"... and is separated from the rest of the museum with opulent green curtains. A staff member is posted outside to prevent the entry of any visitor who does not identify as a woman, and guests can indulge in a $325 high tea service featuring fancy finger food.... The American artist behind the lounge, Kirsha Kaechele, who is married to the private museum’s owner, told the tribunal that the practice of requiring women to drink in ladies lounges rather than public bars only ended in
parts of Australia in 1970 and that in practice, exclusion of women in public spaces continues.... But she said she 'got a rise' out of the discrimination complaint and was 'pretty excited' when she learned it had been filed over her work. 'It carries it out of the museum and into the real world.'... Kaechele attended the tribunal Tuesday flanked by 25 female supporters dressed in pointedly court-appropriate attire — think pearls, suits and stockings...."
From
"She made an artwork that excluded men. A man sued for discrimination" (WaPo).
Here's the museum's website for the artwork. Sample text: "The lounge is a tremendously lavish space in our museum in which women can indulge in decadent nibbles, fancy tipples, and other ladylike pleasures.... [Y]ou are a participant in... the art itself, part of a living installation."
I wonder if the lawsuit, too, is part of the art itself, the living installation.
You'd think just having a $325 high tea service would be enough to keep the men out. The product itself is exclusionary — exclusionary of everyone who doesn't love stuff like that. But they had a guard to actively exclude any man, and that made a point: See how you feel when the tables are turned? But the point is only made at the men who are not stereotypical men, the men not put off by the service of $325 high tea.
Posts
32 comments:
"But they had a guard to actively exclude any man"
No, they had a guard to actively exclude "any visitor who does not identify as a woman"
You'd think just having a $325 high tea service would be enough to keep the men out.
Not the gay men.
"to prevent the entry of any visitor who does not identify as a woman"
Not all the men were excluded. It's ridiculous and annoying for an installation to pretend it's recalling sex discrimination when it's completely ignoring the reason the discrimination existed in the first place.
Equality for me, but not for thee.
Boy are my (circa 1970) ideals being cast aside without a blink.
And why the left are now, definitely the "baddies".
These ladies would be less likely to spend their golden years in feline hair if they let some male heirs join them for tea.
Frankly, I’m more put off by the “identifies as female” nonsense. Any man can go in, all he has to do is say he’s a woman. I doubt any man interested in paying $325 for tea would have a problem with that.
See how you feel when the tables are turned?
The exclusionary rules ended over 50 years ago. No tables are being turned. Rather, as is so often the case, women who have never been discriminated against discriminate against men who have never discriminated, all in the name of equity.
I like fancy meals, and I like fancy afternoon tea service. I can't imagine an afternoon tea costing $325 (or at least, not a good one -- too many expensive places turn afternoon tea into a parade of nothing but fancy desserts with the scones and clotted cream a a sad afterthought). But I suppose it's high tea, not afternoon tea, so it's more of a meal? Still, unless it's exquisite sushi or something, that's rather steep for finger food.
Althouse:
But they had a guard to actively exclude any man, and that made a point: See how you feel when the tables are turned?
Actual source:
A staff member is posted outside to prevent the entry of any visitor who does not identify as a woman,
I am not being being pedantic. BUT, to me the conflict is not a woman's only experience. The actual conflict is no person can be denied access.
The artist's intent is to show discrimination, but today's woke system, blows up the artist's statement.
Sorry about the bad link. Thanks for the heads-up. Fixed.
I didn't think anything could possibly put me in a dress and heels for some performative femininity. For me, this is like dangling a hot dog in front of a hungry black lab.
Take My Money! Pour me a brandy alexander! These fucking shoes are killing me! No, why SHOULD I shave off my beard?
Am I too contrarian?
Social Justice has never been about anything but biting the hand that fed them.
A buddy and I get together every once in a great while, to go out for a couple of drinks in a bar. We leave our wives at home on this 'boys night out'. We select a different 'new' bar in town to go to (new to us). And we're in and out early, quickly and back home by 7:30 or so because, well....we just really can't drink much anymore and don't want to. But I can tell you that we'd never consider a high tea as a meeting point. And not one that charged $300+. It would not cross our minds. We'd never consider it on our own, and we'd never consider it even if it was brought to our attention.
This is not a high tea, nor a women's lounge. It's an activist activity, a marketing attempt. A stick in the eye to make a point that no one is thinking about because it's just not something most people think about all day long. But this person does. I look for men identifying as women to flock to this Lounge.
PS- there is nothing less interesting than a lounge filled with all women, or all men. The enjoyment is in the mix of the two. Even a Picasso cannot change that.
When I was a kid we were on vacation out west and my mom could not sit at the bar. Probably late 60s or early 70s, and IIRC Colorado.
Had several sisters. I think getting back to exclusion is a wonderful idea. The men can go have a peaceful drink and leave the women to their favourite pastime. Seeing who can make the most vile, vicious, cruel, cutting comment about their fellow women while ever so graciously sipping tea with the pinky out.
tim maguire:
... women who have never been discriminated against discriminate against men who have never discriminated, all in the name of equity.
Bears repeating.
It's the modus operandi of every social justice warrior, whether sporting a beard and dress or merely being "a supporter".
You don't get anywhere without a fleet of supporters.
There's some equity of blame for you.
Was the guard male?
I think this is fine, although probably not legal under the ridiculous application of US "civil rights" laws. And I agree that the man would have to be atypical in that people who go around suing for this kind of thing are not normal, well-adjusted, average adults.
But they had a guard to actively exclude any man, and that made a point: See how you feel when the tables are turned? But the point is only made at the men who are not stereotypical men, the men not put off by the service of $325 high tea.
And they got a lot of attention, which was more than likely the main point of the whole thing.
Chivalry is dead among Trump's pussy whipped Obesity Army of the Nuevo Bastille.
"A staff member is posted outside"
Tom T. said...Was the guard male?
Yes, that's why he had to stand outside.
No tables are being turned. Rather, as is so often the case, women who have never been discriminated against discriminate against men who have never discriminated, all in the name of equity.
@tim maguire, for Althouse and other elderly feminists it’s always early 1973, i.e., before Roe was decided.
Howard said...Chivalry is dead among Trump's pussy whipped Obesity Army of the Nuevo Bastille.
Ok, I'll bite. WTH are you talking about?
Most women and men respect each other's personal space and time.
This is what feminism has made. Conflict. Every day. Forever.
It an observation of exactly what you said, tim maguire.
Why the fuss? It's a good illustration of feminism, the real kind, based on the axiom that Women Are Special. I agree: they are. It's good for women to have their own spaces. But then let men have their own, and let's dispense with the selective invocation of "equality."
Of course, feminism now confronts transism, based on the axiom that Women Aren't That Special and in fact any man can become a woman on his own sayso. Which is likely to play out at the museum at some point. Should be an interesting piece of performance art.
Who is paying for those meals?
Does the Art Installation deign to accept money sourced from (gasp) Men?
Howard said...It an observation of exactly what you said, tim maguire.
If that was the response you were going to make, why did you bother? You know full well that didn't explain anything. Seriously, why did you bother?
"Parts of Australia" up until 1970. Gasp. Why, that means that current American women are deeply endangered, doesn't it? Let's all get outraged.
I understand the virtue signaling, but women without men would starve and live in the dark.
Don't believe me? Count the number of women coal miners and oil platform roughnecks.
I guess the equitable thing is to have a gentleman's lounge with fine beverages available at a steep price. With fine art and comfy leather chairs and good cigars and pipe tobacco.
Sounds like where Jupiter will spend purgatory. If not in a Rhumba class.
Post a Comment