Women-only museum becomes a toilet to keep men out

I didn't read into this particular issue, but I know the museum in question, have been there a couple times, so some context:

it was founded by some eccentric multi millionaire, who basically just does whatever he wants. The museum was originally free for everyone, until eventually he realised he was draining money really fast, so now it's only free for locals.
the museum changes it's "theme" somewhat frequently. One time I was there the whole place looked like a grocery store, and the stairs to the actual museum was like hidden away in part of the store.
the museum seems to thrive on getting strong reactions from people. Much of the art inside is quite shocking or provocative. They have an app where you can rate how much you like each artwork, and apparently they actively remove artworks which are too universally liked.

So it doesn't surprise me at all that the museum is trying to be women only, but I really doubt it will be permanent, and I suspect that the strong public reactions is exactly the point.

I kind of suspected this. Usually forseeble controversy like this is a ploy, especially with art and art spaces.
Depends on how much money the exhibit draws. Iirc the Wall of Vaginas was supposed to be temporary but it's still up as far as I know.

So there shouldn't be girls' locker rooms either?

Why do we need girls locker rooms when we’ve had the technology for mixed gender locker rooms for generations? We call them doors and use them even in single gender bathrooms.
Certainly it’s inappropriate for sexual predators to be able to leer at girls or women, but there I also no need to have a lack of privacy from those of the same gender, if that’s what people wish.
- Locker rooms are a little different than bathrooms.
- Apparently you've never been in a locker room before.
  
  Modern locker rooms can be built with individual stalls so I understand the point being made. Personally though, it's less efficient to have a locker room with multiple single-serve rooms. Extra material, extra cost, decreased functional area, additional readying time. If you use a locker room frequently you know how invaluable all those things are.
  
  These are the same excuses given for the enshittification of American bathroom stalls.
  Fuck the companies - give the humans the privacy they like. Many locker rooms I've been in already have stalls, too - the shower stalls.
  
  So my work did something like this when they moved buildings. Our old locker room was a long rectangular room with lockers on one side, a bench on the other. No privacy once you were in that space.
  New one is mixed usage private change rooms and showers. It's a huge, huge, huge downgrade on the space. So, anecdotally, not on board. The old one still had bathroom stalls and private bathrooms if you needed it. I don't understand the push to make it all uniform when that's not the best use for the majority of the users. I'm not sorry about this opinion.
  
  Why do you think that space is a huge downgrade though?
  
  Not when you only need one large area rather than 2. Building double the showers and a shared area should be more efficient than having 2 sets of half for each gender.
  It also makes it easier for families, non binary or trans people.
- I mean, I can see where you're coming from but locker rooms are a significant part of sport.
  Comradery is built in locker rooms and they are where young athletes spend a large portion of their sporting time. This is especially true for certain sports needing significant prep time like (ice) hockey.
  With young people already facing a loneliness crisis, we don't need to be isolating them further to solve a non-problem.
Got this one from tumblr but its something along the lines of we go to the bathroom to shit, not have some special women fun time in there.
If there was a way to have my own room entirely without anyone else that'd be 100% preferred, but gender is the last thing im thinking about when someone's peeking down the cracks of my stall
- Idk, everytime I go partying with friends it definitely seems like womens bathrooms are a communal activity.
  
  Though I can't really see a party being the best representation for the populace no?
But who was nuance 🤔
You know that's exactly what they think.

I'm all for segregation spaces as long as essential spaces are open to all such as hospitals, parks etc. There are women only gyms where I am and I used to go to them because I felt safer and more comfortable.

This is a slippery slope to things you wouldn't want to be excluded from, if this appeal wins and creates precident to make much worse places. Thinking this is a feminist battle is narrow minded, selfish, and will absolutely backfire.
- But the idea is that everyone can open their own and run it by the rules they want. If you or a group don't like how one thing is run, there is freedom to open up the same thing but make it open for all. This museum is a private one, rather than run by the government, and therefore they can do what they like. The government ones should be open to all because they are elected by the public.
  I'm not at all in favour of forcing everyone to comply to uniformity for the sake of inclusivity but I'm all for ensuring that there are spaces available that are inclusive and that there's freedom to operate how you like, provided that it doesn't hurt anyone.
  
  Antidiscrimination law apply everywhere, regardless whether it's government or public or private. Otherwise America would still have Jim Crow. The laws that stop that stop this too, for the same reason. Discrimination is wrong, full stop. I don't give a fuck if women want their own spaces, be my guest, but barring people you don't want and then crying about it is moronic.
  I've been to lesbian bars with my sister and even though my sister is gay, I got glared at, got scoffs, and sighs. I could tell I wasn't wanted. It kinda pissed me off, but whatever, I was there to drink with my sister and have fun. Imagine if that was a women only bar and my sister couldn't bring me. Then imagine all the other lesbian bars my sister wanted to bring me too (because she liked them!) were the same. You get my point. I don't want to live in that world. Some people do and I say, fuck those nearsighted fools.
  
  Right. I see it similar to flavours. What if regulation stipulated that you needed to have food that everyone could eat? Nothing spicy. Must have meat options at veg restaurants etc. just so that no one would be discriminated against when they went out to eat. You'd miss out on different cultures, opportunities for innovation etc. Variety would die.
  So, for context, I'm from Australia and familiar with the exact museum in this article. This museum is known for putting forward very provocative art. For example, there is a wall of plaster mould vaginas and they have a soap in the shape of a vagina called 'Cunt on a rope'. Last time I was there, they had violent and sexual imagery (with warnings outside the entry). This exhibit is par for the course for MONA. The owner is rich enough to drag the court case to the highest level but the intent has been achieved. It got people talking.
  
  So what you're saying is I can open up a place, put a sign in front with 'Irish need not apply' and water fountain inside that says 'colored only', and that should be legal according to you?
  
  Only if I'm allowed to open up a space next to you with a water fountain outside and allow everyone in.
  In this context, your business plan would severely limit your customer base and therefore end up ruining your own finances than anything else, while my business plan will definitely get more customers.
  You plan would only end up working if the society you're living in is more racist than not, which is not the case in the real world. There's no need to regulate everything when moral code can do the job just fine.
  
  That's a pretty scary and naïve world view. Luckily you're not in charge of making the laws (I presume).
  
  Or what will happen is all private businesses in communities high in inherent prejudice will exclude certain out groups and pressure any businesses that don't to either conform or they'll be boycotted, harassed, and/or vandalized until they go under.
Next we can half separate but equal water fountains for coloreds and whites.
- I would consider water fountains to be part of public infrastructure and essential, and therefore doesn't fit into the model that I'm putting forward.
  I'm not proposing that essential things like roads, water etc. are segregated but, rather, private businesses can choose how they operate. The risk is public backlash and hurting the bottom line and other businesses can choose to be open and accepting.
  For example, queer bars vs het bars. It's not segregated per se, but a business can choose how they want to operate to draw in the customers they want.
From now on, men have decided to declare every build and every bridge, build by men, to be men only. Build your own stuff please. /s
- Infrastructure is, and should be, government run so that wouldn't work with the model I'm proposing.

I disagree. I love my men-only spaces.

You know who actually want women-only spaces?

Women.

Please share your mental gymnastics for how a rape survivor is supposed to feel safe in your space.

Sincerely, a rape survivor

What about a space for rape victims, male or female? Spaces for survivors of things, people dealing with things, etc. are fine, and if those things only touch women, it'll naturally only be women, or men who are (let's argue good faith, here) trying to support someone else. Rape isn't a female only problem, and so segregating it artificially may feel like a good idea at first glance, but creates other issues.
What about a space for black cop abuse survivors? I'd think that's pretty inappropriate. It'll already be mostly black, for sure, and a lot of that perspective will come through, but it's not a black only issue.
- I think the intent behind a safe space is that it is separated from potential triggers. So people who were abused by a man may wish to be in a space with no men, since the sight of men might bring up past trauma. Same for people abused by women. Putting men and women together, even though they have all experienced abuse, may still be exposing them all to the same triggers they want to avoid.
  Of course all these people have the same right to having safe spaces, but those spaces don't have to be in the same place.
  
  But of course none of that really makes sense in a museum specialising on controversy
  
  So we need a space for women abused by men, women abused by women, men abused by men, men abused by women, and people abused by mascots.
  
  How about if people who want to create safe spaces just create the safe spaces they want to create, and we try to respect their need instead of making sure they've covered every corner case an uninvolved third party can imagine?
  I'm pretty sure that if there is a large enough community of people abused by mascots in a given locality, someone will create a safe space for those people. The presence of a "safe space for female rape survivors" doesn't preclude someone who wants to from creating that, nor a safe space for male rape survivors.
  
  The problem I see is bigots using that as cover for their bigotry. "Sorry, this golf club is a safe space for people triggered by black people and women."
  The government would have to decide that the discrimination we like is ok, but the discrimination we don't like isn't. Which has incredible potential for abuse when the wrong people end up in charge.
  
  Here's my problem with that (reasonable) viewpoint.
  I think there is a fairly reasonable distinction that could be made between those two scenarios such that it should not be difficult to write the related laws in a way that handles both circumstances appropriately. You can phrase it as "the discrimination we like vs the discrimination we don't like" but I think that's overly reductive.
  No one using this example (and there are a few) finds it hard to see the difference between a safe space for women and a club for bigots. If we can perceive that distinction, we can describe it with words, and we can legislate accordingly.
  Otherwise, we’re deciding not to let people who need them have safe spaces because assholes might take advantage of our permissiveness. I’m not OK with that.
  
  I mean give it a go. Yeah, it's easy to distinguish in a common sense sort of way. It's very much not an easy problem to solve in coherent legal wording, or it would've been already.
  I agree that discrimination against vulnerable populations should absolutely not be ok, and women especially should have safe spaces to escape abusers even if it's difficult to make a legal argument.
  Anyway, that's going to have to suffice for my argument, my daughter needs my attention more than lemmy😅
  
  Anyway, that’s going to have to suffice for my argument, my daughter needs my attention than lemmy
  All good, thanks for the reply, we agree more than we don't!
  
  Better add non-binary into the mix, too.
  
  Maybe that makes sense for a party in someone's home or whatever, but not in a museum.
  No one goes to a museum to feel safe, because it is you know, a museum and not a safe house or something. If someone is so incredibly scared of the other half of humanity so they can't go to a museum where they are allowed, they probably should go to therapy or stay at home instead of a museum.
  
  I was just about to to write something exactly like this.
  Being afraid of 49% of the planet so hard that going outside is impossible, what the fuck is going to a museum going to be like? Do they escort you from your car into the side entrance? And then what? Enjoy a museum or is it group therapy in there? To what end.
  Being catatonically afraid is not the world's problem (ie fighting a legal case).
  
  Yeah I agree, I wasn't trying to support having women only museums, just making a point why mixing men and women safe spaces together doesn't make much sense.
  
  Yeah, I understand the intent. And it is a good intent, one of those "seemingly good ideas" I mentioned. There are still HUGE problems with it, particularly depending on how broad and public the group is.
  I can agree to a need for a safe place in order to get past trauma. The issue is one of equal access and quality, I think. Specifically for something like sexual assault, I can easily imagine there being a lot of instances where there are only women-only groups available. In a way, situations like this, where we need a safe space for one group, can deprive the other group of safe spaces.
  If we want to keep segregated spaces for things like this, fine, but there has to be some equality of access. If not with your specific group, then having a network with other groups, for instance. This is a huge, complicated topic with a lot of possibilities and nuance, and is a bit past the point of this post. The purpose of my previous comment was to refute the obvious strawman of the last commenter, equating an art installation to safe spaces for sexual assault survivors.
  
  If we want to keep segregated spaces for things like this, fine, but there has to be some equality of access. If not with your specific group, then having a network with other groups, for instance. This is a huge, complicated topic with a lot of possibilities and nuance, and is a bit past the point of this post.
  Why? Let's pretend I've got fuck you money, and I've had some close personal experiences with family members or friends suffering through sexual abuse or rape. All those friends are women.
  If I create a shelter for women who need to be safe from sexual abuse and predators and away from all likely triggers while they recover (or, say, a crazy museum for the same purpose) - what exactly obligates me to any of that? I'm taking my money and building a women's shelter, because that's the group I've got a personal connection with, and the group I want to help. Elon Musk can build a men's shelter if he wants.
  I'm not asking about laws, I'm asking about ethics. Why am I obligated to help EVERY group because I've chosen to help ONE group?
  
  No pretend you have fuck you money and you are racist. Is it still OK to make a shelter for white people?
  Its a complicated issue. In this case, the point of the piece is to highlight segregation. Even with laws protecting women, they are more likely to sufferviomebce or exclusion.
  
  So we complain about people trying to shelter women under the current "complicated situation" because we're afraid that a racist might take advantage if we allow it to happen? How about we let folks trying to make things better for women do their thing, and we cross that road when we come to it with the racists?
  I think there is a fairly reasonable distinction that could be made (but which I'm far too weary after this rough day to try wordsmithing) between those two scenarios such that it should not be difficult to write the related laws in a way that handles both circumstances appropriately.
  Otherwise, we're deciding not to let people who need them have safe spaces because assholes might take advantage of our permissiveness. I'm not OK with that.
  I also think there are already MANY defacto white-only places even today.
- Men and women are not the same. Rape is experienced differently for men and women. I'm not saying it's worse for one than the other, but it literally involves that person's genitals and is an intensely personal and gender specific thing.
  The fact that you would lump male and female rape survivors together says a lot about how little experience you actually have with the subject.
  There's nothing wrong with having male-only rape survivor groups, especially if someone going through that trauma feels threatened by the other gender.
Museums are usually pretty safe spaces. Sorry you went through that and that trauma is is with you.
I'm a man, and also a victim of sexual assault from a man.
This isn't the way.
Man I hate to say it but cutting off 50% of the population due to trauma is a tauma response and solely that.
Its horrible you ever had to go through that and not even knowing you personally if I had a time machine to help I would; but that was one bad person, not a bad populace.
- On the other side of that, you can't force something just because you've identified it as a trauma response. Deciding that women shouldn't feel threatened by men (or the other way around) for them and taking away spaces they feel safe isn't constructive, it's cruel.
  
  Never did I say we should actively punish people for their trauma, I just simply mean we shouldn't punish others for it either.
  And a museum centred around controversy sounds like the last place for healthy healing
- Nah, best to blame men forever and call it.