Consider watching the whole video linked on the short to understand what she is actually doing. I am pro womens spaces. The issue is her. She has a history of buying up houses from a poor primarily black neighborhood and intentionally flooding the houses to let them rot and then leaving without paying property taxes to start a tax exempt weed growing operation in California. By saying the profits will be used for art. Where the city with a already strained budget was forced to tear down the buildings because they were dangerous. Or her performance art of spreading invasive species to make a grand feast for rich people while saying she was solving the invasive species problem. All a continued history of her elitism and history of being anti-progressive. All because she is having a girl boss moment and doing nothing for the movement.
Oh I disagree. The whole thing is all art. The spectacle leaving the courtroom, her calling her suer "cute". She's showing men how it actually looks and feels to be objectified
Watch the whole video linked in corner that explains all the awful stuff she has done. I am pro womens only spaces, the issue is how she does stuff and screws over poor non white communities like buying up properties from a poor neighborhood, and doing stuff like flooding them so the rot away, and then leaving without paying property taxes. The underfunded city was then forced to demolish the building for her because it was dangerous. Or how she spread invasive species to make grand feasts for rich people.
@@Sharkyevno that doesn’t invalidate the performance art. This is the same kind of discussion people have around Kanye and the general public has decided to separate art from the artist.
I agree. Regardless of Birth (in this argument: Elitism), ART can invoke the Emotion and stir the Soul to ponder and wonder things to consider an Act of Discussion of Theoretical and Concurrent Issues at large. And she's definitely an Artist. Her blatant disregard for PEOPLE and Legal Consequence FOR ART kind of Proves that. Not all Artists would do such an Act but plenty that have. She's not an activist as she would have a literal cause and would uphold herself in a way akin to "Be the Change you Want to See in the World", again, she doesn't care about ANYthing BUT the Art, the Performance and HOW it STIRS People! Elitism has it's OWN problems, yes, BUT that's a DIFFERENT ISSUE.
I love it when a man comes along to tell a woman how her movement that is causing a huge stir and discussion about male-only spaces "isn't helping". She's turned it into a spectacle just like men have done for generations. During the lawsuit it was pointed out that many of the men involved are members of men's-only clubs. She talks about the man suing her in the same sexist way that women are often talked about -- calling him "cute", etc. There's now a legal precedent set about banning a gender from somewhere, which will hopefully be used to sue men's only clubs.
This is truly amazing- I am fucking honored to support her. You said it yourself. Hundreds of years of oppression, sticking up for ourselves against that IS HELPFUL and IS NECESSARY.
@@aprilflowers2695No this is a Continuation of her bad behavior, it’s all about upper class white people getting enjoyment, the art is within context of her repeated work
@@aprilflowers2695 His criticism is about how the art doesn't "do" anything for an issue irl. Art doesn't have to do anything of course, it can just make people think, but she could have easily focused on a more provocative and pressing issue with all the money she poured into this spectacle or even donated the profits to a dv shelter or something, but she instead focused on men's only clubs. There's nothing wrong with this art, but it could have been a lot more meaningful a lot more easily and in the context of her past where she exploits other social issues to make herself look good, often causing more harm in the process because she didn't actually care about the issue, I think the criticism makes a lot of sense.
Watch the whole video linked in corner, I explain how she is a problem, I am pro womens only spaces btw, the issue is her. She has a long history of screwing over underprivileged communities that are mostly non white and poor.
thanks for bringing attention to this! all the discourse i've seen around the art installation and trial have made it seem like a masterpiece of feminist performance art. can't we leave the white bourgeois girlboss feminism in 2014?😭 the full video is amazing, had no idea kirsha was involved in so much blatant gentrification, it's gross
Just at like her performance art of buying up houses from a poor primarily black neighborhood and intentionally flooding the houses to let them rot and then leaving without paying property taxes to start a tax exempt weed growing operation in California. By saying the profits will be used for art. Where the city with a already strained budget was forced to tear down the buildings because they were dangerous. Or her performance art of spreading invasive species to make a grand feast for rich people while saying she was solving the invasive species problem. All a continued history of her elitism and history of being anti-progressive. All because she is having a girl boss moment and doing nothing for the movement.
@@Sharkyevno That's nice and all but can you also list all the Men and all their Companies that are also ruining CA all the same? If your argument is purely against elitism, you would list all of them, not just her. Please, go ahead. I'm certain more people would love to hear about all of them, too.
He is more criticizing the artist in this case as she has a history of exploiting social issues to the detriment of the people they affect to make herself look good, it's actually really awful. I think the art museum was funny and interesting, but this short doesn't fully explain his criticisms.
It was really sweet how you tried to understand honey, but this is just a conversation i dont think you need to worry about. Theres a sports game on i heard, maybe look into and other things youre biologically made to understand.
So, this Women's Only Art Museum is NOT ok BUT keeping Men Only Social Clubs ARE ok? You prove how this is still apart of Modern Downplayed and Quieted Inequality.
@@Sharkyevno I watched your full video just recently. It's a part of it -- The Elitism Issue. I understand your hatred for Elitism but the point is also: Is it Fine for Elitist Men to do this but not Elitist Women? And by closing this are down, it kind of is. Men HAVE done this for Centuries. Women JUST began doing it DURING a time of "Anti-Discrimination" who argue at the same time "Safe Spaces are OK". It's poor timing, I presume, but Men HAVE done things just like this that Women weren't allowed to do. Women weren't even allowed HOUSES until 1970s in USA and "needed a man" to sign for her. The hatred of her Elitism is one thing, which CAN include this Sarcastic Performance Art of hers. To many Women, we don't even care about the Elitism for this Act. Why? BECAUSE we've been Oppressed for Centuries. We wonder "Even IF she's rich, why ISN'T she allowed to do this but Men are?" Even Medical Gaslighting has risen. Why? Because Women are tired of Negligent Doctors blaming 95% of our issues are Uterine-based when Women ALSO have a Brain, Heart, Set of Lungs, Digestive System ETC. Women are tired. We're calling it out instead of putting our heads down and accepting it. Everything we've known in Science have been due to Male Cells. Female Cells haven't really been considered too much until 1993 so everything is quite new in regards to Women's Health. Everything prior to 1993 is becoming more akin to us as "Science Fiction". The problems are STILL happening, up and down the line. They are just downplayed and quiet until Social Media helps bring out those ideas for discussion. Again, I understand your hatred for Elitism but don't let that stop Women from Discussing HOW it brings up a point that: Even IF WEALTHY, you STILL don't get Privileges Wealthy Men get. Equality ISN'T there except on Paper and PR. Nonetheless, I do thank that you, a Male, has enabled open discussion on this topic. It's good to see the other perspective and how these things can be generally understood on several different perspectives and levels.
In the full video he criticizes the person behind it and her previous actions. He also criticizes the art museum for being a fake-deep sort of thing that mainly serves to boost the ego of the woman behind it. There's nothing really wrong with the project, but it could have easily been more provocative if it had focused on a more troubling issue facing women other than men's exclusive clubs and in the context of Kirsha's history exploiting social issues to make herself look good (and to the detriment of people the issues actually affect), I think his criticisms make a lot of sense. The short doesn't explain this fully but the full video does.
You are completely right thank you for your point of view. I agree it’s very polarizing, causing more harm than good. I mean we get what she’s trying to do and we get her point but this def seems like something you do when you’re rich and bored.
Consider watching the whole video linked on the short to understand what she is actually doing. I am pro womens spaces. The issue is her. She has a history of buying up houses from a poor primarily black neighborhood and intentionally flooding the houses to let them rot and then leaving without paying property taxes to start a tax exempt weed growing operation in California. By saying the profits will be used for art. Where the city with a already strained budget was forced to tear down the buildings because they were dangerous. Or her performance art of spreading invasive species to make a grand feast for rich people while saying she was solving the invasive species problem. All a continued history of her elitism and history of being anti-progressive. All because she is having a girl boss moment and doing nothing for the movement.
Oh I disagree. The whole thing is all art. The spectacle leaving the courtroom, her calling her suer "cute". She's showing men how it actually looks and feels to be objectified
Watch the whole video linked in corner that explains all the awful stuff she has done. I am pro womens only spaces, the issue is how she does stuff and screws over poor non white communities like buying up properties from a poor neighborhood, and doing stuff like flooding them so the rot away, and then leaving without paying property taxes. The underfunded city was then forced to demolish the building for her because it was dangerous. Or how she spread invasive species to make grand feasts for rich people.
@@Sharkyevno that doesn’t invalidate the performance art. This is the same kind of discussion people have around Kanye and the general public has decided to separate art from the artist.
@@aprilflowers2695 this is a continuation of the same type of art that was problematic. It is elitist
I agree. Regardless of Birth (in this argument: Elitism), ART can invoke the Emotion and stir the Soul to ponder and wonder things to consider an Act of Discussion of Theoretical and Concurrent Issues at large.
And she's definitely an Artist. Her blatant disregard for PEOPLE and Legal Consequence FOR ART kind of Proves that. Not all Artists would do such an Act but plenty that have. She's not an activist as she would have a literal cause and would uphold herself in a way akin to "Be the Change you Want to See in the World", again, she doesn't care about ANYthing BUT the Art, the Performance and HOW it STIRS People!
Elitism has it's OWN problems, yes, BUT that's a DIFFERENT ISSUE.
@@Mary-Ann_B_Mabaet I never said it wasn’t art, I am criticizing the art.
I love it when a man comes along to tell a woman how her movement that is causing a huge stir and discussion about male-only spaces "isn't helping". She's turned it into a spectacle just like men have done for generations. During the lawsuit it was pointed out that many of the men involved are members of men's-only clubs. She talks about the man suing her in the same sexist way that women are often talked about -- calling him "cute", etc. There's now a legal precedent set about banning a gender from somewhere, which will hopefully be used to sue men's only clubs.
This is truly amazing- I am fucking honored to support her. You said it yourself. Hundreds of years of oppression, sticking up for ourselves against that IS HELPFUL and IS NECESSARY.
It’s ART. Performance art.
Aren’t you proving her point?
Watch the whole video to learn why she is an awful person
@@Sharkyevno awful people can still make valid points. You don’t need to be ‘good’ to be telling the truth.
@@aprilflowers2695No this is a Continuation of her bad behavior, it’s all about upper class white people getting enjoyment, the art is within context of her repeated work
@@aprilflowers2695 His criticism is about how the art doesn't "do" anything for an issue irl. Art doesn't have to do anything of course, it can just make people think, but she could have easily focused on a more provocative and pressing issue with all the money she poured into this spectacle or even donated the profits to a dv shelter or something, but she instead focused on men's only clubs. There's nothing wrong with this art, but it could have been a lot more meaningful a lot more easily and in the context of her past where she exploits other social issues to make herself look good, often causing more harm in the process because she didn't actually care about the issue, I think the criticism makes a lot of sense.
wow men are bothered by a woman’s performance art about how bothered men are 😂 you’re the whole plot ❤
Watch the whole video linked in corner, I explain how she is a problem, I am pro womens only spaces btw, the issue is her. She has a long history of screwing over underprivileged communities that are mostly non white and poor.
thanks for bringing attention to this! all the discourse i've seen around the art installation and trial have made it seem like a masterpiece of feminist performance art. can't we leave the white bourgeois girlboss feminism in 2014?😭 the full video is amazing, had no idea kirsha was involved in so much blatant gentrification, it's gross
It is performance art. And now you are apart of it.
Just at like her performance art of buying up houses from a poor primarily black neighborhood and intentionally flooding the houses to let them rot and then leaving without paying property taxes to start a tax exempt weed growing operation in California. By saying the profits will be used for art. Where the city with a already strained budget was forced to tear down the buildings because they were dangerous. Or her performance art of spreading invasive species to make a grand feast for rich people while saying she was solving the invasive species problem. All a continued history of her elitism and history of being anti-progressive. All because she is having a girl boss moment and doing nothing for the movement.
@@Sharkyevno That's nice and all but can you also list all the Men and all their Companies that are also ruining CA all the same? If your argument is purely against elitism, you would list all of them, not just her. Please, go ahead. I'm certain more people would love to hear about all of them, too.
He is more criticizing the artist in this case as she has a history of exploiting social issues to the detriment of the people they affect to make herself look good, it's actually really awful. I think the art museum was funny and interesting, but this short doesn't fully explain his criticisms.
It was really sweet how you tried to understand honey, but this is just a conversation i dont think you need to worry about. Theres a sports game on i heard, maybe look into and other things youre biologically made to understand.
Who says art has to be helpful?? To me it's a humorous act of rebellion, cheeky & clever & bold...
You don’t get it all I’m sorry
So, this Women's Only Art Museum is NOT ok BUT keeping Men Only Social Clubs ARE ok? You prove how this is still apart of Modern Downplayed and Quieted Inequality.
@@Mary-Ann_B_Mabaet it’s like u didn’t even listen to anything I said
@@Sharkyevno I watched your full video just recently. It's a part of it -- The Elitism Issue.
I understand your hatred for Elitism but the point is also: Is it Fine for Elitist Men to do this but not Elitist Women?
And by closing this are down, it kind of is. Men HAVE done this for Centuries. Women JUST began doing it DURING a time of "Anti-Discrimination" who argue at the same time "Safe Spaces are OK". It's poor timing, I presume, but Men HAVE done things just like this that Women weren't allowed to do. Women weren't even allowed HOUSES until 1970s in USA and "needed a man" to sign for her.
The hatred of her Elitism is one thing, which CAN include this Sarcastic Performance Art of hers.
To many Women, we don't even care about the Elitism for this Act. Why? BECAUSE we've been Oppressed for Centuries. We wonder "Even IF she's rich, why ISN'T she allowed to do this but Men are?"
Even Medical Gaslighting has risen. Why? Because Women are tired of Negligent Doctors blaming 95% of our issues are Uterine-based when Women ALSO have a Brain, Heart, Set of Lungs, Digestive System ETC. Women are tired. We're calling it out instead of putting our heads down and accepting it. Everything we've known in Science have been due to Male Cells. Female Cells haven't really been considered too much until 1993 so everything is quite new in regards to Women's Health. Everything prior to 1993 is becoming more akin to us as "Science Fiction".
The problems are STILL happening, up and down the line. They are just downplayed and quiet until Social Media helps bring out those ideas for discussion.
Again, I understand your hatred for Elitism but don't let that stop Women from Discussing HOW it brings up a point that: Even IF WEALTHY, you STILL don't get Privileges Wealthy Men get. Equality ISN'T there except on Paper and PR.
Nonetheless, I do thank that you, a Male, has enabled open discussion on this topic. It's good to see the other perspective and how these things can be generally understood on several different perspectives and levels.
In the full video he criticizes the person behind it and her previous actions. He also criticizes the art museum for being a fake-deep sort of thing that mainly serves to boost the ego of the woman behind it. There's nothing really wrong with the project, but it could have easily been more provocative if it had focused on a more troubling issue facing women other than men's exclusive clubs and in the context of Kirsha's history exploiting social issues to make herself look good (and to the detriment of people the issues actually affect), I think his criticisms make a lot of sense. The short doesn't explain this fully but the full video does.
You are completely right thank you for your point of view. I agree it’s very polarizing, causing more harm than good. I mean we get what she’s trying to do and we get her point but this def seems like something you do when you’re rich and bored.