A women-only art exhibition at the Museum of Old and New Art (MONA) in Tasmania has been forced to close its doors after a lawsuit was filed with the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Court Tribunal.
In April of last year Jason Lau visited MONA and was barred from entering the Women’s only exhibition curated by Kirsha Kaechele. Mr Lau felt that he had been directly discriminated against on the grounds of his gender, and filed a complaint with Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, who then referred him to the tribunal. The basis of his complaint was direct discrimination in terms of sections 14 and 16 of Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Act 1998, which protects against direct discrimination on one or more of the listed grounds in section 16, which includes gender.
In its decision, the tribunal considered two things: the “true reason” for the alleged discrimination and whether the treatment of Mr Lau was detrimental.
The true reason for Mr Lau’s exclusion was his gender, as the Ladies Lounge was a women’s only exhibition, to the exclusion of men. Ms Kaechele argued that Mr Lau’s discrimination was a matter of substance related to the ultimate purpose of the artwork itself. The exhibition was a participatory installation, and the permission or refusal of entry is part of the artwork. Therefor Mr Lau had in fact experienced the artwork as his exclusion was incidental to the overall objective of the exhibition, which was to show to the lived experiences of women prohibited from entering certain spaces throughout history.
In her argument, Ms Kaechele referred to the historical segregation restricting women from entering certain spaces. She gave an example of women prior to 1970, who had been denied entry into bars in hotels and were instead instructed to sit in a separate ladies’ lounge. Furthermore, she highlighted the fact that women’s only clubs had existed throughout time, but the power and influence they held was not the same as a men’s only club. It is for this reason that she curated the Ladies Lounge. Ms Kaechele held that the lounge was a direct response to the lived realities of women and was intended to equalise the injustice. In other words, women deserve special privileges in the form of unequal rights.
The Ladies Lounge can for this reason be viewed as a safe space for women to retreat to, reserved exclusively for them and to escape the misogynistic world they have been subjected to.
The tribunal however held an entirely different opinion. They contended that the unfavourable treatment of Mr Lau extended far beyond the bounds of entry to a space and was not incidental to the artwork itself. They were satisfied that for the purposes of sections 14 and 16 of the Act Mr Lau had been discriminated against.
This decision was heavily criticised and protested by the curators of the museum and fans of the exhibition. The Museum showed their protest by posting a picture of a middle finger wrapped in green silk matching the silks draped in the exhibition on their Instagram page, symbolising the deep aversion towards the decision.
The tribunal then looked at section 26 of the Act and considered whether the Ladies Lounge could be construed as a valid plan, program or arrangement designed to promote equal opportunities to a group of people previously disadvantaged. Mr Lau submitted that the discrimination he faced cannot be permitted under the guise of section 26 as it required a concrete idea with an identified goal. The rebuttal from the counsel for the museum stated that the Ladies Lounge constitutes an arrangement to promote equal opportunity, as its intention is to promote substantive equality for women who have been previously disadvantaged. Furthermore, the Museum held that the Ladies Lounge was created with the intention of achieving a specific outcome and can thus be categorised as an arrangement which cannot sensibly be separated from its purpose.
The tribunal in its final decision concluded that they were not satisfied that the Ladies Lounge amounted to an arrangement designed to promote equal opportunities for a particular group and therefore the discrimination Mr Lau suffered as a result of the women’s only exhibition could not be permitted under section 26 of the Act.
In her closing remarks Ms Kaechele stated that she feared the tribunal had completely misunderstood the purpose of the Ladies Lounge. The intention of the lounge was to redress the historical experiences of women who had been excluded from spaces and to reshape the spaces associated with power. The exclusion of Mr Lau was part of the intention to effectively bring across this message and the hasty decision handed down by the tribunal further emphasised the entrenched structures of power and misogyny that women are subjected to on a daily basis.
“We are so deeply embedded in the dominium of man that we do not see the myriad ways in which we adhere to and multiply his reign”- Kirsha Kaechele.
It is for this very reason that spaces such as the Ladies Lounge should exist. To escape the all too overwhelming supremacy of men, to a peaceful place filled with the joys of womanhood. Where women can think, act and feel without the ridicule and judgement that comes with existing in a society crowded by the opinions of man.
The decision of the tribunal has only re-affirmed what we as women already know, that the system was set up by man for man to exclude women. The Museum of Old and New Art in response to the decision of the tribunal stated they would rather close down the exhibition for good, than allow a man to enter into this sacred space curated specifically for women.
Comments