I'd say there's a few reasons. First: the very visible recorded gender disparity in the audience reaction within the performance itself. Further: the statistical facts of gender based violence. The reaction in the case of this performance mirrors the reality outside the performance hall, where women almost inevitably face various level of gender based violence throughout their lives.
Lastly I'd also say because I believe (although I could be wrong) the gender divide of HN is unbalanced towards men like myself, so it can be helpful to raise these issues at times where our blindspots might lead us to miss interesting or important elements of the stories shared. In cases where that blindness helps real world violence to thrive I feel it's doubly important that we can discuss it without getting defensive.
> Why assume without any other indication that this would have been different had the artist been a man?
Without any other indicator? Like I say, we have huge indicators in the statistical makeup of violence outside of the performance hall. Women are far more likely to experience sexual violence. Indeed, the likelihood of Marina experiencing sexual assault at work would have already been non-negligible even if she wasn't inviting interaction.
> Or if the audience would have been only women?
Please note: the audience in reality wasn't "only men." it was a basically even mix, but the violence of the reactions was far from balanced.
> This art piece held a mirror to all of societey though, not just the men.
The irony here is that you're continuing to focus only on the men despite what I read. I say that there's a huge gender disparity in the sexual violence that was committed against the artist. Somehow you've read that as me saying the work is a mirror of the violence men commit against women? But it's equally a mirror of the women who chose not to commit violence against her. Shadow or light, a mirror reflects it all.
> Was that act sexualized violence?
What is this argument? You're taking one example that you can question the sexual nature of while ignoring the multiple cases of literal sexual assault.
Can I ask you a hypothetical question?
Let's say it was a male artist and the audience was 50/50. Now say that almost 100% of the violence against that man was committed by women and that much of it had a degrading sexual nature, and that these women all laughed amongst their friends while the man they groped and stripped was reduced to tears, before one of these women eventually held a gun to his head.
Would that gender disparity stand out as worth mentioning to you?
Lastly I'd also say because I believe (although I could be wrong) the gender divide of HN is unbalanced towards men like myself, so it can be helpful to raise these issues at times where our blindspots might lead us to miss interesting or important elements of the stories shared. In cases where that blindness helps real world violence to thrive I feel it's doubly important that we can discuss it without getting defensive.
> Why assume without any other indication that this would have been different had the artist been a man?
Without any other indicator? Like I say, we have huge indicators in the statistical makeup of violence outside of the performance hall. Women are far more likely to experience sexual violence. Indeed, the likelihood of Marina experiencing sexual assault at work would have already been non-negligible even if she wasn't inviting interaction.
> Or if the audience would have been only women?
Please note: the audience in reality wasn't "only men." it was a basically even mix, but the violence of the reactions was far from balanced.