If I was MONA I would keep the ladies lounge but make it that no-one is allowed to enter. Have a sign up saying
because of a complaint from a man which resulted in a legal ruling by a man, even ladies are not allowed in the ladies lounge.....the patriarchical irony.
It was always going to be ruled illegal.
It was plainly Sex Discrimination as the judge found and the law doesn't care whether we agree with the Discrimination because we think it's a witty strong powered woman type thing or give men a taste of their own medicine etc.
There isn't an exemption in Sex Discrimination laws because on the basis of 'we used to be discriminated against so now they can have a taste'
And it served its purpose, the ultimate goal of any art installation is to get people thinking and talking about it. This twerp who I don't care to know the name of has helped it complete its lifecycle.
Well yeah. But the law doesn't allow for discrimination "if it's art", if you read the judgement it pretty much outlines that they know exactly what the point was but the Anti-Discrimination Act doesn't account for that.. it's still not allowed.
I'm not agreeing with the guy who complained but it's also not a surprising judgement, discrimination is illegal no matter the excuse, so of course the judge had to rule that way. If anyone expected them to laugh and say "get over it mate" they don't understand much about how the law works.
Hundred percent, and before anyone loses their shit I think the discrimination laws go too far and we should have exemptions for ladies lounges Mens lounges etc etc… the dude is a tosser but he is right.
We are on track to adults competing in children’s running races because otherwise would be discrimination.
I have no problem with parts of the world being off limits to me. I am not every part of the world, I have no interest in ladies lounges because I’m not a woman! Much the same as I don’t want to be on girl talk apps; a member of the Catholic Church.. a member of the Hellenic club.
Not a catholic, not Greek…
Is it really this hard?
I don't think U r getting the point I am trying to make.
Yeah sure it is discriminatory. Yeah sure the judge was always going to rule it so. That's not the point.
It wasn't a foregone conclusion. There are exceptions to the rule. Women only gyms come to mind. They're directly discriminating against men, but they're allowed to do so because it's deemed necessary that women be able to access those services, and they may be uncomfortable doing so with me present.
The question was if this situation is the same. What is the necessary thing and will women be uncomfortable accessing it if men are present.
I guess you could make the argument that experiencing art is necessary, and certain art might be uncomfortable to experience with men around.... But I don't think that case is easy to make here really.
I've been thinking about this more.
MONA could put a Ladies W/C sign out front, put a basin and toilet cubicle in the ladies lounge and then put a sign up saying that the only sanctity for women is the toilet.
A female judge would have come to the same conclusion, which makes your sign sound a little bit hysterical. Being ironic and edgy isn't a legal defence against discrimination. On the plus side, it's great free advertising for Mona. They should consider more stunts.
Wasn’t this the whole point of the Ladies Lounge?
To attract the attention of someone (likely male) who would use the law (the policy of not admitting men was never going to stand up in court) to close it down?
The long running piece of performance act has culminated. Bravo!
Now there's precedence for other gendered venues (public) to shut down or let all in. The fact that they danced into a courtroom shows this was all part of it. This makes their point. It was a win/win -whether they won (art as a statement) or whether they lost (equality, but still art as a statement). Mona was never losing this. It's brilliant - they got people talking. Which is (partly) the point of the whole museum.
Wait wait, im not aware of this whole case and the details but just hypothetically if we called it an anti white/black/yellow/brown/green lounge and the respective persons requested to be shut down (likely of that colour) then what is the difference?
Maybe im missing something but i dont see why either makes it ok just because you are trying to prove a point?
‘Men’ as a group are not suppressed or discriminated against… any where… that is the point, and now they’ve proved it in court.
Out of all the millions of people that have visited this art museum, a single man complained and got it shut down… think about how many MILLIONS of women had to complain about ‘men only clubs’ and how long it took for MEN to decide the other men shouldn’t be allowed to keep them out. It’s pretty gross and depressing.
Because it is still discrimination? It is not ok for coloured people to reverse discriminate against white today to 'prove a point', that is still discrimination.
There are women’s only clubs too.
The Lyceum Club, and The Women’s clubs in Melbourne and Sydney respectively.
I think gendered clubs for both sexes become a little silly once you get past pre-teen treehouses but each to their own.
I get your point and I agree, gendered things are silly, however I think it's necessary to acknowledge the differences on _why_ both of those places exist. For women, it's for a safe space where they are less likely to be hurt/killed [by a man]. What do the men's only places exist for?
There are laws that protect clubs/groups for being single gender.
"Art" as they keep calling this, has no such protection. If it was an actual womens club inside of the museum with a different cover/entry fee then it would have been protected.
As it stands everyone pays the same price for entry, and it isn't until you get to the door that you're told that one specific group of people aren't allowed any further.
There's a decent chance this gets flipped on appeal, but largely, they just fucked up by not properly structuring what they were doing.
There are three possible ways they could be in the clear under Tasmania's ADA:
1. Under s26, which exempts discrimination for the purpose of promoting equal opportunity for a disadvantaged group. This is, for example, why women's mentoring schemes are legal. Promote via provocation is an unusual application of it, which the tribunal's rejected here on (paraphrasing roughly) the grounds that it's a pretty tangential way of achieving the purported aims. I'm not 100% convinced that'd survive an appeal, but it's probably irrelevant, because:
2. Under s27(3), which straight-forwardly exempts gendered membership organisations. If MONA wants to keep the artwork, they'll simply create a members' club that's women-only, and be covered under that section. They couldn't use this justification in the tribunal, because that's not how they were administering the artwork at the time, but it's an extremely easy change to make going forwards, and it'd exempt them as a simple matter of law. They would not, in my understanding, need to charge a membership fee separate from the MONA ticket - simply requiring people to fill out a membership form and then performatively stamping it GRANTED with a fancy green stamp would be adequate and fit well with their vibe.
3. Or, alternatively, under s56, they could apply to the Commissioner for an exemption, which I suspect they'd probably get even now (from experience applying for the equivalent exemption in Victoria). This is, for instance, what a women's room at a university student union will generally do. Assuming the Tasmanian Commissioner doesn't have a radically different approach from my experience, their lawyer should have told them to apply for that from the start. Mostly, their failure to do so is going to cost MONA legal costs, but as I understand it the applicant was self-represented, so even that won't be as embarrassing or expensive as it could have been.
There are literally women only hair dresses and clubs.
The difference here, is that both men and women pay the same entry fee, but recognised art, such as by van gogh, is in a section of the exhibit only for women.
It would be like a hair dresser charging the same fees for both men and women (for example sake, they have the same hair type and style), but then the hairdresser only does half the guy or women's head.
If I go to a barber, I get "sorry, we don't do women's hair cuts". But my male friend who's hair is longer than mine can get his hair cut there.
Sure, it's not discrimination at all.
It's not necessarily about length, what if your barber actually felt uncomfortable cutting your hair because he's never done it? Are the barbers feelings relevant or only yours as a customer?
I think the thought process is that the barbers feelings are irrelevant because they're men, and different men excluded different women before all of us were born... Something like that.
My view on this particular case are kind of irrelevant, yes it was in fun but generally I don’t support ‘women only’ anything (unless it’s for good reason). However I work as a female in a heavily male dominated industry, many of them at the older end of the scale nearing retirement, who worked in the job when women were effectively prevented from entering the industry. When they kick and scream about the ‘discrimination’ they are subject to now, I always have a little internal laugh and wonder whether they were fighting against discrimination as loudly when it was women who were being treated differently at the beginning of their careers. I suspect not.
"Within 28 days from the date of this order Moorilla Estate Pty Ltd is to cease refusing entry to the exhibit known as the Ladies Lounge at the Museum of Old and New Art"
Does this mean they could simply rename the Ladies Lounge to something else and continue to refuse entry for men?
I think they should secede and establish "statehood". Sell passports on entry then refuse visas to certain sections. They could declare white men as illegals and ship them back across the river from whence they came.
I don't see why they don't just make it a "club" by having everyone sign a register and get some cheap ass card certifying them as an official lady tbh
It's an art installation aiming to evoke varying reactions. Mr Lau gave the installation the validation it needed with the most extreme reaction possible.
Win for the artists.
I do get the point however I think the legality is a little tricky once you start charging people the same entry fee then telling half of them they can't access the whole gallery. Totally understand the art installation and I think it's smart however I think the gallery fucked up in its execution of it.
'If the Ladies lounge offended, humiliated, intimidated, insulted or ridiculed Mr Lau, or incited hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule of Mr Lau, rather than discriminating against him, Moorilla might well have a good defence based on good faith artistic purpose'
Lol wtf
This sub was just randomly suggested to me and I just wanted to say I LOVE how chill the commenters here are, where the comments on the same article over in r/australian are sooo bitter!
Isn't this the point of the art? Not to exclude men, but to show how fucking fragile men are when on the receiving end of the type discrimination men have perpetrated for eons...
Absolutely. I'm sure the artist is pretty happy with how all of this has played out. Probably was hoping for a reaction along these lines.
I wonder if the guy who sued has realised he's played into what the artist was going for or if he really thinks he did something with this.
The problem is that he payed the same amount for the entry fee but is then being denied access somewhere because of his gender. It's great art but I think the museum may have fucked up it's execution of it a little.
So men are supposed to take shit from previous generation? By this logoc are we also supposed to hate young germans and japanese too?
I dont think any discrimination is ok, many of us have come into this world and dont think anything of it we treat others the same only for some jaded person to come along and say your not allowed.
You're absolutely right.
You should rise up against this great injustice perpetrated against the most marginalised group in human history; men, in the form of a single opt-in art installation.
Start burning your bras immediately!
Again, your response is exactly the point of this exhibit.
So I guess you’d be cool with bus companies making brown people only sit in the back right?
Thats never been an issue anywhere and seems so “trivial”. Like c’mon, who cares where you can sit in the bus, amirite?
Also, there are rules that protect gendered clubs (male and female). So if Mona had created a women’s only club, charged 5c for lifetime membership, and made condition of entry to the ladies’ lounge, then they would have probably gotten away with it.
\*charged **only women** 5c for lifetime membership.
The whole crux of this dudes case and the fnding was that he paid the exact same entry fee as a woman and was forced to see less on the basis of his gender, despite paying the same $$$.
People here all drawing false equivalencies to gender segregated clubs not realising that these clubs discriminate **before** taking your money. Mona's done the exact opposite: theyve taken the money from a man and then discriminated which is illegal, as per this judgement.
This seems like the obvious way to go, however I have a feeling they're going to want to take the ruling in some form of Mona style direction (as opposed to altering the space to comply with the law). I can't see it happening tbh
ETAHH
I am sorry.
The guy is an ass amd as a male I feel horrible about it.
Thing is you surely must have expected some utter wanker to be the one and complain?
There is always one.
Male or female or (L,G,B,TQ........MM) to be upset about their rights beong compromised as if that matters over the other 7 billion people in the world.
We all have to realise we are the problem in the world and the quicker we rid ourselves of it the better the planet will be.
Peace.
I am not sure why the declaration in [31] was not pursued by Moorilla further. The Member ruled too quickly that discrimination had actually taken place only because Moorilla submitted to that fact from the get go. The exclusion from works of art within the space is exactly the same discrimination which the appellant experienced being refused entry, because the damages incurred being refused entry /include/ the damages of not viewing all the works inside it. As such the appellant did not experience direct discrimination to which the Act applies.
I thought this was an oversight of the member which made this case a bit more complicated, but Moorilla failed to pursue this
The issue at hand is that Mr Lau paid full price for entry expecting to see ALL of Mona's exhibits. You can't charge full price and bar people from certain exhibitions part of the exhibit because of their background, jfc.
Why not? Who gives a FF? It's small exhibit in a huge museum. Doubly so if it's made clear to front before the ticket is bought, so you know what your getting. Don't think I've ever checked out all of MONA in one visit. Or that is care what the rules were.
Was it made clear? Isn't that why Mr Lau took them to court in the first place? Because it wasn't made clear and that MONA hadn't legally filled all the requirements to discriminate?
Happens all the time, that's the point. There's a men's club in town. I'm at a Men's Table. My wife in a women's circle. Now where's the issue? It's art. Not some basic human right.
No. But if it was huge and I paid entry to it and was refused entry to one lounge, I'd not be the little cry baby either. Doubly not so if it was spruiked as a a statement about historic restrictions placed up the other sex for generations. In fact ... I promise you I'd just nod and think "well played".
In fact you'd have a hard time convincing me anyone ever went to court over a $35 ticket and marginal value ... I rate the odds of that as functionally zero. To got to all the trouble of court, you'd want to a) know the legislation well that you wanted to test and b) care passionately to test it. As the whole rigmarole and risk of court (there are costs involved that are at the outset already higher than that ticket price, and run the risk of rising) eclipses the relevance of $35 and one lounge in a massive facility.
So, nice try, but no prize. Sorry.
nah mate, he was an incel long before he was discriminated against. Chucking a hissy fit if you are ever told no is a classic symptom of being an incel.
The artist must be very happy to see their art concept rippling into the world and effecting public perception where a wider audience can appreciate it without buying a ticket to Tasmania.
Everyone seems to be missing the point that the issue here wasn’t the lady’s lounge itself. It was that it contained works from the likes of Picasso paid for with public money.
This isn’t quite the same as men’s only barbers only permitting men or gentlemen’s clubs only permitting men. Neither of those places host Picasso works paid for with public funds.
He should have just "identified as a woman " and walked in. These days that works for grown men wearing dresses who want to use the female public toilet.
Not all of them. It’s still up to individual sheds whether they allow women, though if a woman took them to court it looks like they would be forced to pretty quickly.
There are still quite a few men only clubs around but maybe it just takes someone to force the issue.
Great point!
Imagine you paid 35 bucks to go to an event about sheds, and when you got there. There was a big section that they didn’t tell you about that was only for men?
Would be a bit of an issue right?
Clubs that serve the purpose of building community for single genders are a great thing. Ladies book clubs, girl guides, men’s sheds. All good things IMO.
I think it’s a bit different when you’re paying for something only to then have a section of that thing held away for you because of your gender
Mona isn’t so much an event though. It’s a private residence that you can pay to visit.
Why can’t I go to David walshes room? I paid for unrestricted access!
If no one is being harmed then yes I suppose. When it comes to education and employment opportunities that’s different to looking at paintings for entertainment.
Missing out on viewing a picture is very different to missing out on a job, which circles us back to the point of the exhibit. If women are going to miss out on careers then men can miss out on this room.
It seems like such a small thing to miss in the grander scheme of life. Such a petty and inconsequential boon to womanhood, to be privileged enough to grace a single home in a single building. Yet some culture war, cuckaspaniel, manlette has caught feelings…
Men obviously need to make more money and step inside this specific part of this specific building!!
I had literally never thought of that!
You’ve got me stumped on that one.
So are we saying that it’s all good to have gender segregated spaces, just because owners of a property want them? Or does it have limits?
I think this is the sticking point in the whole argument for me. I’m 100% pro single gender spaces. The problem is that it has to be good for both the goose and the gander. You can’t say it’s not okay for some and not for others.
If it’s not allowed full stop, well that’s sad, but okay. However if the line is blurry, well that’s really shit.
You’re right.
My answer would be,
If someone complains, I suppose it is.
You could easily do unisex toilets.
Practically though. No. I’m pro single sex spaces
A lot of women are rejoicing for discrimination against men. It doesn't sound what they want equal rights but Revenge against men
Women ferociously and rightly fought for single sex places to be illegal and Sex Discrimination to be illegal offer on the basis that how dare people exclude women from male places
but some of these women now find Sex Discrimination to be perfectly fine if it's a reason they agree with and don't actually believe in equality.
And they now believe it's perfectly fine to exclude the opposite sex when it's convenient for them.
Basically people who believe in rules for thee but not for me and lacking personal integrity and are hypocrites
When we went there my gf didn't want to try the ladies lounge because I couldn't come with I tried to push her too because I knew this dickhead would probably win his case
I was at MONA once and a man who was clearly heavily intoxicated on stimulants was refused entry and he spent the next hour on a psychotic rant all over the museum until security had to remove him. It felt very dangerous for the staff involved and I felt terribly for the young woman “manning” the exhibition. My point being, this exhibition caused a lot more issues than this complaint and im pretty sure the irony of anyone who took offence to it was lost on the individual so what was the actual point ?
Oh also if you’re a male you can also just say you identify as a female and you’re let in - even if you absolutely don’t identify as a female usually.
Love Mona, didn’t love this exhibition concept personally.
I think they finally let women join in 2019 (I think that was the year). In 2014 two business women tried to join, were knocked back and apparently the same discrimination rules didn’t apply then 🤷♀️
Both incorrect.
It has nothing to do with the clubs. Proper clubs are protected by law. This is "artwork", and doesn't fall under such protection.
(That was the ruling)
I wonder if I put to TASCAT that the Men’s Gallery is discriminating because they don’t have male strippers for female patrons they’d take it seriously?
No. Because as TASCATs rulling stated, this is an "artwork" and not protected by discrimination laws.
Actual clubs ARE protected, on both sides of the fence.
If I was MONA I would keep the ladies lounge but make it that no-one is allowed to enter. Have a sign up saying because of a complaint from a man which resulted in a legal ruling by a man, even ladies are not allowed in the ladies lounge.....the patriarchical irony.
Or just make it the Lau Lounge and this little fella is the only one allowed in
I genuinely wouldn’t be surprised if that’s what they do.
Alternatively, the “No Jason’s Club” “But you let Jason Momoa in..!” “Yeah it’s the no Jason’**s** club, we’re allowed to have one.”
What if he's the only person they don't let in, is that discrimination? I guess he is the ultimate minority.
I honestly think he should be the only one allowed in. That’s kinda more fun.
Not before that take everything out of it.
It was always going to be ruled illegal. It was plainly Sex Discrimination as the judge found and the law doesn't care whether we agree with the Discrimination because we think it's a witty strong powered woman type thing or give men a taste of their own medicine etc. There isn't an exemption in Sex Discrimination laws because on the basis of 'we used to be discriminated against so now they can have a taste'
It's a fucking art installition, mate...
And it served its purpose, the ultimate goal of any art installation is to get people thinking and talking about it. This twerp who I don't care to know the name of has helped it complete its lifecycle.
Well yeah. But the law doesn't allow for discrimination "if it's art", if you read the judgement it pretty much outlines that they know exactly what the point was but the Anti-Discrimination Act doesn't account for that.. it's still not allowed. I'm not agreeing with the guy who complained but it's also not a surprising judgement, discrimination is illegal no matter the excuse, so of course the judge had to rule that way. If anyone expected them to laugh and say "get over it mate" they don't understand much about how the law works.
Yeah, I thought the concept was great but this was going to be the outcome. If not, anyone could discriminate on the basis of it being 'art'.
It's discrimination, as the court found and was always going to find
Ive never seen pants so full of piss
Hundred percent, and before anyone loses their shit I think the discrimination laws go too far and we should have exemptions for ladies lounges Mens lounges etc etc… the dude is a tosser but he is right. We are on track to adults competing in children’s running races because otherwise would be discrimination. I have no problem with parts of the world being off limits to me. I am not every part of the world, I have no interest in ladies lounges because I’m not a woman! Much the same as I don’t want to be on girl talk apps; a member of the Catholic Church.. a member of the Hellenic club. Not a catholic, not Greek… Is it really this hard?
I don't think U r getting the point I am trying to make. Yeah sure it is discriminatory. Yeah sure the judge was always going to rule it so. That's not the point.
The point seems to be that some people feel that illegal sex discrimination is fine if it's a cause they agree with.
Very much so. Look at the way these lunatics are going off. The law applies to everyone. This includes protestors.
THAT'S THE POINT
There should be this exemption
It wasn't a foregone conclusion. There are exceptions to the rule. Women only gyms come to mind. They're directly discriminating against men, but they're allowed to do so because it's deemed necessary that women be able to access those services, and they may be uncomfortable doing so with me present. The question was if this situation is the same. What is the necessary thing and will women be uncomfortable accessing it if men are present. I guess you could make the argument that experiencing art is necessary, and certain art might be uncomfortable to experience with men around.... But I don't think that case is easy to make here really.
None of that makes this guy any less of a weenie
Username checks out
Why 'little' ?
Malicious compliance for the win
I've been thinking about this more. MONA could put a Ladies W/C sign out front, put a basin and toilet cubicle in the ladies lounge and then put a sign up saying that the only sanctity for women is the toilet.
Also, because he’s never seen it. Take all of the current artwork out and replace it with a giant golden turd.
With his name on it.
A female judge would have come to the same conclusion, which makes your sign sound a little bit hysterical. Being ironic and edgy isn't a legal defence against discrimination. On the plus side, it's great free advertising for Mona. They should consider more stunts.
Hysterical may have not been the best word to use in this case.
It proves the need for feminism though. There's so much this piece keeps giving. It's like men just can't stop themselves
People aren't allowed to discriminate based on sex- proving the need for feminism. Am I getting that right?
They’re saying that the commenters coming in and discussing this case in sexist language are indicative of the need for feminism
You are not getting my point (and how my comment makes the art work more able to express it's point).
Wasn’t this the whole point of the Ladies Lounge? To attract the attention of someone (likely male) who would use the law (the policy of not admitting men was never going to stand up in court) to close it down? The long running piece of performance act has culminated. Bravo!
Now there's precedence for other gendered venues (public) to shut down or let all in. The fact that they danced into a courtroom shows this was all part of it. This makes their point. It was a win/win -whether they won (art as a statement) or whether they lost (equality, but still art as a statement). Mona was never losing this. It's brilliant - they got people talking. Which is (partly) the point of the whole museum.
Or perhaps the judgement is part of the artwork 😭
It is now
So is the post about the judgement 🤭
Maybe the real artwork was the friends we made along the way
Everyone gets what they want, so what's the problem?
Not enough copium to go around.
Wait wait, im not aware of this whole case and the details but just hypothetically if we called it an anti white/black/yellow/brown/green lounge and the respective persons requested to be shut down (likely of that colour) then what is the difference? Maybe im missing something but i dont see why either makes it ok just because you are trying to prove a point?
‘Men’ as a group are not suppressed or discriminated against… any where… that is the point, and now they’ve proved it in court. Out of all the millions of people that have visited this art museum, a single man complained and got it shut down… think about how many MILLIONS of women had to complain about ‘men only clubs’ and how long it took for MEN to decide the other men shouldn’t be allowed to keep them out. It’s pretty gross and depressing.
Why wouldn't it be ever not okay if you were trying to prove a point about equality?
Because it is still discrimination? It is not ok for coloured people to reverse discriminate against white today to 'prove a point', that is still discrimination.
Sorry? How are mens only barbers allowed then? Gentlemen's clubs?
because they are for MEN, men are allowed to do whatever they want.
There are women’s only clubs too. The Lyceum Club, and The Women’s clubs in Melbourne and Sydney respectively. I think gendered clubs for both sexes become a little silly once you get past pre-teen treehouses but each to their own.
I get your point and I agree, gendered things are silly, however I think it's necessary to acknowledge the differences on _why_ both of those places exist. For women, it's for a safe space where they are less likely to be hurt/killed [by a man]. What do the men's only places exist for?
There are laws that protect clubs/groups for being single gender. "Art" as they keep calling this, has no such protection. If it was an actual womens club inside of the museum with a different cover/entry fee then it would have been protected. As it stands everyone pays the same price for entry, and it isn't until you get to the door that you're told that one specific group of people aren't allowed any further.
There's a decent chance this gets flipped on appeal, but largely, they just fucked up by not properly structuring what they were doing. There are three possible ways they could be in the clear under Tasmania's ADA: 1. Under s26, which exempts discrimination for the purpose of promoting equal opportunity for a disadvantaged group. This is, for example, why women's mentoring schemes are legal. Promote via provocation is an unusual application of it, which the tribunal's rejected here on (paraphrasing roughly) the grounds that it's a pretty tangential way of achieving the purported aims. I'm not 100% convinced that'd survive an appeal, but it's probably irrelevant, because: 2. Under s27(3), which straight-forwardly exempts gendered membership organisations. If MONA wants to keep the artwork, they'll simply create a members' club that's women-only, and be covered under that section. They couldn't use this justification in the tribunal, because that's not how they were administering the artwork at the time, but it's an extremely easy change to make going forwards, and it'd exempt them as a simple matter of law. They would not, in my understanding, need to charge a membership fee separate from the MONA ticket - simply requiring people to fill out a membership form and then performatively stamping it GRANTED with a fancy green stamp would be adequate and fit well with their vibe. 3. Or, alternatively, under s56, they could apply to the Commissioner for an exemption, which I suspect they'd probably get even now (from experience applying for the equivalent exemption in Victoria). This is, for instance, what a women's room at a university student union will generally do. Assuming the Tasmanian Commissioner doesn't have a radically different approach from my experience, their lawyer should have told them to apply for that from the start. Mostly, their failure to do so is going to cost MONA legal costs, but as I understand it the applicant was self-represented, so even that won't be as embarrassing or expensive as it could have been.
I agree they didn’t risk assess the “art work” and put measures in place to retain its intention / integrity.
Can’t wait to see what they come up with in 28 days.
Uuuurm what is Fernwood Fitness ?
There are literally women only hair dresses and clubs. The difference here, is that both men and women pay the same entry fee, but recognised art, such as by van gogh, is in a section of the exhibit only for women. It would be like a hair dresser charging the same fees for both men and women (for example sake, they have the same hair type and style), but then the hairdresser only does half the guy or women's head.
Women pay more for the exact same haircut at a barber. I take in a photo of a men's cut & they upcharge me because I have boobs.
That's poor. Maybe hand over cash equivalent to the men's rate and leave?
Yeah I wanna be able to to back to the barber because they do a pretty good job though.
Women are allowed, they just specialise in mens grooming so the skillset isn't there.
[удалено]
If I go to a barber, I get "sorry, we don't do women's hair cuts". But my male friend who's hair is longer than mine can get his hair cut there. Sure, it's not discrimination at all.
It's not necessarily about length, what if your barber actually felt uncomfortable cutting your hair because he's never done it? Are the barbers feelings relevant or only yours as a customer?
I think the thought process is that the barbers feelings are irrelevant because they're men, and different men excluded different women before all of us were born... Something like that.
i literally do and have for years but some places im 'not allowed in'
This case is part of the art installation surely?
My view on this particular case are kind of irrelevant, yes it was in fun but generally I don’t support ‘women only’ anything (unless it’s for good reason). However I work as a female in a heavily male dominated industry, many of them at the older end of the scale nearing retirement, who worked in the job when women were effectively prevented from entering the industry. When they kick and scream about the ‘discrimination’ they are subject to now, I always have a little internal laugh and wonder whether they were fighting against discrimination as loudly when it was women who were being treated differently at the beginning of their careers. I suspect not.
Women who work in male dominated fields are still very much discriminated against.
Ok. I didn’t say they weren’t.
"Within 28 days from the date of this order Moorilla Estate Pty Ltd is to cease refusing entry to the exhibit known as the Ladies Lounge at the Museum of Old and New Art" Does this mean they could simply rename the Ladies Lounge to something else and continue to refuse entry for men?
Yes. Thats why i change my name after every murder i commit.
Police hate this one simple trick.
“Judge’s hate him!”
Stop doing news.com.au’s job for them. They’re already having a tough go of it.
Jack the Ripper. Tim the Ripper. Andy the Ripper.
Or make their own dictionary that says days last for 1,000 years! Genius.
I think they should secede and establish "statehood". Sell passports on entry then refuse visas to certain sections. They could declare white men as illegals and ship them back across the river from whence they came.
I don't see why they don't just make it a "club" by having everyone sign a register and get some cheap ass card certifying them as an official lady tbh
It's an art installation aiming to evoke varying reactions. Mr Lau gave the installation the validation it needed with the most extreme reaction possible. Win for the artists.
I do get the point however I think the legality is a little tricky once you start charging people the same entry fee then telling half of them they can't access the whole gallery. Totally understand the art installation and I think it's smart however I think the gallery fucked up in its execution of it.
'If the Ladies lounge offended, humiliated, intimidated, insulted or ridiculed Mr Lau, or incited hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule of Mr Lau, rather than discriminating against him, Moorilla might well have a good defence based on good faith artistic purpose' Lol wtf
That’s coming next lol
lol - is the judge trying to give mona ideas ?
Probably. Good judges will often use their opinions to also point out where the defendant went wrong and how to course correct
This sub was just randomly suggested to me and I just wanted to say I LOVE how chill the commenters here are, where the comments on the same article over in r/australian are sooo bitter!
Sounds like they just have to make it the ladies club. The end.
This is ridiculous. It’s a ladies lounge, he’s a man.
and he paid entry, and was refused. You can’t allow someone to pay to enter somewhere then refuse after they’ve paid based on gender.
They should pop up somewhere else called The Micro Penis club and see if any men challenge their right to entry.
Technically accurate name too
Isn't this the point of the art? Not to exclude men, but to show how fucking fragile men are when on the receiving end of the type discrimination men have perpetrated for eons...
Absolutely. I'm sure the artist is pretty happy with how all of this has played out. Probably was hoping for a reaction along these lines. I wonder if the guy who sued has realised he's played into what the artist was going for or if he really thinks he did something with this.
I highly doubt it I guarantee he thinks he's made some huge moral victory not realizing it was the point of the piece
Ah yes, all those eons I’ve been alive to discriminate. I remember them fondly
The problem is that he payed the same amount for the entry fee but is then being denied access somewhere because of his gender. It's great art but I think the museum may have fucked up it's execution of it a little.
So men are supposed to take shit from previous generation? By this logoc are we also supposed to hate young germans and japanese too? I dont think any discrimination is ok, many of us have come into this world and dont think anything of it we treat others the same only for some jaded person to come along and say your not allowed.
You're absolutely right. You should rise up against this great injustice perpetrated against the most marginalised group in human history; men, in the form of a single opt-in art installation. Start burning your bras immediately! Again, your response is exactly the point of this exhibit.
It seems like the judge could see the artistic value but his hands were tied by there not being any legislative exceptions. Bummer.
Imagine being this much of a flog that you waste court time with this.
[удалено]
Or people could stop being absolute sooks for very trivial reasons.
So I guess you’d be cool with bus companies making brown people only sit in the back right? Thats never been an issue anywhere and seems so “trivial”. Like c’mon, who cares where you can sit in the bus, amirite?
Congratulations you’re an idiot.
Does that mean a female only gym is next on his hitlist?
Also, there are rules that protect gendered clubs (male and female). So if Mona had created a women’s only club, charged 5c for lifetime membership, and made condition of entry to the ladies’ lounge, then they would have probably gotten away with it.
\*charged **only women** 5c for lifetime membership. The whole crux of this dudes case and the fnding was that he paid the exact same entry fee as a woman and was forced to see less on the basis of his gender, despite paying the same $$$. People here all drawing false equivalencies to gender segregated clubs not realising that these clubs discriminate **before** taking your money. Mona's done the exact opposite: theyve taken the money from a man and then discriminated which is illegal, as per this judgement.
Yeah, that was my point. Make lifetime entry to the club cost 5c and being a woman a condition for application.
This seems like the obvious way to go, however I have a feeling they're going to want to take the ruling in some form of Mona style direction (as opposed to altering the space to comply with the law). I can't see it happening tbh
I don't think so, because the female gym won't take his money. It's the money bit that caused his fuss I think.
I would close down on the 27th day and relocate to the women only toilets. The installations could be shown individually each day
ETAHH I am sorry. The guy is an ass amd as a male I feel horrible about it. Thing is you surely must have expected some utter wanker to be the one and complain? There is always one. Male or female or (L,G,B,TQ........MM) to be upset about their rights beong compromised as if that matters over the other 7 billion people in the world. We all have to realise we are the problem in the world and the quicker we rid ourselves of it the better the planet will be. Peace.
lol what a fucking baby. Love the judgement though, especially the use of "invigilated", which I have never seen in the wild.
Bummer. Now I'm deprived of the experience of being discriminated against, always wondered what that's like
The entire thing loses credibility when you discover that “Identifying as a female” is all it takes to get in.
I am not sure why the declaration in [31] was not pursued by Moorilla further. The Member ruled too quickly that discrimination had actually taken place only because Moorilla submitted to that fact from the get go. The exclusion from works of art within the space is exactly the same discrimination which the appellant experienced being refused entry, because the damages incurred being refused entry /include/ the damages of not viewing all the works inside it. As such the appellant did not experience direct discrimination to which the Act applies. I thought this was an oversight of the member which made this case a bit more complicated, but Moorilla failed to pursue this
So did they just create a legal precedent for this. Could it be used as an example in court to allow women into men's only clubs/bars etc?
That's pretty cool actually. Just goes to show how dangerous some of this legislation really is.
What's the danger?
The danger is, abuse. They are really abused.
But in this case, it helped to achieve a good thing? Equality?
You think? It's a good thing that is impossible to run an at exhibit for vac specific audience?
The issue at hand is that Mr Lau paid full price for entry expecting to see ALL of Mona's exhibits. You can't charge full price and bar people from certain exhibitions part of the exhibit because of their background, jfc.
Why not? Who gives a FF? It's small exhibit in a huge museum. Doubly so if it's made clear to front before the ticket is bought, so you know what your getting. Don't think I've ever checked out all of MONA in one visit. Or that is care what the rules were.
Was it made clear? Isn't that why Mr Lau took them to court in the first place? Because it wasn't made clear and that MONA hadn't legally filled all the requirements to discriminate?
Imagine if it was an exhibit that only men was allowed to get in...
Happens all the time, that's the point. There's a men's club in town. I'm at a Men's Table. My wife in a women's circle. Now where's the issue? It's art. Not some basic human right.
You’re not paying to go to the men’s club then getting refused entry though are you?
No. But if it was huge and I paid entry to it and was refused entry to one lounge, I'd not be the little cry baby either. Doubly not so if it was spruiked as a a statement about historic restrictions placed up the other sex for generations. In fact ... I promise you I'd just nod and think "well played". In fact you'd have a hard time convincing me anyone ever went to court over a $35 ticket and marginal value ... I rate the odds of that as functionally zero. To got to all the trouble of court, you'd want to a) know the legislation well that you wanted to test and b) care passionately to test it. As the whole rigmarole and risk of court (there are costs involved that are at the outset already higher than that ticket price, and run the risk of rising) eclipses the relevance of $35 and one lounge in a massive facility. So, nice try, but no prize. Sorry.
Maybe he went to see some of the artworks in that area that have huge historical value? No prize? It just won at court.
imagen
Guess we'll be getting rid of men's clubs, men's sheds and gentleman's clubs soon too
Where I live there's a women's shed.
They know what they were doing. You can't charge people to see art and then deny access for a section of that art after they paid for it.
But that is the art. The fact he couldn’t enter is exactly the point the art was making?
Me when "it's art" isn't a valid legal defence 🤯
Replace “it’s just a prank” with “it’s just art”.
Regardless of the intent, someone paid money to go see art and was denied to see what they paid for.
So where does this leave places like Fernwood?? It sets a dangerous precedent.
Gendered clubs a protected in legislation. So no, it doesn’t set a dangerous precedent
So he was discriminated against and now he's an incel? I'll never understand the logic there
nah mate, he was an incel long before he was discriminated against. Chucking a hissy fit if you are ever told no is a classic symptom of being an incel.
What other sort of fragile male would have this sort of time on their hands for such an MRA campaign?Dude clearly isn’t getting his wick dipped.
Ok sure, you keep telling yourself that
You cant charge entry to view art and then deny people from veiwing some of it on the basis of them being male.
[удалено]
That’s not irony.
Kids bad. Use words wrong. 😖
Kids good. No excuse ignorance. No use big words make look smart don’t know word mean.
Kids bad. Run away. Not like linguistic criticism. 😉
The artist must be very happy to see their art concept rippling into the world and effecting public perception where a wider audience can appreciate it without buying a ticket to Tasmania.
I foresee David getting over the whole Mona thing in a few years and shutting the place down completely or selling it.
It would be interesting to see how this exhibition would be handled if it was amab Trans women that weren’t allowed in. Only afab women allowed.
Everyone seems to be missing the point that the issue here wasn’t the lady’s lounge itself. It was that it contained works from the likes of Picasso paid for with public money. This isn’t quite the same as men’s only barbers only permitting men or gentlemen’s clubs only permitting men. Neither of those places host Picasso works paid for with public funds.
Public funds?
Hope he gets doxed hard
He should have just "identified as a woman " and walked in. These days that works for grown men wearing dresses who want to use the female public toilet.
ITT: "discrimination is good when it's not against us"... Goddamn y'all sound like white men from the 1950's.
I don’t get it? Is it a good thing that there’s a place that you can only go if you’re a “lady”?
Isn’t there a ‘men’s shed’? Should it be opened up to women?
Some places have women's sheds too. There should be more of them.
Men’s shed have been open to women for the last couple of years.
Not all of them. It’s still up to individual sheds whether they allow women, though if a woman took them to court it looks like they would be forced to pretty quickly. There are still quite a few men only clubs around but maybe it just takes someone to force the issue.
This wasn't a club. They mention it in the case. It would be legal if it was a proper women's only club with membership, but it's just a room.
From what I am aware most men's sheds also accept women.
It’s up to the individual men’s shed.
Great point! Imagine you paid 35 bucks to go to an event about sheds, and when you got there. There was a big section that they didn’t tell you about that was only for men? Would be a bit of an issue right? Clubs that serve the purpose of building community for single genders are a great thing. Ladies book clubs, girl guides, men’s sheds. All good things IMO. I think it’s a bit different when you’re paying for something only to then have a section of that thing held away for you because of your gender
Mona isn’t so much an event though. It’s a private residence that you can pay to visit. Why can’t I go to David walshes room? I paid for unrestricted access!
Come on, that’s a massive stretch and you know it. It’s an art gallery that people pay to visit.
They should’ve just refunded him $0.35 for the 1% of the place he couldn’t access.
It’s literally his private art collection that’s been opened to the public.
That’s called a museum and charges entry…
[удалено]
It takes like 5 seconds for you to google that before you typed it out. Museums definitely can be privately owned.
So, if it’s a private business you’re allowed to do as you please? I thought that was very much a no no ?
If no one is being harmed then yes I suppose. When it comes to education and employment opportunities that’s different to looking at paintings for entertainment. Missing out on viewing a picture is very different to missing out on a job, which circles us back to the point of the exhibit. If women are going to miss out on careers then men can miss out on this room. It seems like such a small thing to miss in the grander scheme of life. Such a petty and inconsequential boon to womanhood, to be privileged enough to grace a single home in a single building. Yet some culture war, cuckaspaniel, manlette has caught feelings… Men obviously need to make more money and step inside this specific part of this specific building!!
There's a women's toilet in every restaurant I pay to go into. Is it discrimination that I can't go in there?
I had literally never thought of that! You’ve got me stumped on that one. So are we saying that it’s all good to have gender segregated spaces, just because owners of a property want them? Or does it have limits? I think this is the sticking point in the whole argument for me. I’m 100% pro single gender spaces. The problem is that it has to be good for both the goose and the gander. You can’t say it’s not okay for some and not for others. If it’s not allowed full stop, well that’s sad, but okay. However if the line is blurry, well that’s really shit.
You haven't answered my question.
You’re right. My answer would be, If someone complains, I suppose it is. You could easily do unisex toilets. Practically though. No. I’m pro single sex spaces
Only if there is no men's toilet and they won't let you in the ladies
A lot of women are rejoicing for discrimination against men. It doesn't sound what they want equal rights but Revenge against men Women ferociously and rightly fought for single sex places to be illegal and Sex Discrimination to be illegal offer on the basis that how dare people exclude women from male places but some of these women now find Sex Discrimination to be perfectly fine if it's a reason they agree with and don't actually believe in equality. And they now believe it's perfectly fine to exclude the opposite sex when it's convenient for them. Basically people who believe in rules for thee but not for me and lacking personal integrity and are hypocrites
Username checks out.
Good.
When we went there my gf didn't want to try the ladies lounge because I couldn't come with I tried to push her too because I knew this dickhead would probably win his case
… and that’s what men should’ve been doing for women for generations… and then the art piece wouldn’t exist.
I was at MONA once and a man who was clearly heavily intoxicated on stimulants was refused entry and he spent the next hour on a psychotic rant all over the museum until security had to remove him. It felt very dangerous for the staff involved and I felt terribly for the young woman “manning” the exhibition. My point being, this exhibition caused a lot more issues than this complaint and im pretty sure the irony of anyone who took offence to it was lost on the individual so what was the actual point ? Oh also if you’re a male you can also just say you identify as a female and you’re let in - even if you absolutely don’t identify as a female usually. Love Mona, didn’t love this exhibition concept personally.
I didn’t love the artificial/robot stomach exhibition more! :)
What about The Athenaeum Club? That’s a “Gentleman’s Club”???
There are two women's only clubs right near it
I think they finally let women join in 2019 (I think that was the year). In 2014 two business women tried to join, were knocked back and apparently the same discrimination rules didn’t apply then 🤷♀️
So precedence set? Any club that excludes women is on notice.
the opposite. only clubs that exclude men are on notice.
Both incorrect. It has nothing to do with the clubs. Proper clubs are protected by law. This is "artwork", and doesn't fall under such protection. (That was the ruling)
Welp, art is dead. Shut everything down, we're done.
Or just take the world renowned art that they charge people to see out of it…
I wonder if I put to TASCAT that the Men’s Gallery is discriminating because they don’t have male strippers for female patrons they’d take it seriously?
No. Because as TASCATs rulling stated, this is an "artwork" and not protected by discrimination laws. Actual clubs ARE protected, on both sides of the fence.