this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2024

191 points (91.0% liked)

World News

39041 readers

2741 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

191

Museum behind ladies-only art exhibit sued by man who was denied entry - National | Globalnews.ca (globalnews.ca)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

132 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Not sure if this was already posted.

The article describes the referenced court case, and the artist's views and intentions.

Personally, I both loved and hated the idea at first. The more I think about it, the more I find it valuable in some way.

(page 3) 36 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 24 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

In his complaint, Lau argued it is discriminatory to keep artwork, like that of the Picasso painting displayed exclusively in the Ladies Lounge, away from he and other men who pay to enter the museum. (...) He’s asked for an apology from the museum and for men to either be allowed into the lounge or permitted to pay a discounted ticket price for the museum.

Kaechele and lawyers for the MONA rebutted by saying the exclusion of men is the point of the Ladies Lounge exhibit. “The men are experiencing Ladies Lounge, their experience of rejection is the artwork,” Kaechele told the Guardian. “OK, they experience the artwork differently than women, but men are certainly experiencing the artwork as it’s intended.”

This is going to be much trickier than it seems based only on the headline. Both anti-discrimination laws and the freedom of art are very fundamental rights, and a decision that weighs these against each other will not be easy to reach (at least I would think so). Curious to see how this lands, although I expect that the museum will come out on top, because the disadvantage that this special exhibit poses to the man (the museum would even argue there is none) is probably not big or permanent enough to justify a restriction on the freedom of art as big as this would entail (and I guess the museum probably discussed this with their lawyer beforehand).

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] -4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Personally, I both loved and hated the idea at first. The more I think about it, the more I find it valuable in some way.

Thanks you for saying so and spending time thinking about this. The way I see things, the point here is to take a glance at how systemic sexism works through an art exhibit. That is, if you dare.

Other examples that would illustrate what I mean in relation to systemic sexism, would be:

It is not sexism if a dude is not allowed in a lesbian bar. They are a minority group, and just want to do their thing.
It is sexism when a woman is refused to apply for a grandmaster chess tournament because of tradition/culture/etc. ~~We live in a world that women are still not allowed participate in these tournaments.~~

[edit: the strikethrough, cause apparently it's not the case. There are women tournaments (only for women) and open ones (open to all). I think the example still stands, as an illustration to what I meant]

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago

When I first read it, the thought that came to mind was how stupid it is in this age to do anything that is restricted by gender when the rest of the world is trying to eliminate that.

Once I read the part about the feelings, emotion, and experience the restriction brought was the actual art and not just the paintings, that's when I thought it was clever. The definition of art seems to be ambiguous now, but I understand what she's trying to to do and it's still a clever in that it illicits an effect whether you wanted to visit the museum or not.

I think people say they understand or empathize, but don't really know what it means in a specific context until they experience it IMO.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Women aren't barred from joining chess tournaments. They have their own tournaments where men are not allowed. They don't join "grandmaster level tournaments" whatever that means because they don't have a high enough rating to compete. Reasons for this are complicated and largely unknown, with the main possible reason being they probably get less support worldwide for pursuing chess. Also there are titles that require less ELO points to qualify for, made for women, like "woman master".

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Reasons for this are complicated and largely unknown

Really?
Well, systemic sexism is complicated, no doubt. You have to decide tho. Complicated or unknown? Cause it can't be both.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 17 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Why are men and women playing chess in different leagues? Chess isn't atheltic, nobody is going to have an advantage over another player because of gender or sex.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 8 months ago

Agreed. I'm not a chess player, but I view it as an intellectual sport or challenge. There's no reason not to eliminate all gender specific separation IMO.

I think it's fun to see people in competition and achievements where we don't have to care about the person's physical attributes.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 8 months ago (5 children)

Historic systemic sexism means women are under represented in the game. Different leagues aim to bring more women and girls into play because for example, a young girl can see women playing and want to get involved. It is much less likely if all they see is a boy's club.

Anyone can enter the 'mens' league, so whenever a woman is good enough to complete they can (and do).

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] [email protected] -5 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Because historically it's been shown that they are weaker players. At the top, the grandmaster title, only 41 women have it, out of like 2000 overall titles. So they created the women's tournaments to encourage more of them to play chess. There are only two types of tournaments, open, where everyone can play, and women's only, where only women play. A lot of female players play opens as well as women's

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Because historically ~~it’s been shown that they are weaker players~~ they were excluded, creating the illusion that they were weaker players

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 20 points 8 months ago

Is sexist trolling art now? I prefer the toilet

[–] [email protected] -3 points 8 months ago (20 children)

ITT: some angry ass men who have missed the point. Lol.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

It is a stupid point, and hardly art, but even you should be able to understand it by now if you read the other comments come on

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

What’s the point?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

To be sexist.

Some people feel others need to be sexually discriminated against because apparently this will achieve something useful?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

it's paragraph 3 in the article.

load more comments (18 replies)

[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago (2 children)

To be fair, there's a difference between the lounge itself being the exhibit, vs restricting some of Picasso's pieces

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Why? Woman habe been restriced from artwork (and jobs, voting rights,...) for generations.

If the point is to give male persons the possibility to feal this exclusion, then it makes sense to exclude something from them that they actually would like to see.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 20 points 8 months ago (7 children)

Performance art is wild, often misunderstood. The entire point is to outrage men and he took the bait lol. The artist is clearly getting off on this, staging shit in even more locations because of the lawsuit.

[–] [email protected] 53 points 8 months ago (5 children)

So sexism is outrage performance art now?

[+] [email protected] -34 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Men like this always deliberately misunderstand because they are addicted to outrage and misogyny.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 8 months ago (13 children)

Then explain why exactly is this not sexist? A good litmus test for such things is to replace the group in question with Jews. If it sounds antisemitic, you might have an *ism going on.

So let's do that "Jew sued art gallery for being denied entry in a non-jew only exhibition". Sounds pretty antisemitic, right?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago (2 children)

It is sexist. That's the point of the exhibit. The exclusion is the point.

I believe the artist explained it in court by saying that it allows men to feel the exclusion that women feel regularly. Many professions, clubs, and networking spaces were closed to women until very recently.

If men feel excluded from the exhibit, they are understanding how women feel being excluded from other spaces. The men are experiencing the art exactly how the artist intends.

And no you can't just replace a word with "jew" as a good litmus test. If I replace "hamburgers" in the sentence "put some hamburgers on the barbecue", it would sound insane. But it's actually a normal sentence.

Actually, you could make a good copy of this exhibition by making it "Jewish people only". Then everyone else would understand that exclusion.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago (4 children)

If men feel excluded from the exhibit, they are understanding how women feel being excluded from other spaces. The men are experiencing the art exactly how the artist intends.

2 things:

Because men totally never feel left out or others in their lives, this is the only place they'll ever feel that. Fucking garbage excuse for sexism.
It's not just the artists art she's locking behind this sexist wall, which is the exact dick move that she's butthurt about from checks notes 60 years ago at this museum. If she was depriving men of her own art that's one thing, but the article clearly states original Picasso's are in the room.

It's incredibly fucking dickheaded to hide another, frankly more popular and actually cared about, artists work from people due to something they can't control. I get that's the point she's making, but it doesn't teach men something they don't already know: it just makes her the asshole, big-time. It almost certainly will convince more people online who hear about this that her point is total bullshit and she's some "stupid man hating count" or something, too, which is nice

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] [email protected] 15 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The key difference is that a) the sexism criticized by the artist is already illegal and b) (this might be a revelation for some people) hamburgers are not people, Jews are people.

Even if you did a Jews only club, that would be illegal - and rightly so.

load more comments (12 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 16 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It is when it's against men

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

You're the artist's target, and you're literally performing in her exhibit right now

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] [email protected] 108 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Makes sense. Having a ladies only exhibit that only shows women artists is a positive thing. Not allowing certain visitors into a museum because of their gender is sexist.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 8 months ago (5 children)

Especially with the context that Australia didn’t allow women in pubs with men until 1965 so women there were literally sent to “ladies lounges,” which were apparently always some shitty side room, that sometimes would sell them a drink (at higher prices) while they waited.

Turning that on its head as a temporary exhibit at a museum is clearly art to me. It’s not like she did it as a business concept to make money.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] [email protected] 20 points 8 months ago (7 children)

The museum this exhibit is at only allowed men until 1965. Today, there's a single, temporary exhibit within this museum that's only allowing women, with a stated intention to make people reflect on that previous time. That this single exhibit draws international attention speaks volumes to the reality of sexism in western society, and it's not the sexism you're talking about

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments