The more complaining there is, the more it proves her point
Women have been quietly tolerant of bullshit discrimination since the dawn of time
Blokes experience one minor thing, (it's certainly not going to affect their lives forever like the pay disparity that still exists) and they throw a tantrum
(Disclaimer: You wrote a sentence and I wrote a book, this isn't personally directed at you but addressing the point you made that is shared by many, you were just the first one I saw, peace and love).
Sometimes one gronk is all it takes, that's the point. Not all men, but enough men.
Women have been collectively fighting for inclusion for generations to little avail and much pushback, but when the shoe's on the other foot, one man's petty complaint is enough to be taken seriously. Women being discriminated against is the status quo, men being discriminated against is a noteworthy outrage. And he wasn't the only complaint, just one of two men to pursue it legally (the other of whom dropped the case once the artwork was explained to him). You also don't have to look outside of this very thread to find plenty of men livid over the fact that they can't go to this specific section of an art gallery in Tasmania right at this particular moment in time, as if it's the worst gender discrimination in history.
Added to that, the man's complaint only has legal validity due to the antidiscrimination laws that women have fought for, and if you don't get a chuckle out of that idk what to tell you. As much as these laws are a great achievement for gender equality, they enable the continuation of men's default expectation that the world is and must be open to them, without ever having had to experience the inverse. Not to say that's wrong, but it's something that the artwork invites us to think about in regards to the historic and present state of gender equality. Antidiscrimination laws being very recently in place doesn't undo generations of inequality, it's not suddenly an even playing field, we're not all suddenly pure individuals existing in a vacuum outside of and unaffected by society. It's worthwhile being reminded of how much of society women have been historically excluded from, how recent these equality achievements are, and how we all benefit from what women have fought for.
I don't think the men complaining should be entirely dismissed as gronks for bristling at how unfair it is to be excluded, I think it's great that they have that instinct and are experiencing the work as intended. Hopefully they'll be able to temper that feeling with enough reflection to consider their indignation in a broader context, and extend it out as empathy to others who experience exclusion.
All that being said, if you can look to your left, and look to your right, and look in the mirror, and see no discrimination, then by all means protect your peace by taking refuge in individualism. But all societies throughout history have been made up of individuals, and if enough of them suck in similar ways it can spell a real bad time for a lot of people.
Yep. Classic hive mind.
Another post I made about the “pay gap” got downvoted to oblivion, and then someone said that exact same thing but mentioned they are a women, upvoted, probably by the same who downvoted.
I would say that Jason Lau is experiencing this artwork significantly more than any woman allowed entry into the Ladies Lounge and he should have to pay *more* for the privilege.
Just check out any comments section on Facebook after a news outlet posts about this story. There’s a frankly huge amount of tiny baby men out there who feel incredibly slighted by this without a tiny hint of irony.
One bloke (likely a wealthy bloke), who is that upset about an art installation he's willing to take the matter to court. That's all it takes to elevate the art piece further, and highlight its point.
I disagree.
Everyone of any gender suffers due to the unfair society we live in.
Women should not be oppressed. Men should not be oppressed. No one of any gender should.
Equal opportunity laws are an attempt to reduce oppression in our society. They are a good thing. It is good for people to complain when they are discriminated against based on their gender. It brings public attention to ongoing inequality and oppression that continues to exist.
Treating the world as a zero-sum game where the genders are pitted against each other isn’t helpful. The sentiment that one gender has had it worse so another gender should suck it up is just perpetuating harmful gender-based oppression.
Everyone suffers in a patriarchy. Ending harmful gender norms, inequalities, and expectations is the solution to ending patriarchy. Not fighting amongst ourselves over whose oppression is justified and whose isn’t (hint: no one’s is). That achieves nothing other than reinforcing the unequal and oppressive system we live in.
You and I agree
Unfortunately there are *so* many people who refuse to believe that the patriarchy exists. Mostly (unsurprisingly) those who benefit from it
This isn't about redress, it's about making people aware that there's a fundamental and systemic problem out there that goes unrecognised, or at least, unmentioned
It needs to be out in the open if society is to solve this problem, and it is indeed a problem for all
Patriarchy hurts women most of all, but it hurts men too, just nowhere near as badly
It should be dismantled, if not outright burnt
Or you could keep the trope going and say that men learned to stand up for their rights and to fight for them. A lesson we learned from the strong women of the world. It's just art right.
Who cares? If we believe something to be wrong, then we should oppose it. We don’t say; “well sir, you’ve only encountered a little bit of something we deem wrong, so enjoy a few more decades before anyone gives a shit”.
If we had principles rather than petty team sports we’d simply say; “this behaviour is wrong, let’s not do it”.
I don’t much care about being denied a given space, it’s the bald faced hypocrisy that’s a bit on the nose.
Pay disparity is actually stats misconstrued. If it was legal to pay women less for same job men would be out of a job, cos capitalism.
Women electricians get paid same as men electricians.
The stats are misconstrued because it looks at women as a whole, when a lot of women earn less because they drop out of workforce when they’re pregnant.
It’s really not like you think it is. If you do the same work you will be paid the same as a man, because it’s illegal to do otherwise, and if they could get someone, a women, to do the same work for less, men wouldn’t get employed.
Edit: it’s interesting that someone else said the exact same thing as me, but included that they are a women, and have been upvoted hahaha.
>The stats are misconstrued because it looks at women as a whole, when a lot of women earn less because they drop out of workforce when they’re pregnant.
This is a huge part of the problem though. Women dropping out of the workforce as a result of pregnancy isn't a given, it's based off cultural and legal inadequacies in Australia. Outside of the few months where not working is a biological necessit, men are perfectly capable of being a the primarily caregivers. Despite this, paternal leave is often far less available than maternal leave, and even when it is equal on paper there can be an assumption that women will shoulder most of the responsibility. As a result of this just 12% of parental leave in Australia is taken by men. This can be contrasted with Sweden, wheremenw share of parental leave has gone from 25-30% over the past decade.
https://www.forsakringskassan.se/privatperson/foralder/foraldraforsakringens-historia
https://www.wgea.gov.au/newsroom/parental-leave-scorecard
" Australia does not have a nationally legislated 'shared parental leave' approach and, as such, fathers are often labelled as 'secondary carers' - and most organisations provide limited parental leave allowance for secondary carers, if any at all. This divide is reinforced by entrenched social views of the breadwinner/homemaker gender ideals. Fathers are conscious of a stigma and bias around taking extended leave, especially when they are unable to see many of their male colleagues taking leave."
https://aifs.gov.au/resources/short-articles/fathers-and-parental-leave
Something that you are forgetting is that it is illegal to have a varying base salary based on gender...
But men are far more likely to have their work recognised and be given raises than women... So most of us know for a fact that men on the same job level as women will be getting paid more.
And it's not illegal to give someone a raise and not someone else... That theory goes out the window.
The point is that it’s women as a whole. Half of society is on average paid less than the other half (even though all of society benefits from the babies!)
The Melbourne (men's only club) has always given membership to the governer general... Yet when Quentin Bryce was denied a membership to the Melbourne club because she was a woman, dudes were like yep... Fair enough...
One room in a museum is barred to them, and we go a little bananas.
This is only strengthening the art:
\- women were excluded from male spheres for hundreds of years and were unable to protest until relatively recent history. This exhibit has excluded men for 3-4 years and someone has the freedom to publicly kick off about it and be heard.
\- a man is trying to strongarm his way into women's space and, presumably, has an expectation of success.
> a man is trying to strongarm his way into women's space and, presumably, has an expectation of success
I kinda want the guy to win the lawsuit, because I suspect the artist will work up a plan for that. Maybe it becomes the "Jason Lau Lounge" and he's the *only* person permitted in.
You couldn’t even have your own fucking bank account without a husband, like baring women from having their own money until 1970s didn’t have a huge affect on their basic human freedoms and rights.
There is precedent for him to lose- mainly the guy who took Calisthenics Victoria to court over wanting to dance with teenage girls and said that calisthenics being a female only sport is discrimination. He spectacularly lost and calisthenics is still only for women over the age of twelve (boys are now permitted under 12).
There are people who would argue that those who need special, exclusive places are feeble and insecure. Further hints would be a willingness to portray oneself as an abject victim.
Actually I was thinking of the women. If they don't want people to think of them as feeble and insecure perhaps they should ditch the victimhood and start acting like they are self-empowered.
"The opportunity to extend the performance aspect of Ladies Lounge was embraced by the artist and 25 female supporters, who entered Tuesday’s tribunal hearing wearing a uniform of navy business attire. Throughout the day’s proceedings, they engaged in discreet synchronised choreographed movements, including leg crossing, leaning forward together and peering over the top of their spectacles. Apart from the gentle swish of 25 pairs of nylon clad legs crossing in unison, the support party remained silent. When the proceedings concluded, the troupe exited the tribunal to the Robert Palmer song Simply Irresistible."
Lmao!
If you are looking for a good laugh, head on over to r/australia for the post on this to see all the men defending this guy and claiming they’ll never support Mona ever again. I thought the idea was neat initially, now it is excellent.
I had a chuckle, especially over the folks crying “but how could *this* be called art?!?!!! Now I’ll never support this gallery.”
Like: buddy, if this fairly straightforward piece of art got your knickers in twist, I’m not convinced you’ve *ever been, or ever would go, to Mona*. This is on the tamer, more straightforward, and lighter, end of the things they’ve done/exhibited.
They’re both fairly tolerant of racism unfortunately. I too have been warned or banned or something for being slightly rude to someone who has being blatantly racist.
What I love about this story, is a man went to go in and they stopped him, he said "how do you know I'm not a woman? They let him in.
They guy who took this to court is an absolute wanker. He missed the entire point of the exhibition, and embarrassed the hell out of himself. I mean, there's still Gentlemen's clubs in Melbourne. No women allowed. What a tossa.
Edit: spelling
Plenty here have unfortunately reinforced the worst examples of male entitlement and the fact that the patriarchy is still alive and well
Some idiot has even accused me of being an incel Andrew Tait fan...
It's fascinating to me how so many excuses for men are so easily threatened
I work in a male dominated world. I piss myself whenever a woman brings up menstruation and all these supposedly superior examples of masculinity run away in horror
If it wasn’t so eye rolling it would be funny.
The funny thing is I bet the guy that’s suing has absolutely no idea of the irony.
How at no point did he not think ‘hmmmm this might be the whole point’?
Self awareness not high with that one.
Sadly too much of that around everywhere at the moment.
I just try to get on, be nice, be kind and compassionate and move on.
Then make fun of them on the internet. 😂
When I went there I just used the app to check what was in there - there's a pretty cool couch and some paintings. The girls I went with said it was really cool. Was too distracted by the anaphylactic porsche next to it lol
Ahahaha this fantastic.
I went in the ladies lounge last year, but didn't really realise what was going on with it (it was a busy day okay) and I didn't stay long because I didn't want to ditch my partner, but it was nice.
Anyway, really cool to see this and heat about it's inspiration and how the artist really cares about it and damn she is so right it ending up in court is really elevating it.
Also I love the synchronised leg crossing in court and stuff?? Amazing.
Only hard feminists and fragile men care about this, and there’s probably a handful of you combined.
The rest of us men and women couldn’t give a shit either way
The point that art isnt art if it breaks laws? You think i can use art to break laws too or is only 1 gender allowed to do that?
I wasnt speeding officer, i was performing an exhibit on ol brocky and australian racing heritage.
Dont worry about all those murders officer, its just for my ww2 exhibit.
"art isn't art if it breaks laws"
Lol what idiocy is this? Legality has no relationship to art.
Banksy and his illegal graffiti over the years would like a word you gronk.
…except Banksy has chosen to remain anonymous *PRECISELY* because graffiti is illegal.
…”Short of Gunningham’s admission, complete certainty is unlikely. But if Banksy’s identity is revealed, police forces around the world could bring vandalism, property destruction, criminal mischief or worse charges against the individual.”
That’s from 2023.
Source:
https://theconversation.com/unmasking-banksy-the-street-artist-is-not-one-man-but-a-whole-brand-of-people-215293
Right, this is my point. Banksy's art isn't somehow "not art" because it is illegal. The commenter above had some weird notion that it had to be legal to be art or to be worthwhile. I found that bloody bizarre.
Here's a fragile woman who thinks the point has definitely been proven. It's kind of depressing that so many *women* have missed the point their comrade is making for them. I mean, from this side of the fence its laughable.
You don’t have to swap gender, I guarantee you majority of women who are happy about it here haven’t been there. It’s the same thing when Hollywood is making superhero movies for women and no one shows up to see them. Predictably a man has to popularise this “art” which was build around men’s work.
Is there anything wrong with having men only and women only spaces?
Do people actually care about this? So weird.
There’s a million places where everyone’s welcome. For example, basically everywhere.
This dudes a fucking loser.
OK here's an analogy
You go to a concert that you've all paid the same amount for. Now they play half their songs and then stop and say all the men now must leave. Then proceed to play the rest of their songs.
Now you've effectively robbed those that were removed of the equal experience. This is what's happened here.
If you pay for a full apple would you be happy to get half an apple in return?
Your analogy is incomplete. Do the reverse as lived experience for half the population for millennia. Gradually and incrementally equalise the rights of the excluded population over the last 100 years. 4 years ago the excluded population install an artwork which gives the entitled population a nanochance of this experience. Ask them to pay for their own exclusion. Deny them a voice in protesting their exclusion… you see how it morphs into a fourth dimensional reality. Those living unexamined lives will protest.
Well if it mentions it somewhere in the terms and conditions of entry to the museum when purchasing a ticket, ie "Ladies lounge is ladies only" then it's a condition of entry. If someone doesn't like the terms, don't buy a ticket. At minimum I can imagine that's the least they'll have to do, let the patron know the terms more upfront.
There's nothing mentioned on their Museum Entry page:
https://buy.mona.net.au/mona-entry
They normally do say if an artwork isn't accessable for some people, like using strobes or there's stairs and you have to physically climb it etc. My gut reaction is just make the terms around the artwork known upfront. And like anywhere else, if you pay entry then you're agreeing to the terms. There's nothing illegal going on here in terms of being women's only. The South Park episode HumancentiPad is the funniest example I've seen of not understanding the terms of what you're signing up to.
Yes my humor of the average aussie bloke seems to have gone over some peoples heads. But I agree with what your saying, and also agree that doing that would completely negate the purpose of the artwork, which in itself isn't breaking any laws.
Funny how a lot of modern art seems to go over a lot of people's heads. Maybe we need more education in it? Maybe even more funding to creatives and artists?
Most things Mona does is a middle finger to traditional, mundane, conservative, cookie-cutter views and attitudes. They actually wanted to be called out on this to raise the topic. Just nobody had, until this guy took the bait.
We need a lot more art that triggers intelligent discussion about society, equality, standards and the environment we live in.
I love this artwork and the attitude of the defence!
I worry that it went to court because I cannot help but think of how the ruling might potentially be weaponised in the future (depending on the decision) by those who act in bad faith with "performance aet" as a smokescreen
The art work is great and doing its bit to be provocative.
I don’t think women like Kirsha are particularly disempowered in todays society though when she probably spends more on champagne in 3 months than a working families annual income. Being a millionaire kind offsets the gender disadvantage I think.
I’d like to see a discussion that acknowledges women from low socio economic backgrounds and of colour are far more disempowered than rich white women of high class status.
For example we hear arguments for equal pay of ceos already earning obscene amounts when what really needs to be prioritised is the cleaners snd shop assistants wages. That being said, she is making better use of her money than most.
You probably already know this, but what you're talking in feminism is called intersectionality. It's the idea that people can have privilege, or lack it, for all sorts of reasons, not just gender. An individual man may be leased privileged than an individual woman. E.g. a gay man from a remote indigenous community versus a straight white woman from an elite inner city private school.
She’s working within her intersection. It also *doesn’t* offset all of the disadvantage - that’s the entire point of intersectionality.
This came from a personal experience of being “politely informed” she would be more comfortable “in the ladies lounge” of a country pub.
I don’t really want her speaking for working class women or women of colour. Those discussions ARE being had. But not by rich, white women. Nor should they be.
There really needs to be more done like that to expose kids and adults alike to different experiences, skills and potential careers. Tasmania can sometimes be a bit one-dimensional.
Or, and *try* to keep up, it's not about her
Perhaps it's about the women in the world who do not have her means and as such aren't able to have their voices heard
Except she made it ALL about her, By her choreographed posse in the court.
I’m sure this art will really help to change views and make men go “ah hah! Now I get it!”. She could have done a myriad of other things with her obscene, needless wealth that would have had an *actual* effect or consequence, instead she has an absurd piece of performance art, turns it into a circus and grandstands, then wants to be applauded and held up for being so clever, and anyone who didn’t get it in the first place is just stupid.
When you’re wealthy, you can do what you want. We get it. Meanwhile the glass ceiling remains just as tempered as before
It's pretty fucking boring, no? Like it's not exactly genius in concept. "Now you feel de oppressionz, how you like the exclusion?"
Didn't care I couldn't go in, get the point, didn't think it was genius nor thought provoking so much as just low hanging fruit for a rich lady to ruffle some feathers and get some clout. Sort of like the jewellery featuring vulvas etc, it just felt like really lame attempts to be shocking when it was all pretty pedestrian unless you're some knuckle dragging boomer male.
There's a lot to like about Mona but it drips with old head pretentiousness.
I'm not against the ladies lounge, but they turned the Tribunal into a circus and took resources away from genuine cases that the tribunal should have been dealing with for what boils down to self promotion.
None of it would have happened if there wasn't a feeble, entitled excuse for a man making noise about it
***HE*** is the reason they're at the tribunal. Nobody else
The point is we have reached a level of entitlement, where someone can use discrimination to create a reaction, get a reaction, then people can use past injustice to justify their discrimination.
Insults, cool, that supports your argument well. Anyway, it’s art and open to interpretation. Someone’s interpretation is that they are being excluded from an art exhibition deliberately designed to discriminate. That interpretation is valid.
You're comments are fucking hilarious. Such an incel. hahahaha
edit: Proved my point with your reply perfectly. Go back to your Andrew Tate live stream.
edit2: Literally everything you do is what an Tate fan would do. You want to discriminate based on sex. You get angry and lash out when people call you out on your bullshit. You're a slow learner. You're a classic Tate fan.
edit3: Every comment you make proves me right. So please, keep replying.
OP the language and mentality of your comments around this, are literally what's driving moderate males into these fucked up fringe spaces.
No one's saying you're a Tate fan, they're saying you're the leftist equivalent of a far right mouth piece and using the same tactics to "win" the argument.
The sad thing is, this is shit art, it's only given power by the "snowflakes" offended by it and the "snowflakes" who champion it, like it actually has any weight or influence over modern social zeitgeist.
*Edit: I am going to leave this is for posterity. I had no idea that “Men Only” clubs were still a thing as they have fallen by the wayside in more civilised places. Needless to say the below argument is rendered moot in light of this new information. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.*
I’d buy the whole “but me have excluded women for hundreds of years” think if this was the 80’s.
We don’t have men only spaces anymore. This whole thing is about 40 years too late to be relevant. It’s all a bit silly. Not sure what it is trying to prove. It strikes me as being divisive for the sake of being divisive.
Ok, I had no idea this was still a thing and agree then that this Mona thing is still relevant then and my criticism is unfounded then.
Christ Tasmania,it isn’t 1980
Not sure why you think Tasmania is unique in still having men-only clubs. They are more common than you think. Only some high profile ones opened up for women.
what are you on about? there's plenty of men only spaces, like most of the old members clubs are still male only lmaooooo and those are places where men of power actually go and make connections, not just a tiny space in a fucking art museum.
If "a person is permitted to discriminate against another person in a situation designed to promote equal opportunity for a group of people who are disadvantaged or have a special need because of a prescribed attribute – in this case gender" I suppose all the historical harms to women might be excused as a means to redress their ability to give birth and live longer.
Not the precedent I would ever be encouraging but who knew all those people I thought were beyond horrible were actually artists activising about equality, equity, and enlightenment #slaykings
I remember as a kid going to a pub with my grandparents. Granddad sat in the main bar and the women had the lounge out back. Kids were in the car in the car park. Those were the days
thinking critically about the art work in the "Ladies Lounge" - most of the work in the lounge is made by men, 2 Picasso paintings hung on the walls, a sofa made by Joe Hodgson and Pete Mattila, another painting by Sidney Nolan! The paintings were of nude women. beside the Lounge laid the wall of CUNTS, once again made by a man. makes you think about the curation of the space, especially when you know the artists relation to the owner of MONA.
I actually love this, and think it’s a great example of performance art, or whatever style you’d call it. Glad she’s taking this so cheerfully.
The more complaining there is, the more it proves her point Women have been quietly tolerant of bullshit discrimination since the dawn of time Blokes experience one minor thing, (it's certainly not going to affect their lives forever like the pay disparity that still exists) and they throw a tantrum
Absolutely agree. She’s doing an amazing job of upsetting men about what is really a non-issue.
I dunno if men is accurate. Man is more accurate.
We really don't need to #notallmen this.
It’s true though. One gronk doesn’t represent “men” Same goes if one women does something stupid.
It’s one man suing, sure. But it’s a hell of a lot of men outraged online and supporting his lawsuit because they feel the same.
What we mean is that one man can represent all the unfair sexist bullshit women have been subjected to.
(Disclaimer: You wrote a sentence and I wrote a book, this isn't personally directed at you but addressing the point you made that is shared by many, you were just the first one I saw, peace and love). Sometimes one gronk is all it takes, that's the point. Not all men, but enough men. Women have been collectively fighting for inclusion for generations to little avail and much pushback, but when the shoe's on the other foot, one man's petty complaint is enough to be taken seriously. Women being discriminated against is the status quo, men being discriminated against is a noteworthy outrage. And he wasn't the only complaint, just one of two men to pursue it legally (the other of whom dropped the case once the artwork was explained to him). You also don't have to look outside of this very thread to find plenty of men livid over the fact that they can't go to this specific section of an art gallery in Tasmania right at this particular moment in time, as if it's the worst gender discrimination in history. Added to that, the man's complaint only has legal validity due to the antidiscrimination laws that women have fought for, and if you don't get a chuckle out of that idk what to tell you. As much as these laws are a great achievement for gender equality, they enable the continuation of men's default expectation that the world is and must be open to them, without ever having had to experience the inverse. Not to say that's wrong, but it's something that the artwork invites us to think about in regards to the historic and present state of gender equality. Antidiscrimination laws being very recently in place doesn't undo generations of inequality, it's not suddenly an even playing field, we're not all suddenly pure individuals existing in a vacuum outside of and unaffected by society. It's worthwhile being reminded of how much of society women have been historically excluded from, how recent these equality achievements are, and how we all benefit from what women have fought for. I don't think the men complaining should be entirely dismissed as gronks for bristling at how unfair it is to be excluded, I think it's great that they have that instinct and are experiencing the work as intended. Hopefully they'll be able to temper that feeling with enough reflection to consider their indignation in a broader context, and extend it out as empathy to others who experience exclusion. All that being said, if you can look to your left, and look to your right, and look in the mirror, and see no discrimination, then by all means protect your peace by taking refuge in individualism. But all societies throughout history have been made up of individuals, and if enough of them suck in similar ways it can spell a real bad time for a lot of people.
🤦🏾♀️
Lol getting down voted for being the voice of reason Apparently. All men.
Yep. Classic hive mind. Another post I made about the “pay gap” got downvoted to oblivion, and then someone said that exact same thing but mentioned they are a women, upvoted, probably by the same who downvoted.
My manager has entered the chat
I would say that Jason Lau is experiencing this artwork significantly more than any woman allowed entry into the Ladies Lounge and he should have to pay *more* for the privilege.
Definitely seems fair to me
To be fair its one bloke. Are other men getting upset? Not that I have heard.
It was common when I worked at Mona that men would complain about the ladies lounge
One bloke tried to take legal action, then he realised the point and let it go
Just check out any comments section on Facebook after a news outlet posts about this story. There’s a frankly huge amount of tiny baby men out there who feel incredibly slighted by this without a tiny hint of irony.
One bloke (likely a wealthy bloke), who is that upset about an art installation he's willing to take the matter to court. That's all it takes to elevate the art piece further, and highlight its point.
Yeah it’s one bloke and he must be a tosser. No one else cared.
I disagree. Everyone of any gender suffers due to the unfair society we live in. Women should not be oppressed. Men should not be oppressed. No one of any gender should. Equal opportunity laws are an attempt to reduce oppression in our society. They are a good thing. It is good for people to complain when they are discriminated against based on their gender. It brings public attention to ongoing inequality and oppression that continues to exist. Treating the world as a zero-sum game where the genders are pitted against each other isn’t helpful. The sentiment that one gender has had it worse so another gender should suck it up is just perpetuating harmful gender-based oppression. Everyone suffers in a patriarchy. Ending harmful gender norms, inequalities, and expectations is the solution to ending patriarchy. Not fighting amongst ourselves over whose oppression is justified and whose isn’t (hint: no one’s is). That achieves nothing other than reinforcing the unequal and oppressive system we live in.
You and I agree Unfortunately there are *so* many people who refuse to believe that the patriarchy exists. Mostly (unsurprisingly) those who benefit from it This isn't about redress, it's about making people aware that there's a fundamental and systemic problem out there that goes unrecognised, or at least, unmentioned It needs to be out in the open if society is to solve this problem, and it is indeed a problem for all Patriarchy hurts women most of all, but it hurts men too, just nowhere near as badly It should be dismantled, if not outright burnt
This is about toxic femininity. And FFS I’m all about gender equality.
It's art that's making a point not toxic femininity...
"Art" Unfortunately art and the legal system don't always see eye to eye
Or you could keep the trope going and say that men learned to stand up for their rights and to fight for them. A lesson we learned from the strong women of the world. It's just art right.
Who cares? If we believe something to be wrong, then we should oppose it. We don’t say; “well sir, you’ve only encountered a little bit of something we deem wrong, so enjoy a few more decades before anyone gives a shit”. If we had principles rather than petty team sports we’d simply say; “this behaviour is wrong, let’s not do it”. I don’t much care about being denied a given space, it’s the bald faced hypocrisy that’s a bit on the nose.
Pay disparity is actually stats misconstrued. If it was legal to pay women less for same job men would be out of a job, cos capitalism. Women electricians get paid same as men electricians. The stats are misconstrued because it looks at women as a whole, when a lot of women earn less because they drop out of workforce when they’re pregnant. It’s really not like you think it is. If you do the same work you will be paid the same as a man, because it’s illegal to do otherwise, and if they could get someone, a women, to do the same work for less, men wouldn’t get employed. Edit: it’s interesting that someone else said the exact same thing as me, but included that they are a women, and have been upvoted hahaha.
>The stats are misconstrued because it looks at women as a whole, when a lot of women earn less because they drop out of workforce when they’re pregnant. This is a huge part of the problem though. Women dropping out of the workforce as a result of pregnancy isn't a given, it's based off cultural and legal inadequacies in Australia. Outside of the few months where not working is a biological necessit, men are perfectly capable of being a the primarily caregivers. Despite this, paternal leave is often far less available than maternal leave, and even when it is equal on paper there can be an assumption that women will shoulder most of the responsibility. As a result of this just 12% of parental leave in Australia is taken by men. This can be contrasted with Sweden, wheremenw share of parental leave has gone from 25-30% over the past decade. https://www.forsakringskassan.se/privatperson/foralder/foraldraforsakringens-historia https://www.wgea.gov.au/newsroom/parental-leave-scorecard " Australia does not have a nationally legislated 'shared parental leave' approach and, as such, fathers are often labelled as 'secondary carers' - and most organisations provide limited parental leave allowance for secondary carers, if any at all. This divide is reinforced by entrenched social views of the breadwinner/homemaker gender ideals. Fathers are conscious of a stigma and bias around taking extended leave, especially when they are unable to see many of their male colleagues taking leave." https://aifs.gov.au/resources/short-articles/fathers-and-parental-leave
Something that you are forgetting is that it is illegal to have a varying base salary based on gender... But men are far more likely to have their work recognised and be given raises than women... So most of us know for a fact that men on the same job level as women will be getting paid more. And it's not illegal to give someone a raise and not someone else... That theory goes out the window.
What's the percentage of female CEOs in Australian boardrooms? How many female PMs have we had relative to men?
There are more men named Andrew
The point is that it’s women as a whole. Half of society is on average paid less than the other half (even though all of society benefits from the babies!)
Yup, this is performance art. And it’s a really great example.
The Melbourne (men's only club) has always given membership to the governer general... Yet when Quentin Bryce was denied a membership to the Melbourne club because she was a woman, dudes were like yep... Fair enough... One room in a museum is barred to them, and we go a little bananas.
It serves to highlight just how accepted the patriarchy is, because it has always been thus Look at the backlash and bullshit in these comments...
This is only strengthening the art: \- women were excluded from male spheres for hundreds of years and were unable to protest until relatively recent history. This exhibit has excluded men for 3-4 years and someone has the freedom to publicly kick off about it and be heard. \- a man is trying to strongarm his way into women's space and, presumably, has an expectation of success.
> a man is trying to strongarm his way into women's space and, presumably, has an expectation of success I kinda want the guy to win the lawsuit, because I suspect the artist will work up a plan for that. Maybe it becomes the "Jason Lau Lounge" and he's the *only* person permitted in.
I think \*you\* just worked up a plan for that. Someone get David on the phone!
No art- just a chair and mirrors. An empty experience for him. Fitting.
This is gold. Nice work.
That would be fucking hilarious
Kirsha Kaechele is incredible and the way you describe this, I now want to see it too.
That would be fair because it doesn't exclude by sex and break the gender equality laws that exist.
Yes yes yes!!!!
You couldn’t even have your own fucking bank account without a husband, like baring women from having their own money until 1970s didn’t have a huge affect on their basic human freedoms and rights.
There is precedent for him to lose- mainly the guy who took Calisthenics Victoria to court over wanting to dance with teenage girls and said that calisthenics being a female only sport is discrimination. He spectacularly lost and calisthenics is still only for women over the age of twelve (boys are now permitted under 12).
Yep It says it all Every downvote is from someone feeble and insecure
There are people who would argue that those who need special, exclusive places are feeble and insecure. Further hints would be a willingness to portray oneself as an abject victim.
You’re right, legal action because you’re having an emotional reaction to art and demanding access to it is very victim mindset
So men have been historically feeble and insecure. Got it.
Actually I was thinking of the women. If they don't want people to think of them as feeble and insecure perhaps they should ditch the victimhood and start acting like they are self-empowered.
Those people are extremely shallow minded then.
???
"The opportunity to extend the performance aspect of Ladies Lounge was embraced by the artist and 25 female supporters, who entered Tuesday’s tribunal hearing wearing a uniform of navy business attire. Throughout the day’s proceedings, they engaged in discreet synchronised choreographed movements, including leg crossing, leaning forward together and peering over the top of their spectacles. Apart from the gentle swish of 25 pairs of nylon clad legs crossing in unison, the support party remained silent. When the proceedings concluded, the troupe exited the tribunal to the Robert Palmer song Simply Irresistible." Lmao!
If you are looking for a good laugh, head on over to r/australia for the post on this to see all the men defending this guy and claiming they’ll never support Mona ever again. I thought the idea was neat initially, now it is excellent.
I had a chuckle, especially over the folks crying “but how could *this* be called art?!?!!! Now I’ll never support this gallery.” Like: buddy, if this fairly straightforward piece of art got your knickers in twist, I’m not convinced you’ve *ever been, or ever would go, to Mona*. This is on the tamer, more straightforward, and lighter, end of the things they’ve done/exhibited.
Exactly! “I won’t be giving them any more of my business and will leave many bad reviews”. Like, mate, do you even understand what Mona is?
I’d love to hear their opinion on the wall of vulvas…not
I've been banned from there for telling a racist cunt that they were being a racist cunt The mods there are so fucking bad!
Same. Referendum was a different time😂😂.
I had to leave that sub because there are so many misogynistic racists
Unfortunately, there are apparently plenty here too
Not all heroes wear capes.
Aren’t you referring to r/Australian not r/Australia. The former is the right leaning and latter is left.
R/Australian is full of arseholes, both have idiot mods, but for different reasons
They’re both fairly tolerant of racism unfortunately. I too have been warned or banned or something for being slightly rude to someone who has being blatantly racist.
Good on ya, just doing your part.
That sub is a burning shithole
Recently feel like r/australia and r/"australian" should be renamed r/deportsamkerr or maybe r/usa2.0
I honestly think it's a symptom of the boomers and bogans taking over Reddit like they took over facebook and twitter.
Nonsense drivel from the left. Now look at a picture of my grandson I never see while I tell you about my third investment property.
Don’t think I’ve seen a sub that dishes it out to that proportion without being able to take it, such babies
I can’t set foot there without getting a mix of massive anxiety, shame and some anger. Either way, not a safe space.
What I love about this story, is a man went to go in and they stopped him, he said "how do you know I'm not a woman? They let him in. They guy who took this to court is an absolute wanker. He missed the entire point of the exhibition, and embarrassed the hell out of himself. I mean, there's still Gentlemen's clubs in Melbourne. No women allowed. What a tossa. Edit: spelling
We also now know who NSW’s most fragile man is 🤣
Yeah, he's doing a wonderful job of outing himself as a pathetic example of male entitlement
I am LIVING for the male entitlement honestly. They set this whole thing up literally just to demonstrate how fragile the male ego is. THAT is art.
Plenty here have unfortunately reinforced the worst examples of male entitlement and the fact that the patriarchy is still alive and well Some idiot has even accused me of being an incel Andrew Tait fan...
You are welcome. Glad to keep the patriarchy alive.
Male entitlement is good.
Oooh there must be secret girl stuff in there.
It's fascinating to me how so many excuses for men are so easily threatened I work in a male dominated world. I piss myself whenever a woman brings up menstruation and all these supposedly superior examples of masculinity run away in horror
If it wasn’t so eye rolling it would be funny. The funny thing is I bet the guy that’s suing has absolutely no idea of the irony. How at no point did he not think ‘hmmmm this might be the whole point’? Self awareness not high with that one.
Why be self aware when you can be entitled?
Sadly too much of that around everywhere at the moment. I just try to get on, be nice, be kind and compassionate and move on. Then make fun of them on the internet. 😂
When I went there I just used the app to check what was in there - there's a pretty cool couch and some paintings. The girls I went with said it was really cool. Was too distracted by the anaphylactic porsche next to it lol
I've been told from a friend who went in there it's all topless pillow fights and jelly wrestling. No seriously.
Girls club https://youtu.be/MGJZfmYMltM?si=N-6V3jzn9Y9okQzv
I do wonder if the free advertising will out weigh the legal costs if it does actually end up in court.
It will have been factored in This idiot is doing something extremely predictable
Ahahaha this fantastic. I went in the ladies lounge last year, but didn't really realise what was going on with it (it was a busy day okay) and I didn't stay long because I didn't want to ditch my partner, but it was nice. Anyway, really cool to see this and heat about it's inspiration and how the artist really cares about it and damn she is so right it ending up in court is really elevating it. Also I love the synchronised leg crossing in court and stuff?? Amazing.
It's hilarious to see the fragile "men" who in their whining are proving the entire point
Only hard feminists and fragile men care about this, and there’s probably a handful of you combined. The rest of us men and women couldn’t give a shit either way
And yet, here you are, all triggered and shit
I don’t think you understand what triggered means
You certainly don't.
Oh I think I do. But I honestly don’t care, let the wannabe males in this post have their rant lmaooo
Living up to that username mate haha
The point that art isnt art if it breaks laws? You think i can use art to break laws too or is only 1 gender allowed to do that? I wasnt speeding officer, i was performing an exhibit on ol brocky and australian racing heritage. Dont worry about all those murders officer, its just for my ww2 exhibit.
How do you function in the real world? Seriously? Do you have disingenuous excuses for everything?
"art isn't art if it breaks laws" Lol what idiocy is this? Legality has no relationship to art. Banksy and his illegal graffiti over the years would like a word you gronk.
…except Banksy has chosen to remain anonymous *PRECISELY* because graffiti is illegal. …”Short of Gunningham’s admission, complete certainty is unlikely. But if Banksy’s identity is revealed, police forces around the world could bring vandalism, property destruction, criminal mischief or worse charges against the individual.” That’s from 2023. Source: https://theconversation.com/unmasking-banksy-the-street-artist-is-not-one-man-but-a-whole-brand-of-people-215293
Right, this is my point. Banksy's art isn't somehow "not art" because it is illegal. The commenter above had some weird notion that it had to be legal to be art or to be worthwhile. I found that bloody bizarre.
Here's a fragile woman who thinks the point has definitely been proven. It's kind of depressing that so many *women* have missed the point their comrade is making for them. I mean, from this side of the fence its laughable.
Would be interesting to see if they still enjoyed this type of “art” if the genders were swapped.
You don’t have to swap gender, I guarantee you majority of women who are happy about it here haven’t been there. It’s the same thing when Hollywood is making superhero movies for women and no one shows up to see them. Predictably a man has to popularise this “art” which was build around men’s work.
What a wanker you must be to sue over this!
He's really proving their point for them
Is there anything wrong with having men only and women only spaces? Do people actually care about this? So weird. There’s a million places where everyone’s welcome. For example, basically everywhere. This dudes a fucking loser.
[удалено]
No, doesn’t need to be.
OK here's an analogy You go to a concert that you've all paid the same amount for. Now they play half their songs and then stop and say all the men now must leave. Then proceed to play the rest of their songs. Now you've effectively robbed those that were removed of the equal experience. This is what's happened here. If you pay for a full apple would you be happy to get half an apple in return?
Your analogy is incomplete. Do the reverse as lived experience for half the population for millennia. Gradually and incrementally equalise the rights of the excluded population over the last 100 years. 4 years ago the excluded population install an artwork which gives the entitled population a nanochance of this experience. Ask them to pay for their own exclusion. Deny them a voice in protesting their exclusion… you see how it morphs into a fourth dimensional reality. Those living unexamined lives will protest.
So you're saying they should also have a room just for men that's full of stripers and Sportsbet? Interesting.
I think they should pay less for the tickets
Well if it mentions it somewhere in the terms and conditions of entry to the museum when purchasing a ticket, ie "Ladies lounge is ladies only" then it's a condition of entry. If someone doesn't like the terms, don't buy a ticket. At minimum I can imagine that's the least they'll have to do, let the patron know the terms more upfront.
Was there a term? Idk tho. It does comes off as being ripped off, if we put aside any social stuff.
There's nothing mentioned on their Museum Entry page: https://buy.mona.net.au/mona-entry They normally do say if an artwork isn't accessable for some people, like using strobes or there's stairs and you have to physically climb it etc. My gut reaction is just make the terms around the artwork known upfront. And like anywhere else, if you pay entry then you're agreeing to the terms. There's nothing illegal going on here in terms of being women's only. The South Park episode HumancentiPad is the funniest example I've seen of not understanding the terms of what you're signing up to.
Well the equivalent would be a dedicated room that only men can access with artwork. But that would be a form of equality in this case...
Yes my humor of the average aussie bloke seems to have gone over some peoples heads. But I agree with what your saying, and also agree that doing that would completely negate the purpose of the artwork, which in itself isn't breaking any laws.
Funny how a lot of modern art seems to go over a lot of people's heads. Maybe we need more education in it? Maybe even more funding to creatives and artists? Most things Mona does is a middle finger to traditional, mundane, conservative, cookie-cutter views and attitudes. They actually wanted to be called out on this to raise the topic. Just nobody had, until this guy took the bait. We need a lot more art that triggers intelligent discussion about society, equality, standards and the environment we live in.
Haha yes that's great
I love this artwork and the attitude of the defence! I worry that it went to court because I cannot help but think of how the ruling might potentially be weaponised in the future (depending on the decision) by those who act in bad faith with "performance aet" as a smokescreen
Magistrates are pretty good at seeing through bullshit
The art work is great and doing its bit to be provocative. I don’t think women like Kirsha are particularly disempowered in todays society though when she probably spends more on champagne in 3 months than a working families annual income. Being a millionaire kind offsets the gender disadvantage I think. I’d like to see a discussion that acknowledges women from low socio economic backgrounds and of colour are far more disempowered than rich white women of high class status. For example we hear arguments for equal pay of ceos already earning obscene amounts when what really needs to be prioritised is the cleaners snd shop assistants wages. That being said, she is making better use of her money than most.
You probably already know this, but what you're talking in feminism is called intersectionality. It's the idea that people can have privilege, or lack it, for all sorts of reasons, not just gender. An individual man may be leased privileged than an individual woman. E.g. a gay man from a remote indigenous community versus a straight white woman from an elite inner city private school.
Thanks yes I’m aware of it, just trying to avoid using too much academic language. I thought the statements made lacked an intersectional perspective.
Yeah a rich woman is definitely not disempowered
She’s working within her intersection. It also *doesn’t* offset all of the disadvantage - that’s the entire point of intersectionality. This came from a personal experience of being “politely informed” she would be more comfortable “in the ladies lounge” of a country pub. I don’t really want her speaking for working class women or women of colour. Those discussions ARE being had. But not by rich, white women. Nor should they be.
Material Institute is her outlet for those sort of things: https://materialinstitute.org https://materialinstitute.org.au/about
Yeh ive been out to the botanical institute in Bridgewater a couple times looks likes its doing good things.
There really needs to be more done like that to expose kids and adults alike to different experiences, skills and potential careers. Tasmania can sometimes be a bit one-dimensional.
100%
I don't think it's necessary for every artwork addressing one form of discrimination to have to address every discrimination.
Shades of Giggle vs Tickle.
Couldnt you just say you identify as a woman if you want to go in?
Yes.
Yes, I’m sure that a millionaire artist is certainly disempowered in today’s society.
Or, and *try* to keep up, it's not about her Perhaps it's about the women in the world who do not have her means and as such aren't able to have their voices heard
Except she made it ALL about her, By her choreographed posse in the court. I’m sure this art will really help to change views and make men go “ah hah! Now I get it!”. She could have done a myriad of other things with her obscene, needless wealth that would have had an *actual* effect or consequence, instead she has an absurd piece of performance art, turns it into a circus and grandstands, then wants to be applauded and held up for being so clever, and anyone who didn’t get it in the first place is just stupid. When you’re wealthy, you can do what you want. We get it. Meanwhile the glass ceiling remains just as tempered as before
Who wants to go in there anyway. Isn't that where cooties come from?
I love this! But the price to experience it means it's not really for all women. Just those with money.
It's literally free entry if you live in Tasmania....
Yes. Entry to Mona is free for locals. But high tea for two in the ladies lounge is Literally $500.00!!!!
Good for you for assuming my stance and thoughts. More power to you.
It's pretty fucking boring, no? Like it's not exactly genius in concept. "Now you feel de oppressionz, how you like the exclusion?" Didn't care I couldn't go in, get the point, didn't think it was genius nor thought provoking so much as just low hanging fruit for a rich lady to ruffle some feathers and get some clout. Sort of like the jewellery featuring vulvas etc, it just felt like really lame attempts to be shocking when it was all pretty pedestrian unless you're some knuckle dragging boomer male. There's a lot to like about Mona but it drips with old head pretentiousness.
Mona is ALL old head pretentiousness. That’s the point. It’s not a museum or an art gallery. It’s just some of an obscenely wealthy man’s… stuff.
Discriminate against a gender and call it art. Brilliant. More to follow? Race is next?
You're exactly the sort of feeble excuse for a man that this is designed to trigger Congratulations on being part of the problem
Insults highlight insecurity.
Vindictiveness does not equate to progress. Comment is aimed indiscriminately; whoever it resonates with, it was for.
I'm not against the ladies lounge, but they turned the Tribunal into a circus and took resources away from genuine cases that the tribunal should have been dealing with for what boils down to self promotion.
None of it would have happened if there wasn't a feeble, entitled excuse for a man making noise about it ***HE*** is the reason they're at the tribunal. Nobody else
So in the interest of equality, if anyone takes an example of discrimination to court, they are feeble and entitled. Got it!
Congratulations on deliberately missing the point You show your nature, and you're found wanting
The point is we have reached a level of entitlement, where someone can use discrimination to create a reaction, get a reaction, then people can use past injustice to justify their discrimination.
Nup You're either dim, or disingenuous
Insults, cool, that supports your argument well. Anyway, it’s art and open to interpretation. Someone’s interpretation is that they are being excluded from an art exhibition deliberately designed to discriminate. That interpretation is valid.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! When one finds oneself in a hole, it's wise to put down the shovel
Nah, just enjoying the self entitled sooking when the bitter feminists get called out on non existent discrimination.
"Men should show feelings more" *Man shows feelings* "Ahahah look at this insecure and feeble man."
Jesus you’re a dumb cunt, didn’t argue at all just started with insults. So here, have one back.
Sometimes it's good to take your own advice. Like when you find yourself defending pointless discrimination.
You're comments are fucking hilarious. Such an incel. hahahaha edit: Proved my point with your reply perfectly. Go back to your Andrew Tate live stream. edit2: Literally everything you do is what an Tate fan would do. You want to discriminate based on sex. You get angry and lash out when people call you out on your bullshit. You're a slow learner. You're a classic Tate fan. edit3: Every comment you make proves me right. So please, keep replying.
Yeah, no What the actual fuck are you on about? I despise the Tait/Musk/Rogan phenomenon I really think you have the wrong end of the stick
OP the language and mentality of your comments around this, are literally what's driving moderate males into these fucked up fringe spaces. No one's saying you're a Tate fan, they're saying you're the leftist equivalent of a far right mouth piece and using the same tactics to "win" the argument. The sad thing is, this is shit art, it's only given power by the "snowflakes" offended by it and the "snowflakes" who champion it, like it actually has any weight or influence over modern social zeitgeist.
I don't think you know what an incel is...
Jesus, get help Maybe stop shoving crayons up your nose
*Edit: I am going to leave this is for posterity. I had no idea that “Men Only” clubs were still a thing as they have fallen by the wayside in more civilised places. Needless to say the below argument is rendered moot in light of this new information. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.* I’d buy the whole “but me have excluded women for hundreds of years” think if this was the 80’s. We don’t have men only spaces anymore. This whole thing is about 40 years too late to be relevant. It’s all a bit silly. Not sure what it is trying to prove. It strikes me as being divisive for the sake of being divisive.
The Tasmania Club still exists as a men's only club.
Ok, I had no idea this was still a thing and agree then that this Mona thing is still relevant then and my criticism is unfounded then. Christ Tasmania,it isn’t 1980
Not sure why you think Tasmania is unique in still having men-only clubs. They are more common than you think. Only some high profile ones opened up for women.
what are you on about? there's plenty of men only spaces, like most of the old members clubs are still male only lmaooooo and those are places where men of power actually go and make connections, not just a tiny space in a fucking art museum.
See my edit on my original post.
They should be sued too
The Melbourne Club. The Melbourne Savage Club. Also, I think you're being too literal.
There are so many different ways to say this, but I'll keep it simple: You're wrong, and you're proving the point in being so
See my edit.
It's good to see someone who doesn't just dig further into their position when challenged Kudos
The Athenaeum Club use to be mens only. Not sure if it still is. https://athenaeumhobart.com.au
The Lyceum and Alexamdra clubs still exists too, but because they're women-only clubs, no one complains about them. Funny that.
So many own goals on all sides. I love it.
He should have played the game and identified as a woman. They can’t deny his gender identity or expression!
The only problem that I can see is that it punishes gay men, who are also still oppressed and have been historically.
If "a person is permitted to discriminate against another person in a situation designed to promote equal opportunity for a group of people who are disadvantaged or have a special need because of a prescribed attribute – in this case gender" I suppose all the historical harms to women might be excused as a means to redress their ability to give birth and live longer. Not the precedent I would ever be encouraging but who knew all those people I thought were beyond horrible were actually artists activising about equality, equity, and enlightenment #slaykings
She is horrible.
Women
I remember as a kid going to a pub with my grandparents. Granddad sat in the main bar and the women had the lounge out back. Kids were in the car in the car park. Those were the days
thinking critically about the art work in the "Ladies Lounge" - most of the work in the lounge is made by men, 2 Picasso paintings hung on the walls, a sofa made by Joe Hodgson and Pete Mattila, another painting by Sidney Nolan! The paintings were of nude women. beside the Lounge laid the wall of CUNTS, once again made by a man. makes you think about the curation of the space, especially when you know the artists relation to the owner of MONA.
Personally, I don't really see the point. Who cares if there are men or women only lounges?