Mona: Australia women's-only museum files appeal to keep men out
www.bbc.com
Australia's Mona asked a court to reverse its ruling that allowed men inside a women's only space.

Australia’s Mona asked a court to reverse its ruling that allowed men inside a women’s only space.

Archived version: https://archive.ph/oHT6U

  • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
    0·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • octopus_ink@lemmy.mlEnglish
      0·
      6 months ago

      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?

      • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
        0·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • octopus_ink@lemmy.mlEnglish
          0·
          6 months ago

          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.