this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
30 points (87.5% liked)

Australian News

557 readers
15 users here now

A place to share and discuss news relating to Australia and Australians.

Rules
  1. Follow the aussie.zone rules
  2. Keep discussions civil and respectful
  3. Exclude profanity from post titles
  4. Exclude excessive profanity from comments
  5. Satire is allowed, however post titles must be prefixed with [satire]
Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Banner: ABC

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] observes_depths@aussie.zone 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It was reopened because section 26 of Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 allows discrimination on the grounds of promoting equal opportunity for a disadvantaged group of people.

Obviously women are a disadvantaged group, but can anyone tell me how this space promotes equal opportunity?

Interesting that there are still groups excluding women and I hope they get challenged soon too, but I don't think that answers my question.

[–] beebarfbadger@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

can anyone tell me how this space promotes equal opportunity?

It fosters empathy. There are centuries worth of examples of positions of power that were nominally open to men and women, but lo and behold, through some weird coincidence (most certainly not structurally ingrained and unquestioned sexism) only men were selected and hired while women were most certainly equally entitled to apply, BUT just in this particular case, the man was chosen for some reason - once again: not sexism. Coincidentally every single of those cases went that way.

This art installation makes it easier to imagine what it's like when there's unfortunately only a limited amount of space in the exhibition that's nominally open to men and women alike and -due to some strange coincidence- the visitor ticket went to the woman who wanted to visit instead of the man (once again: certainly not due to sexism, but some other absolutely not sexist reason that happened to justify why it turned out in favour of the woman). Just in this particular case. Which coincidentally led to the same result as in every single other case.