this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2024
60 points (94.1% liked)

Australian News

541 readers
65 users here now

A place to share and discuss news relating to Australia and Australians.

Rules
  1. Follow the aussie.zone rules
  2. Keep discussions civil and respectful
  3. Exclude profanity from post titles
  4. Exclude excessive profanity from comments
  5. Satire is allowed, however post titles must be prefixed with [satire]
Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Banner: ABC

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
  • In short: Tasmanian art gallery Mona has hung artworks by Pablo Picasso in a female toilet cubicle in response to a failed court bid to exclude men from a women-only art installation.
  • In April, a court ruling found Mona discriminated when it refused a New South Wales man entry to its Ladies Lounge.
  • What's next? Mona curator Kirsha Kaechele is appealing the discrimination ruling in the Supreme Court.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 16 points 4 months ago (14 children)

"Ms Kaechele described the Ladies Lounge as a response to the lived experience of women forbidden from entering certain spaces throughout history," Mr Grueber said.

Fortunately, modern legislation prohibits sex-segregated art displays, so the practices Ms Kaechele is responding to are no longer legal in Australia.

If Ms Kaechele would like to campaign for a return to sex-segregated art displays, I am certain she would be displeased by the outcome of abolishing sex discrimination laws.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (6 children)

Sex segregated spaces are allowed thogh?, is it just art spaces that aren't.

Women's only gyms, women's only swimming pools.etc

Some guy who lived near a ladies only pool in Sydney sued becase he wanted to use it but he lost.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

That's the point of the court ruling right? It recognises the current climate when determining safety and disadvantage, not the past.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)