Garrick Club

Like Sturgeon's SNP you mean?

Why does it have to be either or? Ultimately they are linked. Influential men; many of whom contribute to important decisions that impact women; all meeting to network and further their own careers without women. Closing doors to us which contributes to our lack of representation and the lack of consideration for us in decision making. If women were equally represented in positions of power do you think that men would’ve been allowed to self identify into women’s spaces on the first place?’

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/26/four-senior-judges-resign-garrick-club-men-only-membership/

Great quote in here which really gets to the nubs of the problem for me:

"If they [club members] cannot trust women to sit with them in the clubby corridors of power, we cannot trust them to do the right thing by women"

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/22/friday-briefing-garrick-club-men-only-policy-britain

I'm interested in all the different view points here, and I think I've changed my mind slightly also. I work for an organisation which has been listed in the article, where we have a problem with over representation of white, privately educated men at the most senior levels. While my organisation (and the seniors) claim to be invested in improving diversity at senior levels, it feels totally inappropriate to me that some of these senior males might be benefitting from a club like this.

But, I get the points about what fight we want to fight, and what it would mean in relation to other arguments, for example when we want to retain female only groups and spaces. I do still think the objectives of the clubs/organisation are important and there is a strong argument that single sex groups should be focussed on sex specific challenges, or addressing specific disadvantages based on sex. I also agree that closing down these types of clubs won't stop the members from engaging in the "old boys network" in other ways. Sorry, this is a bit rambly and I have no solutions, but I'm interested in what approach the Women's Network at my work might decide upon and whether there might be any kind of formal response. So far there has been extreme disappointment at those whose names were released (from men and women alike).

Is this really the fight other women want to take on, given the arguments over trans men invading women's spaces?

Absolutely. In society we should always recognise that treating people the same will not achieve equality. When equality has been achieved, then we reassess towards treating people the same.

women only lists
BAME pathways into science careers.
Disability access to theatres - with free carer seats.

All really good and baby steps towards equality.

lets say the clubs allowed all people, then surley there would still be groups within the group so still similar setup just allows all people ?

Oh come on. She campaigns on a whole load of feminist issues including abortion access in Northern Ireland.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/stella-creasy-abortion-debate/

She's been subject to serious credible threats for being an MP and she still does the job.

You might disagree with her position on gender but to claim she somehow is unreliable and not a supporter of women is unfair.

I understand all the problems for women feeling excluded from opportunities in relation to the Garrick Club but this is one of those instances where the general principle is more important than the individual case. Just as the principle of freedom of speech means allowing people to say things you don't like, the principle of freedom of association means private members' clubs should be allowed to set the rules for their own membership. If the Garrick is forced to accept women, the unintended consequences for women could be very bad indeed.

I really apologise because this sounds like a derail, but this thread is quite shocking....i'll leave the irrelevant bit till the end...

Because I was actually on the original panel of founders for the Allbright club. All I can really remember about it is being on the premises of the TCR site when there were builders still working on it!

I paid less as a founder, maybe £300. But at that stage it was a risk. It didn't worry me in terms of equality and neither does the Garrick club - because people of any group are going to gather together if that's what they want to do.

As a teenager I remember a lot of negative press about men's clubs and I remember my family explaining to me that the issue was - access to business I guess - and I said well, they just going to do their business on the golf course or at somebody's house where you haven't been invited.

So no, it doesn't bother me. I should also say the Allbright were very kind in letting me out of it and refunding me .. I'd actually signed a contract and things, but my father fell ill, and I realised, (because my mother was ill as well), that my career was not going to follow the trajectory that made membership of such a club relevant.

I imagine all clubs are battling practicalities around inclusion now. In reality, within a single sex club (I did get to attend a few times before dad fell ill) there will be groups who network together.

You can't barge into everything and demand all access for everyone....well, you can, but that seems reminiscent of a group that operates now!

( I have been thinking recently that I should probably write down what happened in my life from 2018 onwards, because I've recently realised it's virtually a blank. Remembering that I was a founding member of the Allbright club has really made me go 😱

What a huge blank I have in my life memories! Now wondering what my CV would look like if I'd stayed!)

if anyone is a member now, I'd be interested to know what it's like.

At a guess these are close:

University Women's Club
Established: 1886
Location: London, UK

Cosmopolitan Club
Established: 1915
Location: New York City, USA

Lyceum Club
Established: 1912
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Soroptimist International Club
Established: 1921
Location: Global (multiple chapters worldwide)

The Wing
Established: 2016
Locations: Multiple cities in the USA and the UK

Yes, she shone a light on some of Parliament’s arcane practices. Good for her. Not sure how this affects the ordinary woman working in Tesco’s.

She also fights for the right of men to colonise women’s spaces.

Maternity rights are vital to support women at work, I'd say they are a defining civil rights issues. And until Stella Creasy kicked up a fuss, female MPs didn't have any which was totally archaic.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/17/pregnant-mp-maternity-leave-equality-stella-creasy

I am constantly taken aback by this vilifying of women who've actually changed things for the better for other women, just because they aren't GC enough by your arbitrary measure. Give her some credit rather than knocking her down.

Yes, Stella Creasy is not reliable. Sure, she will make a big deal out of some crusty old club’s membership, or act as if the right for your infant to suckle you at work is a defining civil rights issue. But she will not stand up on the big stuff - the colonising of women’s spaces by men. The Garrick club is an irrelevance in my view.

Two separate things.

1. I have NO issue with men only clubs
2. its a private club, it's up to them who they accept.

exactly this

and the truth is that as women we should create our own power bases, our networks pushing women forward. being 'let into' places like the garrick club won't solve our problems, but make us weaker. also these institutions are stupidly elitist. surely as feminists we want to move away from this kind of institutions and towards more inclusive organisations? otherwise we end up in an animal farm situation where some animals are more equal than others

Yes, I'm similarly conflicted. I saw Stella Creasy tweeting about this yesterday and my first thought was 'this is your priority?' on a day when Police Scotland training materials were calling JK Rowling a nazi and Tim Davie was telling us to 'be nice.' I just can't get worked up about a club I'll never be a member of when there's so much else going on.

I think if it comes down to a battle of competing social priorities it is possible to navigate through that. Does ECHR freedom of association mean that a UK judge should be allowed to belong to an association that exists to promote locking up the poor (as an extreme example?)

Doesn’t that interfere with freedom of association though?

Can we really police what lawful activities people do in their spare time?

Perhaps rather than focusing on the private clubs themselves (with all the difficulty of agreeing what should and shouldn’t be permitted) the focus should shift to the positions held by the membership.

Would it not be possible to say that in order to avoid the appearance of discrimination or partiality, the holders of certain positions (MPs, judiciary, KCs, upper echelons of armed forces etc) are not permitted to be members of any club that discriminate on the grounds of sex (or otherwise!)?

This would disproportionately impact men (as they currently hold most of those positions) but has the benefit of applying equally regardless of the sex of the person who holds that position.

It also allows clubs like the Garrick and Allbright to continue to run their own affairs without undue interference. They would lose some members, but I’m sure they could find others to replace them.

With time, companies might be persuaded to adopt similar rules for their most senior staff.

It’s a fair point. But what can we do? If women are allowed in then that doesn’t necessarily mean opportunities will suddenly open up for women. Men behave differently around women than they do around other men. They will just take that networking elsewhere. What are we going to do, interrupt some blokes playing a private golf game just in case they are talking about business? They will always find a way.

Let men have their private rooms. My energies are in fighting men invading women’s spaces. I just don’t think access to a few swanky rooms in Covent Garden is remotely a priority.

I struggle with this. I agree that there's nothing wrong with men wanting to be with other men.

Mens sheds, working mens clubs are one thing.
And I can't think of anything more boring than the more exclusive men's clubs either. But men do persist in guarding power with these things.

I cannot believe in the 21st century male only networking for local business exists, but it does! And this stuff is before you look at the ways in which the very structure and working environments of various industries favour men.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/20/mi6-chief-resigns-garrick-membership-after-criticism

It’s obviously not the same as female-only spaces like toilets and changing rooms that exist to protect women’s safety.

However, it is not unreasonable for men to want to spend time with other men sometimes, away from women. I wouldn’t begrudge them such a space to have a whisky and a chat. I’ve never understood why some feminists open up battle fronts on things like social club memberships. Leave them alone, it’s small fry and it will be boring anyway.