.world 23 points 3 weeks ago

Point is, art is art, and a museum is a museum. Anyone mature enough should be allowed to enter any museum they want and view whatever exhibits they want.

That gender specific crap can and does end up going both ways. And it shouldn't be that way, anywhere.

[-] protist@mander.xyz 18 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

In a world where there are millions of men who actually believe women are advantaged over men in today's society, it's interesting to see the international uproar occurring over this single exhibit that made that belief actually true. A single exhibit at a sex museum in Tasmania that's literally about gender discrimination.

[-] fiat_lux@kbin.social 30 points 3 weeks ago

A single exhibit at a sex museum in Tasmania

Small point of order: MONA, despite how it sounds when pronounced as an acronym, is not a sex museum. It's the Museum of Old and New Art. You may return to your debate.

Personally, I'm finding the whole thing delicious. As someone who went to university in a building where the post-graduate / staff floor didn't have a female bathroom - likely because when it was built women were only expected to clean and serve tea in that space - I appreciate the artist and museum setting official legal precedent around this topic. And doing so with panache.

[-] protist@mander.xyz 13 points 3 weeks ago

I appreciate you! I've admittedly never been to MONA and just picked a word from the Wikipedia intro:

MONA houses ancient, modern and contemporary art from the David Walsh collection. Noted for its central themes of sex and death, the museum has been described by Walsh as a "subversive adult Disneyland".

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (22 replies)

The amount of people/men who don't get it is astonishing. Art isn't just something you can put on a wall. This entire thing with excluding men is an art installation, supposed to generate emotions and a discussion about exclusion and gender disparity. And seeing how many men around the world are frothing at the mouth over an installation at a small museum at the end of the world it is an extremely powerful piece of art. I applaud the museum for this.

[-] JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee 23 points 3 weeks ago

There are still places that are men only. Women can't join the freemasons for example, but you don't see this sort of extremely angry reaction to that.

And I agree, this art piece is doing exactly what it was supposed to.

[-] vonbaronhans@midwest.social 14 points 3 weeks ago

Huh. Let women into the Freemasons, I guess?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] fiat_lux@kbin.social 17 points 3 weeks ago

small museum at the end of the world

The end of the world is a fair description, but small is not. It is the largest privately funded museum in the Southern Hemisphere and has 6000m² (64583 ft²) of gallery space.

load more comments (12 replies)
[-] Liz@midwest.social 11 points 3 weeks ago

Picasso was a massive misogynist, too. I haven't any idea who Nolan is.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee 10 points 3 weeks ago

If they're gonna play that 'women only' card, then they should remove all works created by men and move them to a proper open museum.

Why?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] protist@mander.xyz 30 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

This BBC World article covers how the artist brought the artwork into the courthouse:

Tuesday started with a large group of women dressed in navy power suits, clad in pearls and wearing red lipstick marching into the hearing to support Ms Kaechele.

As the parties sparred, the museum's supporters were somewhat stealing the spotlight. They had periods of complete stillness and silence, before moving in some kind of subtle, synchronised dance - crossing their legs and resting their heads on their fists, clutching their hearts, or peering down their spectacles. One even sat there pointedly flipping through feminist texts and making notes.

After (Judge) Grueber reserved his decision for a later date, which is yet to be determined, the museum's posse left as conspicuously as it came in - dancing out of the building in a conga line as one woman played 'Simply Irresistible' by Robert Palmer off her iPhone.

Ms Kaechele has indicated she'll fight the case all the way to the Supreme Court if needed, but she says - ironically - that perhaps nothing could drive the point of the artwork home more than having to shut it down.

"If you were just looking at it from an aesthetic standpoint, being forced to close would be pretty powerful."

Also want to cite an interview with the artist:

As the hugely influential gender theorist Judith Butler argues, gender is a performative construct. To which I’d add: so is the legal system.

Interviewer: Do you mean to say that you think the judge might have been contributing to the art?

I can’t be certain that his ruling isn’t performance. His judge-like ‘comportment’ in the court, the flourish of his language in the ruling ... He’s clearly a man interested in art. In his ruling, he compares me to Caravaggio—a great artist but he also murdered someone. I just served ladies champagne.

[-] shadow_wolf@aussie.zone 18 points 3 weeks ago

Reverse misogyny? misandry is the word your looking for author.

[-] VerbFlow@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago

What about trans women? Will they be pushed out?

[-] sparkle@lemm.ee 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Yeah this is a reason I think this is dumb. Who decides what a woman is here? Australia doesn't even have bathroom laws discriminating against trans people as far as I know. How do they enforce this, by just telling people who they think look too much like a man to leave? By asking for their ID and only allowing in people who legally changed their gender?

Women's safe spaces are important. This is not how to do it.

Is this the intent of the artist? Are they making a statement about gender identity? Was the baseless discrimination the art all along? This specific article doesn't make it clear to me, but maybe I missed something.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 07 May 2024
252 points (94.1% liked)

Interesting Global News

2139 readers
507 users here now

What is global news?

Something that happened or was uncovered recently anywhere in the world. It doesn't have to have global implications. Just has to be informative in some way.


Post guidelines

Title formatPost title should mirror the news source title.
URL formatPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefixOpinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.


Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. No social media postsAvoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

Icon attribution | Banner attribution

founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS