It’s hard to make head or tail of where Australia stands on the gender debate that has divided the West. The issue boils down to a simple question: should men be allowed in women’s spaces? But the answer is far from simple. And a court ruling by a Tasmanian court ruling may have just added to the confusion.
Tasmania’s avant garde Museum of Old and New Art (Mona) is not everyone’s cup of artistic tea. Its curator, American-born artist and wife of Mona’s very wealthy founder, David Walsh, Kirsha Kaechele, is certainly no stranger to controversy.
‘The men are a little hysterical, I’m a bit concerned’, Kaechele said
In July, the museum was exposed as exhibiting artworks attributed to Picasso, that were actually sophisticated fakes, painted by Kaechele herself. Having been rumbled, Kaechele issued an apology to the Picasso estate, but she and Mona clearly enjoyed the publicity. It was where those fakes were located, however, that has made international headlines, and become a cause célèbre embraced by Australia’s feminist sisterhood.
The faux Picassos were a feature of Mona’s Ladies’ Lounge – a space to which only women were admitted. Women were served champagne by male butlers, and were free to enjoy the fake Picassos and other art installed there for ladies’ eyes only. Mona presented the lounge as a piece of performance art in itself, asserting that it symbolised turning the tables against a long tradition of discriminating against women in Australian society.
Last year, however, a male visitor named Jason Lau was so offended by being barred from the Ladies’ Lounge that he took Mona to court, arguing this blatant anti-male discrimination breached Tasmanian law. Lau went to a judicial tribunal in May and won. The art installation was shut. But that was just the start of the drama.
Once there were just Sheilas and Bruces: now Sheilas can be Bruces, and Bruces Sheilas, whenever it suits them
Kaechele and Mona promptly appealed to Tasmania’s Supreme Court. The appeal itself became a piece of performance art, with Kaechele leading a procession of women, dressed in black cocktail dresses and twinsets, to the court for the hearings, shrewdly capturing sympathetic media attention from Australia and overseas. They packed the gallery for the appeal, and repeated the performance for Mr Justice Marshall’s reading of his judgment last Friday.
Their performance was not in vain. Marshall overturned the tribunal decision, concluding that Tasmania’s anti-discrimination laws allowed for: ‘Any person (to) discriminate against another person in any project, plan or arrangement designed to promote equal opportunity for a group of people who are disadvantaged or have a special need because of a prescribed attribute’ – in this case, being a woman in a supposedly man’s world.
The judge found that discrimination against women still exists, citing an Australian government ‘report card’ issued on this year’s International Women’s Day that highlighted ongoing disadvantages women experience such as women being paid less than men for the same work; disproportionate shares of caring and parental responsibilities; and more. Given such factors, Marshall said, Mona’s exclusive space for women was merited.
Outside the court, however, publicity-savvy Kaechele took the sober judgment, which was effectively a strict interpretation of the relevant Tasmanian legislation, and mixed in a large dollop of over-the-top hyperbole, telling the media: ‘This judge has decided that the Ladies’ Lounge can exist and it’s a day of triumph for us,’ she said. ‘I’m very inspired by the occurrences in the courtroom today. In thirty seconds, the patriarchy was smashed, and the verdict demonstrates a simple truth: women are better than men’.
‘We’ll see how the men take it’, she finished with a dramatic flourish, backed by a placard of an immaculately manicured female hand, its middle finger extended upwards in a very unladylike way. ‘The men are a little hysterical, I’m a bit concerned (for them)’, she said. ‘They’re troubled by the power of women. They may appeal, but they’re not appealing to me.’
That the judge ‘smashing the patriarchy’ was a man, merely applying the established law impartially, wasn’t mentioned. Having a bloke as hero and saviour simply doesn’t fit the feminist narrative.
It’s unlikely that Lau, having made his point, will take his case any further, and the Tasmanian tribunal has been ordered to review its decision in light of the court’s judgment. But don’t forget this is gender-confused Australia, so anything could happen.
After the recent Federal Court of Australia case Tickle v Giggle, which opened up a can of worms when it comes to who may access women’s ‘safe spaces’, Mr Justice Marshall should count himself extremely fortunate that he was only asked about the legality of Mona’s Ladies’ Lounge itself, and not who is entitled to access it.
Remember how the space banned entry to ‘those who do not identify as ladies’? The Tickle case turned on Australia’s sex discrimination laws, which since 2013 no longer deal with discrimination based on strict biological sex, but can also factor in a person’s chosen sexual self-identity.
Under that federal legislation, upheld by the tortured judicial logic of the Tickle case, Lau may have been allowed in to the Ladies’ Lounge exhibit if he had claimed that he was not a biological male but actually identified as a woman. If Kaechele acted to stop Lau on that basis, arguably she would have broken Tasmanian and Australian law.
As it is, Mona hasn’t clarified who is a woman for the purpose of its vindicated exhibit. Are they biological women only, as Kaechele’s performance art protests implied? Do they include transgender women? Or do they go further and include anyone who chooses to identify as a woman, even if – as the Tickle decision would uphold – only for the purpose of gaining entry?
Whatever the answer, the Mona ruling saying one thing about women’s spaces, and the Tickle decision saying another, highlights just how utterly confused contemporary Australia is about gender, and what defines it. Once there were just Sheilas and Bruces: now Sheilas can be Bruces, and Bruces Sheilas, whenever it suits them. It’s enough to make one Mona with frustration.
Terry Barnes is a Melbourne-based contributor for The Spectator and The Spectator Australia
Comments