this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)

World News

38531 readers
1867 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Not sure if this was already posted.

The article describes the referenced court case, and the artist's views and intentions.

Personally, I both loved and hated the idea at first. The more I think about it, the more I find it valuable in some way.

top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Performance art is wild, often misunderstood. The entire point is to outrage men and he took the bait lol. The artist is clearly getting off on this, staging shit in even more locations because of the lawsuit.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So sexism is outrage performance art now?

[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Men like this always deliberately misunderstand because they are addicted to outrage and misogyny.

[–] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Then explain why exactly is this not sexist? A good litmus test for such things is to replace the group in question with Jews. If it sounds antisemitic, you might have an *ism going on.

So let's do that "Jew sued art gallery for being denied entry in a non-jew only exhibition". Sounds pretty antisemitic, right?

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It is sexist. That's the point of the exhibit. The exclusion is the point.

I believe the artist explained it in court by saying that it allows men to feel the exclusion that women feel regularly. Many professions, clubs, and networking spaces were closed to women until very recently.

If men feel excluded from the exhibit, they are understanding how women feel being excluded from other spaces. The men are experiencing the art exactly how the artist intends.

And no you can't just replace a word with "jew" as a good litmus test. If I replace "hamburgers" in the sentence "put some hamburgers on the barbecue", it would sound insane. But it's actually a normal sentence.

Actually, you could make a good copy of this exhibition by making it "Jewish people only". Then everyone else would understand that exclusion.

[–] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 0 points 5 months ago

The key difference is that a) the sexism criticized by the artist is already illegal and b) (this might be a revelation for some people) hamburgers are not people, Jews are people.

Even if you did a Jews only club, that would be illegal - and rightly so.