An Australian museum excluded men from an exhibit to highlight misogyny. A man sued for access and won.

Archived version: https://archive.ph/mkwF8

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
39 points
*

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).

permalink
report
reply
64 points

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’.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-24 points

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?”

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-31 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

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?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

So ragebaiting.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

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?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

That if about the police chief is doing some heavy lifting.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Hardly, there’s a rich history of using police to enforce racism. It’s still happening today in some areas.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

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?

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

It’s the privately funding thing, I’m sure Australia has men’s clubs like the Eagles, Masonic, etc. My guess is that if they offered tickets to purchase, there would be the discrimination? You can’t sell something and not offer it to everyone. OTOH, that doesn’t make sense because we have timed tickets and members only tickets here in the US, do they have something like that in Australia?

permalink
report
parent
reply

Interesting Global News

!globalnews@lemmy.zip

Create post

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 format

Post title should mirror the news source title.

URL format

Post 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] prefix

Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.


Rules

1. English only

Title and associated content has to be in English.

2. No social media posts

Avoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.

3. Respectful communication

All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.

4. Inclusivity

Everyone 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 attacks

Any 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 tangents

Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.

7. Instance rules may apply

If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

Icon attribution | Banner attribution

Community stats

  • 2.5K

    Monthly active users

  • 5.6K

    Posts

  • 14K

    Comments

Community moderators