Interesting Global News
What is global news?
Something that happened or was uncovered recently anywhere in the world. It doesn't have to have global implications. Just has to be informative in some way.
Post guidelines
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title.
URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. No social media posts
Avoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
- [email protected] - International and local legal news.
- [email protected] - Technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
- [email protected] - Interesting articles, projects, and research that doesn't fit the definition of news.
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
view the rest of the comments
You're doing the thing the artist intended lol
Point is, art is art, and a museum is a museum. Anyone mature enough should be allowed to enter any museum they want and view whatever exhibits they want.
That gender specific crap can and does end up going both ways. And it shouldn't be that way, anywhere.
In a world where there are millions of men who actually believe women are advantaged over men in today's society, it's interesting to see the international uproar occurring over this single exhibit that made that belief actually true. A single exhibit at a sex museum in Tasmania that's literally about gender discrimination.
Small point of order: MONA, despite how it sounds when pronounced as an acronym, is not a sex museum. It's the Museum of Old and New Art. You may return to your debate.
Personally, I'm finding the whole thing delicious. As someone who went to university in a building where the post-graduate / staff floor didn't have a female bathroom - likely because when it was built women were only expected to clean and serve tea in that space - I appreciate the artist and museum setting official legal precedent around this topic. And doing so with panache.
I appreciate you! I've admittedly never been to MONA and just picked a word from the Wikipedia intro:
And I find this funny, but in the sad way ☹️
Folks trying to fight sexual discrimination with sexual discrimination... 🤦♂️
Those that dispute, fight and argue about such things that way don't even seem to realize that they're just contributing to the problem.
I just have to completely disagree. Art has consistently served to challenge the status quo and provoke thought and discussion, and this exhibit has absolutely excelled in that regard.
Now the artist is moving on to explore existing discrimination exemptions under the law in Tasmania:
https://mona.net.au/blog/2024/05/interview-with-kirsha-kaechele-about-the-ladies-lounge
How's she planning to have this law apply? Create a woman-only sect of the FSM?
I recommend you read the interview I linked above, she goes into great detail about this and frankly it's amazing
Quoting the law doesn't make the laws right in any regard. I'm pretty sure that if you asked Picasso, if he were alive of course, that he would heavily protest the discrimination and encourage anyone mature enough to view his works.
Same typically goes for almost any artist. They didn't go through the trouble of creating the art only to end up with others saying who does or doesn't get to view it.
Matter of fact, did Picasso or any of the other artists leave a will? Or for any of the artists that might still be alive or with living descendants, do they get a word in about it?
They should.
She's not saying the law is right...
Also Picasso was a renowned chauvinist and misogynist who had affairs with teenagers as a 70 year old and put out a cigarette on the cheek of the mother of two of his children
How does everyone know my last name?
Not all Chauvins fit that stereotype. Would be nice if people would stop using my last name as a broad insult. But hell, I can't expect discriminatory people to leave my family name out of their mouth.
That would be too much like a step in the right direction.
I see you've lost the topic
Nah not really. I'm almost 42 years old and have heard my last name used as a sexist insult my whole life.
People that use that word in an insulting manner are sexist. You just used that word.
You just did a 2+2. Maybe you should try doing a 2-2, and remove that and other sexist terms from your descriptive vocabulary.
It's not an adjective, it's a family name.
I'm gonna need an explanation for how using a word in context with its dictionary definition is "sexist." Sorry this is unpleasant for you, but I've never come across someone with the last name "Chauvin" and been like "oh there goes that chauvinist." Lots of last names have entered English as descriptors of things, eg sadism from the Marquis de Sade and masochism from Leopold von Sacher-Masoch.
Anyway, the point is Picasso was terrible to women. Many women.
Also, and this is the last I'll comment, since you brought up ancient dictionary terms. The N word used to be defined as a tool.
But I have better sense than to carry on antiquated offensive words in that way. I'd hope others can learn to try dropping offensive use of words in their modern vocabulary as well.
You're not wrong though, Picasso and others were a bit pervy. So was Albert Einstein. And yes that's very disappointing.
You have every right to object to their works if you want. That doesn't mean that mature people shouldn't be allowed to view and critique their works in their own way.
I hope we can agree to disagree, but yeah I don't use the 1800's definition of a 'tool', because it's 2024 and I have more respect than to refer to antiquated dictionaries for insulting words.
I'll make one last short response..
Your comments strike me as if you'd be the type to support adding the name "Karen" to the official dictionary as an official insult and ruin the name for more than a century.
Maybe you could reflect on that and actually try to help break that pattern, and help let innocent people have a name that isn't insulted another century from now.
Or maybe you'd like to bring up Albert and Elsa Einstein? Sure, let's just not appreciate the works of creative people because they did inappropriate things...
Yes, Nicholas is at the very top of my official knighted family tree. Again, it's a family name. Should never have been used in any sort of derogatory adjective form, whether back in 1840 or in 1960, or anywhere in between or since.
Believe me, I know my roots, and I know that I don't agree with the sexism use of my last name. You're quoting a definition that came up in a very prejudiced era from the 1960s, back when certain people weren't allowed to do certain things, such as drink from the wrong water fountain.
You sure do seem to know a lot about these antiquated discriminatory words don't you? Have you considered trying to like not refer to dictionaries written in discriminatory times?
Back on point, yes I've gathered that Picasso wasn't all that great of a dude. Neither was Mozart, he had a shit fetish. Does that stop people from appreciating their artistic works?
I think you have a backward view of what sexism in the 60s looked like, and at this point can't tell if you're trolling, since Nicholas Chauvin was a fictional character.
And my god man, I have no beef with Picasso and never said no one should appreciate Picasso's works. I was arguing with you:
Nicholas was most certainly not a fictional character. Try getting an actual official Chauvin family tree ancestry and read over it. You'll see.
"Most certainly" according to what source? Every source I see says there's zero historical evidence he ever existed, and many stories attributed to him have been traced to other actual historical figures.
Responding to your other comment here, I think you're just completely missing the point. Again, I'm not saying no one should appreciate Picasso's art. I'm saying that way back in the before-times, when we were talking about an art installation that challenges gender discrimination, you said Picasso would "heavily protest the discrimination," but based on all available evidence, that's what the French call "horseshit."
And Karen is already in the dictionary. I know some Karens who are lovely people and who could care less about its common usage.
Every source you see has also been tainted by Derek's horrible actions and the nature of the internet to corrupt information.
Like I said, get an official Chauvin family ancestry book (you know, those things made with paper), and read over the family tree, before the era of digital corruption.
My late grandmother had the official ancestry book.
There are other sources of information besides our now half bot/AI corrupted internet.
And of course, the Battle of Schrute Farms was the northernmost battle of the Civil War.
What does that (or even some of my own comments) have anything to do with the price of weed in Colorado? Whether you're telling me the truth, or just trying to bullshit me, doesn't matter.
My point is very simple, and nobody seems to be getting it now. Drop the prejudice words already. We don't live in the 1800s, and honestly none of us ever did.
We're descendants of our ancestors. We didn't get to pick where we were born or in what year, or by what family name, but we can try dropping the discrimination of centuries past.
Continuing to use derogatory words and even references from back then only propagate the discrimination.
When any group uses offensive words and tactics against any 'opposite' group, they're just propagating the problem.
My whole point is people should stop doing that, and realize they're only propagating the problem.
All people are created equal. Men, women, light or dark. All born equal and should generally be treated as such. Yes some grow up to be bad apples, but damn, when they're long dead, don't blame their descendants.
Break the cycle.
Edit: My starting point was basically that any and all mature adults should have every right to visit any museum they want. It's artwork and artifacts, not a brothel.
MICHAEL!