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

[CheeseSandwichRiskAssessment]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/20/world/australia/mona-ladies-lounge-tasmania.html?unlocked_article_code=1.eE0.UrMk.5N8xrORUMVhB&smid=url-share

Some good news from Australia. I was shocked that women weren't let into pubs there until 1965! The article is a share token and worth reading to the end for the immortal line from the artist : "I'm not sorry, and you can't come in."

That's a good response, effectively a 'the answer is no, and I'm not going to be apologetic about That's.

Women need to do that more often.

I had to go check for the UK as i remember women being refused service in my lifetime.

Up until 1982, it was perfectly legal to refuse to serve women in British pubs, which were traditionally “male environments”. Happily, this all changed in 1982, following the legal case of solicitor Tess Gill and journalist Anna Coote.

Off to read the article.

EXCELLENT piece and a superb art installation.

p.s. SMASH THE PATRIARCHY.

@PurpleSparkledPixie Wow! Thanks for that, I had no idea.

Interesting concept for the art

I’d like to see the update on the outcome when announced

I love this

Ms. Kaechele, left, at the court hearing. She said that Jason Lau’s experience of discrimination was central to the work

That's just...brilliant verbal gymnastics. You DID experience the art, Jason, you were actually part of it! and who can argue with art as an immersive experience? or non-immersive, in this case.

That was an interesting article so thank you for sharing. I do agree with him on one point, and it actually crossed my mind early on. Sure we are financially shafted all the time but I think it would have given a stronger message if it was two tier pricing. A proper FU.

has asked for a formal apology and for men either to be allowed into the Lounge or to pay a discounted ticket price to account for their loss, which Ms. Kaechele has refused. “

Agree with pp, please update if you find out the courts decision.

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.

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

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.

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

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.”

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

Just came here to post this story!

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

Blimey at the price

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.)