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

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

  • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    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).

    • wahming@monyet.cc
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      66
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      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’.

      • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        26
        ·
        7 months ago

        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?”

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

      • bluGill@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        39
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

        • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          29
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          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.

          • quindraco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            22
            ·
            7 months ago

            How do you ban such a cafe while also banning slavery? How do you draw a line between permissible and impermissible compulsory labor when you’re drafting your Constitution to reign in future politicians?

            • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              28
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 months ago
              1. It is not permitted to own another human being.

              2. It is not permitted to discriminate against a human being based on a protected class such as race.

              Is there some contradiction there that I’m not seeing?

              • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                15
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                I think the reasoning is that since having a job is essential for almost everyone, by making it illegal to have a job in which one may refuse to deal with members of a protected class, the government is effectively compelling everyone who needs a job to deal with them, which might be seen as a form of forced labor.

                  • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    7 months ago

                    From the libertarian point of view, being compelled to do something is bad even if that thing itself isn’t all that difficult or unpleasant. I’m a pretty stubborn, libertarian-leaning person myself and I would resent doing even all my favorite things in the world if the government were making me do them.

                    I still wouldn’t make the comparison to slavery myself, but I think that most people are missing how much anti-discrimination laws actually do restrict freedom of speech and of association because most people weren’t going to engage in that sort of speech/association anyway. I would compare them to laws against boycotting Israel.

                • wahming@monyet.cc
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  I’m not seeing a problem with ‘treat people as people regardless of their skin colour’.

                • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Jobs having responsibilities is nothing new. If you don’t like the responsibilities of a particular job, get a different one.

        • NegativeInf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

        • zaph@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          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?

          • bluGill@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            There are lines. Make them as narrow as possible but no more.

            that covers your situation and many others.

              • bluGill@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                Be careful lest oppression of ideas spread them. Also be cafeful lest something unpopular you do is banned too.

                I try to support free expression even if it means defending tyrants doing what I hate.

                • zaph@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  I’ll be sure to. And you be careful not to tolerate intolerance. I try to support people not being murdered because you tolerate tyrants.

    • state_electrician@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      7 months ago

      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?

        • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          7 months ago

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

          • ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            That’s my point… it’s more likely that they are, than aren’t. Thus the “if they are going to the racist bar” is doing a lot of heavy lifting

        • _tezz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          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?

          • ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            God I wish.

            The if, is if they frequent the racist bar. My point is that it’s more likely that they would frequent it, than not, thus the heavy lifting.

    • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      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?