Artist refuses to bow to demands from men to be let into her exhibition

The Times article says it's 500 Australian dollars for two (sorry I misremembered it as 250). I take it that it's an extra ticket into that area.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-exhibition-only-admitted-women-so-a-man-sued-qlzdm5nxp

I liked the artist’s reasoning that being refused entry was as valid an immersive experience as being admitted, so those refused entry were getting their money’s worth of the experience, just not the same experience as the women being allowed in

It takes 'it's art because I say it is' to a whole new level. I wouldn't like to get into an argument with someone with that level of linguistic dexterity.

If they offered a discount of one cent to men, would it still be discrimination?

Man I love this! Experiencing discrimination is the art work blokes - feel our pain! Hats off to that woman and to her “I’m not sorry and you can’t come in” attitude. Shame it’s in Hobart, if it was local to me I would be volunteering for navy suit, pearls and champagne duty.

I think the higher price includes champagne and nibbles. It's not clear if this is an extra or if paying for that is the only way for women to get in. I'm not sure but I'm inclined to think it's the former.

😵‍💫 $250 ? I thought he paid much less ….

“I visited MONA, paid 35 Australian dollars,” or about $23, “on the expectation that I would have access to the museum, and I was quite surprised when I was told that I would not be able to see one exhibition, the Ladies Lounge,” Mr. Lau said at the hearing, according to reports in the Australian news media. “Anyone who buys a ticket would expect a fair provision of goods and services.”

In Tasmania, the protected characteristics of sex and gender identity (which is a PC in law) have been conflated by the courts. That's why it's illegal to exclude men who claim to be women from women-only groups, but legal to exclude men who don't.

Tickle v Giggle in the Federal court will address this. (IANAL or an Aussie so apologies if I have misstated the legal position.)

Blimey at the price

The entry was $250 for two. Like other disadvantaged groups, women's economic status has always exacerbated or minimised the effect of discrimination. So it seems strange to me to make the point with an exorbitantly priced experience. And in a museum belonging to and paid for by a man whose money comes from gambling, which itself is the cause of misery for those women who had to somehow make ends meet when their husbands had gambled most of the money away.

Men (unless they claim to be women) being excluded despite having paid the same is like women not having the same rights as men despite paying the same rates of tax. The unfairness is the point, the experience of injustice and the feelings engendered are part of the installation. So I think she could well win this!

Yes, I was sent through to the lounge in a pub in Glasgow in 1992ish. Where I was served by the same barman who had ejected me from the bar a minute previously.

I'd totally forgotten that it was a thing til I saw your post. Not legal in the UK at that point either of course, but common in traditional pubs although mostly enforced by having the men sitting at the bar staring you down rather than outright refusal to serve.

Some would also refuse to serve women pints.

Yeah, it's all people who self ID as women, Not actually restricted to women at all.....

I liked the artist’s reasoning that being refused entry was as valid an immersive experience as being admitted, so those refused entry were getting their money’s worth of the experience, just not the same experience as the women being allowed in.

Love a bit of reverse psychology! And also love the supporters turning up in their suits and lippy, you have to love the creativity and humour.

Potentially, but this case is in Australia, not in the UK, most theme parks have graded price tickets (e.g. under 3s free, under 12s cheaper etc), and that is for safety and not for art.

Whether any of that translates into this case, I don't know.

It's one thing for him to be excluded from the exhibition (which I think is great), it's another thing for the museum to sell a general entry ticket which implies he has access to the whole of the museum.

If I buy a ticket for the family to visit a theme park, I don't ask for a reduction in price because one of my kids doesn't meet the height requirement for some of the rides. Same applies, surely?

There’s already a couple of wars going on, why try to stir up some more pointless division

Yes I think it will hinge on this.

It's one thing for him to be excluded from the exhibition (which I think is great), it's another thing for the museum to sell a general entry ticket which implies he has access to the whole of the museum. On that point I don't know which way it will go.

Just came here to post this story!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-68572280

The artwork doesn't exclude men, just men who haven't thought to claim ladybrain.

In August, another male visitor filed a complaint of gender discrimination over the work, according to a museum spokeswoman. That led to a dialogue with Ms. Kaechele.

“I said, ‘Well, you did get to experience the artwork, because the exclusion of men is the artwork,’” Ms. Kaechele said. “So he appreciated that, he understood, and he dropped the case.”

What’s remarkable about this story is that it’s in Tasmania, where a state tribunal ruled that men who identified as lesbians could not be excluded from an event for actual lesbians.

So why was this art installation allowed to exclude men but not a group of lesbians?

https://www.womensforumaustralia.org/tribunal_says_men_who_identify_as_lesbians_cannot_be_excluded_from_lesbian_events

Erm, it's people who 'identify as women', sorry.

I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of the 'women' who accompanied her to court turned out to be a tw.

I don't know if this will help or harm Mr Lau's case. Probably, knowing how captured Australia seems to be, it'll make not the slightest difference.

They could have chosen more appropriate music for the entry into court, though (not a man, or at least not Robert Palmer).

A slight alteration to the comment about women in pubs in Australia. The OP comment that women were not allowed in pubs until 1965, is wrong. Women had always been allowed in pubs, but in 1965 they won the right to drink in the public bar , ie where the men had always imbibed. Previous to 1965 , women drank in the "ladies' lounge" and since I'm a dinosaur who remembers those times, I'd much prefer the ladies' lounge since the bar was the worst possible place to have a civilised drink. Imagine tiled floors awash with spilled beers ( and worse).

However as I've said, it's not at all right to claim that Aussie women couldn't drink in pubs until '65, we certainly could.