The women only exhibition

August 30th, 2012 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

The Dom Post editorial:

If Lower Hutt’s was a private institution, nobody could complain about it showing a work that only women were allowed to see.

However, the gallery is operated by Hutt City Council and paid for by ratepayers. As a publicly funded entity, it cannot justify staging exhibits from which half the public is excluded.

Personally I think it is all a publicity stunt from Dowse to get publicity. I can’t say I worry about not being able to see an exhibition I have no interest in seeing.

But the editorial is right. If you are a public institution, you can’t ban half the population from an exhibition.

Tags: , , ,

26 Responses to “The women only exhibition”

  1. Manolo (14,179 comments) says:

    You bet the Human Rights Commission will side with this mob.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Mark (1,502 comments) says:

    Frankly who cares. I do not feel hard done by because I cannot go to this. Whilst the Dowse may be publicity seeking so are the whingers who have complained to the human rights commission.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. insider (845 comments) says:

    “Personally I think it is all a publicity stunt from Dowse to get publicity. ”

    publicity stunts are usually done with the purpose of getting publicity dpf…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Brian Smaller (3,966 comments) says:

    They should show the movie in question at the Saudi Ambassador’s house. Be more appropriate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. s.russell (1,650 comments) says:

    If it is a publicity stunt the intent may be more to shine a spotlight on the nature of society in Muslim countries. Methinks there is some good in this….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. MH (830 comments) says:

    Can’t they just send a deaf threat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Martin Gibson (248 comments) says:

    Good Lord, if men really wanted to see it they could just wear a burqua.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. annie (539 comments) says:

    s.russell (1,179) Says:
    August 30th, 2012 at 1:46 pm

    If it is a publicity stunt the intent may be more to shine a spotlight on the nature of society in Muslim countries. Methinks there is some good in this….

    I think the nature of the video is more along the lines of a whitewash: see-how-chirpy-and-well-fed-and-just-like-you-our-battery-women-are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. kowtow (8,945 comments) says:

    The Dowse,

    putting on a cunning array of stunts concerning a stunning array of…………

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Bob R (1,421 comments) says:

    If they want to cover women in Islam perhaps they could also screen the late Theo Van Gogh’s “Submission”?

    I suppose that might bring the risk of actual beheading (as happened to Van Gogh) rather than just some angry letters to the editor.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Doc (81 comments) says:

    Just playing “Devil’s Advocate” for a moment…

    Let us assume that instead of the exhibition being concerned with Muslim women (or whatever it is that is the claimed basis for the restriction) – it was instead an artist’s work focused on “moments of maternal joy in the changing rooms of the local swimming pool”. Or any other similar situation where matters of ‘privacy’ are concerned. Would it be “completely outrageous” to restrict the viewing of that material to females only? Would the men of NZ find themselves feeling discriminated against and voice their dissent at being prohibited from seeing these intimate works?

    What if, the artist obtained the subject’s approval on the condition that those restrictions would apply? (which may be altogether legal, moral, & normal within the culture concerned) …should we ‘ban’ all such works altogether from being exhibited in NZ? Or should we ‘insist’ on overriding the wishes of the artist & subject, and strongarm our way in to view?

    Personally, I’m relatively comfortable with the notion of discrimination in some cases.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. MH (830 comments) says:

    Just like clockwork orange ? can’t we have segregated audiences with curtains in between or days for men,gays,married gays,civil unionists,uncivil unionists, old age pensioners and burqa bunnies etc – there’s always a way around these things. We could also get ratepayers or NZ On Air to pay for subjects to be filmed on the condition that it never be shown or the participants pixeled out or replaced with stunt women and the sound removed so the integrity could be preserved for future generations to admire our perseverance,tolerance and respect. If its public money and facilities then….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. RRM (10,104 comments) says:

    Well I, for one, am OUTRAGED by this!!! :mad:

    No, not really.

    Yawn.

    I’ve seen some thought-provoking things at the Dowse gallery, but obviously this won’t be one of them…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. nasska (12,107 comments) says:

    Point 1. The Dowse Art Museum is funded by Hutt City ratepayers……unless they have introduced some innovative rating scheme this is likely to include male ratepayers & female ratepayers. Those who’s pockets are plundered to pay for this cultural wankery should have an absolute right to view it.

    Point 2. Muslims as representatives of the most anal, backward, misogynist, violent, miserable religion the world has ever produced need to be introduced gently to a civilisation where women’s dress distinguishes them from colourless bags of laundry.

    We have enough homegrown nutcases & petals demanding “special cultural considerations” now….no need to cater for the whims of imported lunatics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. krazykiwi (8,040 comments) says:

    Discrimination is the work of Christian conservatives, opposed for example to redefinition of the term ‘marriage’. The actions of the Dowse (in respect of the exhibition) and Islam (in respect of women) are perfectly acceptable. /sarc

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. nasska (12,107 comments) says:

    Islam: Because Christianity wasn’t retarded enough for some people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,495 comments) says:

    Islam and Christianity are one and the same. Look at our pet fundies here, they display the exact same hate of peoples rights as the radical Muslims. Then preach from their fairytale book how everything is done in gods name (just like 9/11 was in the name of Allah).
    At least with Muslims they call their extreme beliefs Sharia Law, which is really quite easy to understand as they want everything banned – with our christians you never know what they choose to adhere by. They pick and choose parts of the bible to fight for. Ok to shave, ok to eat shellfish, not ok to like gays, ok to judge others, ok to sleep with kids…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. nasska (12,107 comments) says:

    LMK

    Nah…..our fruitloops are nearly sane compared with theirs. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Johnboy (17,051 comments) says:

    http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/woman-not-allowed-to-teach-after-burqa-refusal/question-1177529/?link=ibaf&q=Before+and+after+burqa&imgurl=http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001177529/oppressed_muslim_women_xlarge.jpeg

    :) :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Griff (8,419 comments) says:

    Nasska
    The bejesus fundies done their dash with the crusades, the Inquisition, heretic burning and other such fun in the middle ages.The congregation of goat boy are running eight centuries behind. its the koranbashes turn for some biblical type mayhem All types of madness has its moment in the sun
    At the end of the millennium they all worship the same bitter old sot who fucked up to start with

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,495 comments) says:

    Indeed. And the skyfather must be bloody pissed off at who is representing him on earth. Look at them. Disgraceful bunch of bullying knowall do gooders.

    Griff, I am still chuckling at your cat statement before, sheer brilliance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. LabourDoesntWork (292 comments) says:

    LMK. Actually modern democracy, human rights, classical liberalism and pluralism flow from the traditions of white European Protestantism more than anything else. Not Roman Catholicism, or humanism, or the leftwing mob values of the French Revolution. Methinks some people have their historical education at the hands of the likes of Dawkins and Harris.

    Griff, the cliches are really flowing. Eat more fibre.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,495 comments) says:

    Labourdoesntwork – Did I say otherwise? I personally can’t stand catholicism, a branch of christianity so depraved and nasty. They have put roadblocks in front of much of what our forebears have worked hard to progress in modern society.
    Pretty sure I didn’t compliment any religion for being forward thinking, afterall, look at the types representing their religions here over the last few days. Utter pillocks who yearn for a day when women knew their places in the home and where you were not allowed to have sex until married. As I have said before, get the christians out of our bedrooms.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Lee C (2,720 comments) says:

    Good about time some commonsense was shown. Now if we can just ban disableds and people who collect string…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    Good post Nasska..
    This is creeping sharia and should not be allowed. Gender segregation is not acceptable here..Who is this woman telling us what to do??
    Imagine the outrage if it was another group in society who were being banned? No Maori , no gays , no P.Is… Men in NZ are just expected to roll over much the same way boys are expected to roll over in Afghanistan , Pakistan , India , Malaysia ..well in islam world wide.
    Muslim women’s preciousness should not be caved in to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. capitald (68 comments) says:

    Are there any events who places excluded to just white, middle aged males? Now THAT would be a good publicity stunt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote