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

  • over_clox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    89
    arrow-down
    48
    ·
    8 months 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.

      • over_clox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        45
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        8 months 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          34
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            34
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            8 months 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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 months 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”.

          • over_clox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            24
            arrow-down
            21
            ·
            8 months ago

            And I find this funny, but in the sad way ☹️

            Folks trying to fight sexual discrimination with sexual discrimination… 🤦‍♂️

            Those that dispute, fight and argue about such things that way don’t even seem to realize that they’re just contributing to the problem.

            • protist@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              25
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              8 months ago

              I just have to completely disagree. Art has consistently served to challenge the status quo and provoke thought and discussion, and this exhibit has absolutely excelled in that regard.

              Now the artist is moving on to explore existing discrimination exemptions under the law in Tasmania:

              In fact the Lounge already possesses many of the redeeming qualities listed in the verdict that would make it eligible for an exemption under section 27 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas). Where it isn’t already eligible, a number of minor adjustments should bring us into compliance.

              The law states that a person may discriminate on the ground of gender:

              (a) in a religious institution, if it is required by the doctrines of the religion of the institution; or

              (b) in education, if it is for the purpose of enrolment in one-gender schools or hostels; or

              © in employment, if it is for the purpose of the residential care of persons under the age of 18 years; or

              (d) in employment, if it is based on a genuine occupational qualification or requirement in relation to a particular position; or

              (e) in accommodation, if it is shared accommodation for less than 5 adult persons; or

              (f) in the provision or use of facilities, if those facilities are reasonably required for use by persons of one gender only.

              Interviewer: You believe the artwork can continue to operate under a legal exemption? Which of these exemptions will apply?

              All of them.

              https://mona.net.au/blog/2024/05/interview-with-kirsha-kaechele-about-the-ladies-lounge

              • samus12345@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                in a religious institution, if it is required by the doctrines of the religion of the institution

                How’s she planning to have this law apply? Create a woman-only sect of the FSM?

                • protist@mander.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  I recommend you read the interview I linked above, she goes into great detail about this and frankly it’s amazing

              • over_clox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                18
                ·
                8 months ago

                Quoting the law doesn’t make the laws right in any regard. I’m pretty sure that if you asked Picasso, if he were alive of course, that he would heavily protest the discrimination and encourage anyone mature enough to view his works.

                Same typically goes for almost any artist. They didn’t go through the trouble of creating the art only to end up with others saying who does or doesn’t get to view it.

                Matter of fact, did Picasso or any of the other artists leave a will? Or for any of the artists that might still be alive or with living descendants, do they get a word in about it?

                They should.

                • protist@mander.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  27
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  She’s not saying the law is right…

                  Also Picasso was a renowned chauvinist and misogynist who had affairs with teenagers as a 70 year old and put out a cigarette on the cheek of the mother of two of his children

                  • over_clox@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    22
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    How does everyone know my last name?

                    Not all Chauvins fit that stereotype. Would be nice if people would stop using my last name as a broad insult. But hell, I can’t expect discriminatory people to leave my family name out of their mouth.

                    That would be too much like a step in the right direction.

    • state_electrician@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      65
      arrow-down
      31
      ·
      8 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        8 months 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.

          • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            That’d be ideal, but I don’t really see that happening tbh. There’s a women’s version of the freemasons, but it’s not nearly as popular or active as far as I can tell.

        • HauntedCupcake@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Do you have any more examples other than the freemasons? I had assumed we were done with needless segregation (excluding bathrooms and such).

          The only thing that makes sense in my mind is that male dominated spaces have non-explicit social barriers in place that are being approximated by the explicit barrier the museum has set up.

          In the UK there’s golf clubs that have pretty toxic atmospheres and dress codes but aren’t legally allowed to bar women.

          Sorry if this is super ignorant, I’m acknowledging the problem I just want to understand it better

          • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            8 months ago

            I’m from the US, but here it’s mostly fraternal lodges that still ban women, and certain religious groups(which I don’t think those technically count due to separation of church and state). But the Order of Oddfellows, Fraternal Order of Eagles, Freemasons, and the Botherhood of St Andrew don’t initiate women. Im sure theres more but i dont know about them.
            Granted those have some religious influence, but aren’t churches directly as far as I understand. Also the skull and bones, but they’re very secretive and that could have changed and no one would be the wiser.

            I’m not sure about other countries laws, but in the US private institutions are more or less allowed to segregate by gender, but often there’s backlash and they lose money so most won’t go there. That’s why it’s mostly these secretive fraternal orders that still do it.

      • fiat_lux@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        8 months 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.

      • over_clox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yeah, well my late father was a painter, and his number one rule was that he didn’t paint stuff to be hidden away. One of his last wishes was to make sure people see his artworks.

        It’s up to the people that view his works as to their thoughts and opinions.

    • Liz@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

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

      • over_clox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        8 months ago

        It didn’t take me long to research into Sidney Nolan, but at the same time I do have more and more reason by the day to doubt historical facts found online… 🤷‍♂️

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months 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?

      • over_clox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        8 months ago

        That was a sarcastic thought meant to make people think.

        What they really should do is like not discriminate. It’s a museum, every person mature enough, men and women, should be welcome to go view whatever artwork and exhibits they have.