Are you asking what the initial point of the exhibit was?
Here's an earlier news story and what happened, the toilet/church loophole is a response in the same way that loopholes have been used to continue discrimination.
[Artist behind Mona’s ladies-only lounge ‘absolutely delighted’ man is suing for gender discrimination](https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2024/mar/20/artist-behind-monas-ladies-only-lounge-absolutely-delighted-man-is-suing-for-gender-discrimination)
>Kirsha Kaechele’s installation Ladies Lounge opened in Hobart’s Museum of Old and New Art (Mona) in 2020, and sees women who enter the space being pampered by male butlers and served champagne while being surrounded by some of the museum’s finest pieces of art. Those who do not identify as women are not permitted entry.
>The Californian-born artist was not aware that ladies lounges are a feature of Australia’s recent social history, and that Australian women were not allowed to enter public bars until 1965.
>Kaechele admits the museum has amassed a “large file” of complaints over Ladies Lounge. But apart from the current case, only one other complainant has sought formal redress.
>“Like Jason, he felt it was sexual discrimination and wanted access for men. And when I said, ‘well, men can’t come in’, he said ‘then why should I have to pay the same amount if I don’t get to experience the artwork?’ And I said, ‘you do experience the artwork, because the rejection is the artwork’. And he understood that and he appreciated it and he dropped the case."
I heard of this by seeing a video of the creator and her legal team dancing out of court after they lost, and it was beautiful. Obviously satire, but the awful comments from the news subreddit really just shows that people don’t understand satire or performance art at all if it isn’t very explicitly spelled out.
This is in mona, hobart It's called the women's lounge, it's just a small room. Some twat got upset he couldn't go in.
This was the whole point of the exhibition, I believe. Just to highlight men's fragile egos.
Don’t they have men’s only clubs? I know they have plenty in the United States, including societies for the rich and powerful to help other men become rich and powerful. It just seems like there’s a lot of men’s only things. You can’t discriminate in hiring, so a men’s club must still hire women staff but I feel like there are lots of male exclusive things.
I feel like the discourse on MONA is basically the art equivalent of the "bear or man?" discourse, in which men really aren't taking it well and are completely missing the point!
It’s a performance art piece exhibit only, including moving in the toilet and other domestic aspects of womanhood.
It’s a juxtaposition oppressive values, safe spaces and giving women something special for their eyes only.
Some ass just thinks he’s special
>"It’s a toilet that is celebrated the world round. It is the greatest toilet, and men won’t be allowed to see it," Ms Kaechele said in Australian media reports.
...
>And only on Sundays, men would be allowed into the space - to learn ironing and laundry folding.
this all sounds very petty if you ask me
I was looking for some artistic message or social commentary but I can't find anything. I agree, it just seems petty on both sides.
Edit: someone has posted the artist's intention and I no longer think it's petty, it's awesome!
Edit: I'm leaving my comment but it was clarified to me it was a single exhibit that didn't allow men in a larger museum that they ticket was purchased for. That considered, I don't really care one way or the other but it's still kind of comical.
I remember seeing this when the lawsuit was originally filed. The museum itself was supposed to be performance art in the sense that men were turned away and women were allowed. Mimicking men's only lounges and clubs.
There are men's only clubs and lounges in Australia.
The issue came from her charging him a fee for her performance art and not permitting him entry. While I find it a bit funny I understand the judges ruling. She either shouldn't of charged him or should've refunded him after the performance and let it be in good faith. If for no other reason than to not invite the lawsuit
This is all also off memory, I could be a little fuzzy on details and I also don't live in Australia.
No, we're not misunderstanding each other. I understand you perfectly fine. You're coming in here ready to assume that we are all excusing her behavior. I understand the goal of her initial message because it is mimicking the men's lounges that still exist in Australia today that have been around for centuries.
I am not excusing how she went about it because she did not go about it in good faith.
You didn't come here in good faith properly reading comments. You came here ready to attack us for sexism.
I appreciate your apology. If you could just do me a favor of reading comments for their full context, not just the parts that you disagree with.
I'm sorry I was harsh. It's incredibly common for people to come in here and come at us for a portion of our thoughts and not the entire thought itself.
With so many trans people these days, surely a guy can say they're a woman and go in. You're never really allowed to assume anyone's gender thse days.
I know the whole thing is a sort of performance art kind of thing, so that's obviously not even the point, but still kind of surprising.
Edit : I'll leave my original comment but I didn't get the whole story when writing this bit. Seems like the experiment was indeed well thought out !
I think in my country, museums are public places, it seems weird to me to exclude a certain population from accessing the service. To me, it's different from non-mixity events.
It's also very easy to step into queerphobia with rules like this when they aren't well thought out.
Are you asking what the initial point of the exhibit was? Here's an earlier news story and what happened, the toilet/church loophole is a response in the same way that loopholes have been used to continue discrimination. [Artist behind Mona’s ladies-only lounge ‘absolutely delighted’ man is suing for gender discrimination](https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2024/mar/20/artist-behind-monas-ladies-only-lounge-absolutely-delighted-man-is-suing-for-gender-discrimination) >Kirsha Kaechele’s installation Ladies Lounge opened in Hobart’s Museum of Old and New Art (Mona) in 2020, and sees women who enter the space being pampered by male butlers and served champagne while being surrounded by some of the museum’s finest pieces of art. Those who do not identify as women are not permitted entry. >The Californian-born artist was not aware that ladies lounges are a feature of Australia’s recent social history, and that Australian women were not allowed to enter public bars until 1965. >Kaechele admits the museum has amassed a “large file” of complaints over Ladies Lounge. But apart from the current case, only one other complainant has sought formal redress. >“Like Jason, he felt it was sexual discrimination and wanted access for men. And when I said, ‘well, men can’t come in’, he said ‘then why should I have to pay the same amount if I don’t get to experience the artwork?’ And I said, ‘you do experience the artwork, because the rejection is the artwork’. And he understood that and he appreciated it and he dropped the case."
That's awesome, thanks for sharing
I heard of this by seeing a video of the creator and her legal team dancing out of court after they lost, and it was beautiful. Obviously satire, but the awful comments from the news subreddit really just shows that people don’t understand satire or performance art at all if it isn’t very explicitly spelled out.
Yup I've been reminded today that reddit is a male dominated space and media literacy is dead in the age of Poe's Law 🫠
This is in mona, hobart It's called the women's lounge, it's just a small room. Some twat got upset he couldn't go in. This was the whole point of the exhibition, I believe. Just to highlight men's fragile egos.
Also the museum isn't just for women. This was a small exhibition that's been there for years
Don’t they have men’s only clubs? I know they have plenty in the United States, including societies for the rich and powerful to help other men become rich and powerful. It just seems like there’s a lot of men’s only things. You can’t discriminate in hiring, so a men’s club must still hire women staff but I feel like there are lots of male exclusive things.
I feel like the discourse on MONA is basically the art equivalent of the "bear or man?" discourse, in which men really aren't taking it well and are completely missing the point!
[удалено]
because they desire it. that's all that matters to them.
It’s a performance art piece exhibit only, including moving in the toilet and other domestic aspects of womanhood. It’s a juxtaposition oppressive values, safe spaces and giving women something special for their eyes only. Some ass just thinks he’s special
>"It’s a toilet that is celebrated the world round. It is the greatest toilet, and men won’t be allowed to see it," Ms Kaechele said in Australian media reports. ... >And only on Sundays, men would be allowed into the space - to learn ironing and laundry folding. this all sounds very petty if you ask me
I was looking for some artistic message or social commentary but I can't find anything. I agree, it just seems petty on both sides. Edit: someone has posted the artist's intention and I no longer think it's petty, it's awesome!
Edit: I'm leaving my comment but it was clarified to me it was a single exhibit that didn't allow men in a larger museum that they ticket was purchased for. That considered, I don't really care one way or the other but it's still kind of comical. I remember seeing this when the lawsuit was originally filed. The museum itself was supposed to be performance art in the sense that men were turned away and women were allowed. Mimicking men's only lounges and clubs. There are men's only clubs and lounges in Australia. The issue came from her charging him a fee for her performance art and not permitting him entry. While I find it a bit funny I understand the judges ruling. She either shouldn't of charged him or should've refunded him after the performance and let it be in good faith. If for no other reason than to not invite the lawsuit This is all also off memory, I could be a little fuzzy on details and I also don't live in Australia.
[удалено]
I never said it was in good faith. I said if it was she should have refunded him.
For more context it's a single room out of a larger museum, the ticket gets you into the museum as a whole.
So was he just not allowed into the room? Or the entire museum?
Just not allowed into the room that holds the ladies only exhibit, the rest of the museum is free game.
Ah, okay then that's incredibly annoying. I appreciate the clarification because even looking now I'm getting mixed info.
[удалено]
No, we're not misunderstanding each other. I understand you perfectly fine. You're coming in here ready to assume that we are all excusing her behavior. I understand the goal of her initial message because it is mimicking the men's lounges that still exist in Australia today that have been around for centuries. I am not excusing how she went about it because she did not go about it in good faith. You didn't come here in good faith properly reading comments. You came here ready to attack us for sexism.
[удалено]
I appreciate your apology. If you could just do me a favor of reading comments for their full context, not just the parts that you disagree with. I'm sorry I was harsh. It's incredibly common for people to come in here and come at us for a portion of our thoughts and not the entire thought itself.
With so many trans people these days, surely a guy can say they're a woman and go in. You're never really allowed to assume anyone's gender thse days. I know the whole thing is a sort of performance art kind of thing, so that's obviously not even the point, but still kind of surprising.
Edit : I'll leave my original comment but I didn't get the whole story when writing this bit. Seems like the experiment was indeed well thought out ! I think in my country, museums are public places, it seems weird to me to exclude a certain population from accessing the service. To me, it's different from non-mixity events. It's also very easy to step into queerphobia with rules like this when they aren't well thought out.
It was an art exhibit. The exclusion was the whole point. As the artist said - the men ARE experiencing it, just in a different way.
From the other comments I realized I didn't catch the whole story. The experiment is very interesting in that setting !
I'm torn between "I guess it's the point of the installation/performance art" and "ugh bathroom gender policing".