An Australian museum excluded men from an exhibit to highlight misogyny. A man sued for access and won.
Archived version: https://archive.ph/mkwF8
Protesting misogyny through misandry - what a fabulous idea! Next, how about a protest against childhood obesity by starving a couple of kids to death?
Doing a shitty thing to protest a different shitty thing only multiplies the amount of shit instead of reducing it…
deleted by creator
While I agree with you in principle, the guy that took this to the courts is a giant dickhead.
I consider the court case to be part of the exhibit. Intentionally or not, the plaintiff is part of the exhibit; the judge, the ruling, and even your criticism.
The women who brought these cases against men’s clubs were similarly denigrated for ruining the “good thing” the clubs had going for them.
As seen by the other guy, who upon talking to artist about his similar suit said “oh, I get it now”
Why is he a dickhead?
Because thinking he’s the victim of an injustice by being denied entry in an exhibit about sexism shows a total lack of empathy for people less privileged than him.
I’m not really a fan of the whole “we’ll be intolerant so you know what it feels like” but it’s also the only way I can really know what it feels like as a white man from a middle class family. I’m on the fence on this one.
They should just make it a small art exhibit out front, then 2 bathrooms, the mens is normal, with some basic art, but the women’s bathroom has a bar and cocktail lounge and the extra amenities. Then the business wouldn’t be excluding men, it would just be providing them a different experience in the bathroom which I feel like they’d have a much better time defending in court. But it also seems like this whole thing was done as a form of activism and it looks like one of the intents is for this business to close down so they can be martyrs.
You should run an exhibit
I’m not really an artsy type person, more of a logical minded person, so it really wouldn’t be something I would do. But as a logical thinker I’m good at coming up with creative logical solutions to puzzles. I’d be better as a consultant.
I’d be happy to give a letter of reference.
To whom it may concern,
Pleasejustdie…You may need to change your handle for this to work :)
True, but changing the handle is just too much effort for me though, so I guess the plan is foiled in the planning stages. aww shucks.
You don’t need to know what it feels like. Trying to fight intolerance with intolerance isn’t successful.
You don’t need to know what it feels like.
no, but it can help
Trying to fight intolerance with intolerance isn’t successful.
blanket statements like this are rarely helpful or true
I think downvoters have forgotten the paradox of tolerance. That said, intolerance should be applied at the individual level (ie don’t tolerate a nazi because they are a nazi), not by group (like the scenario this thread is about did).
So a group of nazis is cool with you I guess?
More like if there’s a bunch of nazis in an area, don’t assume any white person is a member and request carpet bombings of neighborhoods.
If any approach had been genuinely successful, this conversation wouldn’t even be happening.
The more interesting thing to me is… They were modeling a thing that was popular in the 60s, according to the article. It’s an art display to protest something from 60+ years ago. A lot of the people who would go to such an exhibit weren’t alive, and certainly weren’t adults at the time.
There are surely problems that women face today but I don’t see how this helps shine any light on that or does anything at all for it.
I think it’s fine as a limited art piece, but sexism is sexism and should not be perpetrated against any gender in a serious way.
That’s easy.
For starters: Go to China. Go to the middle east. Go to Zimbabwe. Go to the wrong parts of Brazil or South Africa.Hell, go to Northern Ireland.
It’s an idiotic thing to state that white people are not and have never been oppressed.
Plenty of down-votes but strangely no responses.
I mean, overwhelmingly people aren’t racially discriminated against for being white so I’m not sure what it is you’re trying to back up.
Sure it happens. The one that’s closest to home for me in that list is Northern Ireland. White Catholics here were abused, but it was by white people so nothing to do with the colour of their skin. Honestly such a terrible example with absolutely no understanding for historical context.
I’ve spent non-trivial time in the Middle East. Sure I’m not at the same social class as Arabs there but I was sure fucking glad I wasn’t brown.
China, wot? Yeah people stare at me but nobody was nasty. If anything I was a novelty.
White people in South Africa were gonna get what they were gonna get in a post apartheid world where they pillaged and oppressed until quite recently. That doesn’t make it right but it makes it inevitable.
They’re all very poorly thought out, edge case examples with the exception of Zimbabwe unless I’m missing others that I’m not aware of.
The Irish have been abused and degrqded by the British for Centuries. Still are, not nearly like they used to be, but its still there.
China. You know they officially call white people a racist slur right?
Middle East: Not as bad as Middle eastern women or anyone from southeast Asia. Still racist.
South Africa: yup, cant say they didnt deserve it, but its still racism, also not inevitable.
The Irish have been abused and degrqded by the British for Centuries. Still are, not nearly like they used to be, but its still there.
I know very well. I’m Irish. Pretty sure still have our own “and the Irish” section in British airports as a holdover from the troubles. The point I’m making is that it had nothing to do with being white and I haven’t met any British people trying to abuse or degrade me for being Irish. My sister lives there and is married to an English man so I visit frequently.
China: I didn’t experience any overt racism there because of the colour of my skin. We have derogatory words for basically everyone in English but it doesn’t mean people use them. Hell, we call the British “Tans” if we’re feeling belligerent towards them. “Paddy” has lost all meaning as a slur against the Irish.
Middle east: Sure. There I did experience it but it was incredibly mild and as I said I was very glad I wasn’t brown.
Anyway, my main point was this:
overwhelmingly people aren’t racially discriminated against for being white
And I feel that it stands and yes there are exceptions but the historical weight of racism hasn’t fallen on white people because of the colour of their skin.
The velvet-clad lounge - which contains some of the museum’s most-acclaimed works, from Picasso to Sidney Nolan - has been open since 2020.
If the artist had opened an exhibit of her own work only to women, I could defend that as artistic expression. However, this is simply a museum being sexist and then saying “It’s just art bro!”
With that said, apparently the museum is privately funded. I tend to think that this ought to mean it can be sexist if that’s what the people running it want (as a matter of principle, not as a matter of Australian law).
I tend to think that this ought to mean it can be sexist if that’s what the people running it want
IDK, I’d see issues with a cafe saying ‘No colored people allowed’.
I feel like running a museum is a lot more like a form of expression than running a cafe is. “Who is the audience for art?” seems like a topic where a government-imposed “correct answer” is more of a problem than it would be if the topic were “Who eats a sandwich?”
The answer to “who the audience of art” is is a lot more inclusive than that of “who eats a sandwich.” Literally every human consumes art. It is probably one of the most fundamentally human things. Not every human eats sandwiches.
That said, if you’re allowed to exclude people by class (a price in entry) then obviously some amount of exclusion is allowed. Not that it should be allowed, but it is.
I (a white person) wouldn’t knowingly going into such a Cafe, but I still allow them to exist. It is a matter of defending - as much as possible - the right of others to do things I find stupid. There are lines, but I try to use them to cover as little as possible: all lines can be used against me.
I don’t mind other people doing things that are stupid. I do mind other people doing things that are harmful. The difficult part is finding where that line is, if and how to legislate it and what the implications are on other important societal values.
In this example of a cafe refusing to serve people based on race, I’m personally totally fine with that being illegal.
How do you ban such a cafe while also banning slavery? How do you draw a line between permissible and impermissible compulsory labor when you’re drafting your Constitution to reign in future politicians?
-
It is not permitted to own another human being.
-
It is not permitted to discriminate against a human being based on a protected class such as race.
Is there some contradiction there that I’m not seeing?
Nah. The guy tried a false dilemma to move the posts a bit.
I think the reasoning is that since having a job is essential for almost everyone, by making it illegal to have a job in which one may refuse to deal with members of a protected class, the government is effectively compelling everyone who needs a job to deal with them, which might be seen as a form of forced labor.
That’d be a massive stretch. Getting paid to do a job you don’t like isn’t slavery.
I’m not seeing a problem with ‘treat people as people regardless of their skin colour’.
Jobs having responsibilities is nothing new. If you don’t like the responsibilities of a particular job, get a different one.
-
To deny access to any one group on the basis of an immutable characteristic of their physical being is a dangerous precedent to set for a government. It just gives a license to discriminate against any out group. I believe you have a right to do whatever you want, so long as doing so does not violate the rights of others.
To take it to a logical extreme, would you defend the right to drink and drive, given that stupid people should be allowed to do stupid things, even if it is incredibly dangerous to the drinking party and everyone else around them? No? Then don’t tolerate the intolerance of others. That’s how the social contract frays.
So you’d be fine with a towns only hospital receiving a patient in the ER while the only doctor on the clock refuses to treat the patient based on them being part of a protected class? Or do we need to create a law that says doctors can’t discriminate but everyone else can?
There are lines. Make them as narrow as possible but no more.
that covers your situation and many others.
I’d rather we just don’t encourage people to be horrible.
Be careful lest oppression of ideas spread them. Also be cafeful lest something unpopular you do is banned too.
I try to support free expression even if it means defending tyrants doing what I hate.
I’ll be sure to. And you be careful not to tolerate intolerance. I try to support people not being murdered because you tolerate tyrants.
deleted by creator
I read in another thread that the women-only rule was an art installation and they were happy when the guy sued, because it created the publicity they were looking for.
So ragebaiting.
The problem with letting private businesses discriminate is that it often leads to total discrimination. A single racist towing company would be a huge problem. A racist grocery store could be the only one in town. Sure you might not go to a racist bar, but what if the fire or police chief frequents that place?
That if about the police chief is doing some heavy lifting.
Hardly, there’s a rich history of using police to enforce racism. It’s still happening today in some areas.
That’s my point… it’s more likely that they are, than aren’t. Thus the “if they are going to the racist bar” is doing a lot of heavy lifting
You think it’s unheard of that a police officer can be a racist? Have you come here from an alternate timeline or something? If so can I come back with you?
God I wish.
The if, is if they frequent the racist bar. My point is that it’s more likely that they would frequent it, than not, thus the heavy lifting.
Oh my b I completely misunderstood you there lol. Carry on 🫡
I’d argue that the plaintiff and the court case are all part of the exhibit.
That’s exactly what they are!
Sometimes I believe women’s only spaces need to exist for some instances of women who experienced trauma to feel safe and be able to start their healing without their nervous systems taking over.
However, this doesn’t sound like that. This sounds like exclusion.
Idk how I feel about this. I will say however, any time I’ve ever seen feminist principles be applied exclusionary, it’s always additionally accompanied by TERF shit. It’s a very quick pipeline from “no boys allowed” to “no trans allowed”. The lines dividing can be so blurry… I don’t think it’s a good mindset.
I’ll bring this up only once, because not only do I not want to deal with backlash, I also dont want to stand in the way of progress or hurt anyone who is trans, but: Notice how society mostly freaks out about Trans Women, and Trans Men are an afterthought in that outrage. Its because Misandry is playing a not insignificant part in this. A key thing about transphobes is they arent seeing Trans Women as Women, and its their ideas on how MEN are that are informing their vitrol. So you are seeing those two go hand in hand for a reason
Edit: Fuck it, I need to clarify: Trans Women are WOMEN, Trans Men are MEN
Yup, trans men are “poor deluded women and victims of the patriarchy” and trans women are “predators trying to invade women’s spaces”. And that’s if trans men are even thought of at all.
Yeah that was the allusion I was leaning towards
From their website:
The lounge is a tremendously lavish space in our museum in which women can indulge in decadent nibbles, fancy tipples, and other ladylike pleasures—hosted and entertained by the fabulous butler. And as is always the case with Kirsha’s dinners and feasts, you are a participant in what she sees as the art itself, part of a living installation. Any and all ladies are welcome.
Any and all ladies doesn’t sound like they are excluding people that may not have been born female. It sounds, at least to me, that it includes said person group.
Australia has a really good track record in that regard. So it’s nice to see this as well
Any man that wanted to go in there just needed to self ID as a woman for thirty seconds,
I’m gonna start a “Dogs Only” exhibit and it’s just a bunch of delicious hotdogs hanging from easily-accessible strings and shit.
Don’t worry, I’ve got one for cats too. Same thing.
deleted by creator
A Dutch artist made a theater production concerning some dogs on a stage just doing their thing.
He called it ‘going to the dogs’ and it sold out and he managed to get a subsidy from a cultural fund for it.
One newspaper complained that the script was rather, woof woof, monotone.
Perhaps women should take on The Melbourne Club next and see how quickly men change their mind on the subject?
I understand the guy’s argument in this case seems to be the fact he bought a ticket at the same price as a woman but was excluded from one of the exhibits, but the overarching point of sexual discrimination works both ways.
There is. Arizona has slavery without having people own people - you’re completely failing to address the horrors of compulsory labor.
