protist

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:

In fact the Lounge already possesses many of the redeeming qualities listed in the verdict that would make it eligible for an exemption under section 27 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas). Where it isn’t already eligible, a number of minor adjustments should bring us into compliance.

The law states that a person may discriminate on the ground of gender:

(a) in a religious institution, if it is required by the doctrines of the religion of the institution; or

(b) in education, if it is for the purpose of enrolment in one-gender schools or hostels; or

(c) in employment, if it is for the purpose of the residential care of persons under the age of 18 years; or

(d) in employment, if it is based on a genuine occupational qualification or requirement in relation to a particular position; or

(e) in accommodation, if it is shared accommodation for less than 5 adult persons; or

(f) in the provision or use of facilities, if those facilities are reasonably required for use by persons of one gender only.

Interviewer: You believe the artwork can continue to operate under a legal exemption? Which of these exemptions will apply?

All of them.

https://mona.net.au/blog/2024/05/interview-with-kirsha-kaechele-about-the-ladies-lounge

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.

You're doing the thing the artist intended lol

This BBC World article covers how the artist brought the artwork into the courthouse:

Tuesday started with a large group of women dressed in navy power suits, clad in pearls and wearing red lipstick marching into the hearing to support Ms Kaechele.

As the parties sparred, the museum's supporters were somewhat stealing the spotlight. They had periods of complete stillness and silence, before moving in some kind of subtle, synchronised dance - crossing their legs and resting their heads on their fists, clutching their hearts, or peering down their spectacles. One even sat there pointedly flipping through feminist texts and making notes.

After (Judge) Grueber reserved his decision for a later date, which is yet to be determined, the museum's posse left as conspicuously as it came in - dancing out of the building in a conga line as one woman played 'Simply Irresistible' by Robert Palmer off her iPhone.

Ms Kaechele has indicated she'll fight the case all the way to the Supreme Court if needed, but she says - ironically - that perhaps nothing could drive the point of the artwork home more than having to shut it down.

"If you were just looking at it from an aesthetic standpoint, being forced to close would be pretty powerful."

Also want to cite an interview with the artist:

As the hugely influential gender theorist Judith Butler argues, gender is a performative construct. To which I’d add: so is the legal system.

Interviewer: Do you mean to say that you think the judge might have been contributing to the art?

I can’t be certain that his ruling isn’t performance. His judge-like ‘comportment’ in the court, the flourish of his language in the ruling ... He’s clearly a man interested in art. In his ruling, he compares me to Caravaggio—a great artist but he also murdered someone. I just served ladies champagne.

I fully expect Merchan to follow through with this threat if it happens again. As far I'm aware, it sounds like the subject of this 2nd contempt hearing actually happened before the 1st contempt hearing, but came to light afterward, so it wasn't a "I'll let you off light this time" scenario. Future violations will undoubtedly lead to jail time...I think the media shit storm will be intolerable

A pornographic film actor or actress, pornographic performer, adult entertainer, or porn star is a person who performs sex acts on video that is usually characterized as a pornographic movie.

Don't overthink it

I think you're mistaken...they refund security deposits, but there is a separate fee that scales with how long you keep the equipment. Maybe go back and check your receipts

I guess it's easy to be cynical, but no, this is not at all orphancrushingmachine material

Home Depot and Lowe's charge you out the ass for tool rentals...what are you talking about

Dude, I've had my 40V mower for almost 8 years and it's still kicking. So incredibly easy to use. One of my batteries crapped out after about 6 years, but the other still holds a great charge, and I've collected a couple others over the years as I've added the trimmer, blower, and chainsaw from the same brand. In retrospect, my life was terrible in the before-times.

I understand you feel angry, but Merchan has been clear with Trump that jail is on the table moving forward, and I completely respect him not jumping the gun and throwing Trump in jail on a whim. By giving Trump ample opportunities to correct his behavior with warnings of jail time for future violations, he's setting it up so Trump's legal team will have no basis to argue Trump didn't deserve this when they try to remove Merchan from the case or try to appeal

The law in NY defines how much the fines are and how long someone could be held in jail. It would be illegal for the judge to issue a fine larger than what he's been issuing, which would give Trump a reason to go to a higher court to seek Merchan's removal, or at the very least delay the case