Garrick Club

I don't think there can ever be a direct analogy between male and female experience. Even in the feminist utopia of my dreams with full equity between the sexes, our physical differences would persist.

The power differential currently in society is so great that even a club for powerful women is not really an equivalent to male networking (male member's clubs, male only networking dinners, networking in strip venues, general unspoken old boys networks that persist in the financial sector). Those powerful women either have to help each other strike out on their own or still try and make a dent in the male structures of power. They don't own anything they're able to "withhold" from men.

I'd say in these elite circles this type of networking would be extremely beneficial for the careers of the members. It's the old boys club in plain sight. There is still significant inequality in these types of very senior roles... mostly male, mostly white, mostly privately educated. Who you know, not what you know, and I think it would still be very relevant for those that are benefiting.

Although I do agree with a PP that even if they did allow female members, I'd not have any chance of ever joining! But, that doesn't make it any better in my opinion. I'd like to see better representation at the most senior levels, including in my own workplace which has been specifically mentioned in relation to the garrick.

Yes I think a support network for men in nursing would feel different to a men only club for lawyers and politicians.

Though personally I'm on the fence with these gentleman's clubs. It depends if women are being excluded from an important platform for networking and opportunities in their careers. I don't know how important or relevant these clubs are these days.

Women aren't dangerous to men therefore men don't need a safe space away from them

I think the trans debate has changed my views on this, and some other feminist issues. Once I'd have been first to the barricades, demanding women be able to access the Garrick.
Having seen TRAs take a lot of the same arguments- the punching down, the oppression Olympics, the demanding access all areas, I'm more thoughtful about it. Perhaps men do need their own spaces. Perhaps even if there isn't a need it's still ok. Not completely convinced, but certainly more thoughtful.
Also, I've seen a different side to some feminists. The Garrick is undoubtedly a space for rich and powerful men to gather, but even if it went mixed sex, it would only admit rich and powerful women. I still wouldn't have any chance of being a member. Those rich women are quite happy for people like me to be 'cannon fodder' in their victories though.

different rules for different people then?

I think this used to be the case. But I think things are changing/have changed in the past decade or so. Therefore feminist arguments need to change. I am seeing a lot of quota recruitment in various organisations. It does no-one any good. Male mental health is on the floor and that isn't great for any society. Men need to be healthy. Women need to be healthy. We need to work together to have a healthy society. Referencing the patriarchy all the time I think just works against this.

This. I feel the same. And actually, I think men need men's spaces as well as women need women's spaces. And we all need the majority mixed spaces.

Men only networking clubs further entrench the already well established male advantage. That’s why they are totally different to women only clubs and to women only spaces; neither are going to confer an advantage on women over men because women are the oppressed group in this patriarchal society.

I do think the WI should be women-only.

The Equality Act allows for setting up groups of people who share a protected characteristic to provide opportunities for training and networking etc in a field in which they are underrepresented. That's why a women in engineering group is fine.

Is that ALL circumstances?
Maybe you misspoke originally. Why not clarify what you meant instead of getting offended because I picked you up on what you did say?

No need for the snark. You might not be but plenty of people would say an institution like the WI should be sex based. Or a womens interest group at work (e.g. a Women in Engineering group)
It's hard for me to see how we could avoid legislation being misused to uphold the patriarchy by enabling men to keep these kinds of networking "clubs".

Nobody is advocating for single sex spaces in ALL circumstances. Except maybe the Taliban, @AdamRyan.

I think the pp who pointed out that the problem was judges and barristers being members. I don't think the Garrick should bar women but that's not the main issue with it.
I remember reading about an American congressman or senator who put forward legislative proposals to make elected politicians ineligible to join lobby groups or be consultants. I may not have got the details exactly right but this was addressing the same sort of concerns.

And I do have a huge problem with the masons. For the same reason, but also for their absolute towering hypocrisy when it comes to racism. They are supposed to be this egalitarian organisation, where all men are equal. In parts of the Empire it was a way for local eminent men (eg in India) to interact on a level with British "gentlemen ". I grew up in South Africa in the 70s, and it was whites-only.

A business woman tried to sue the Garrick club in 2020 and the reporting is interesting as to why:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/08/businesswoman-launches-legal-action-against-the-garrick-club

This is a reason why I personally support "single sex spaces for dignity and safety" rather than all single sex spaces.

A lot of these "mens clubs" are places where men get access to power and influence and it's taken a lot for women to even partially dismantle that and gain access to the same opportunities.

I think an unintended consequence of an insistence on single sex spaces in all circumstances could be women are again excluded from an increasing number of these kinds of organisations.

So I think your DH has a point

Yes, I think the issue of power is the key. I realise I have no problems with our local men's shed. Also, when DS was little, DH was his main carer and he used to go to a local "dad's club" of similar main-carer dads, where he made some friends who are still friends years later. No problem there. My unease about the Garrick seems to stem, I think, from the advantages which may be related not to well-being or friendship but to professional/political networking. Also, I guess I am imagining the Garrick as an environment in which casual and even unconscious sexism is probably rife? I might be wrong of course. Thinking about it, I think it all depends on what the Garrick is actually FOR. What are the men's motives for joining?

Agree.

This is the issue. Backroom deals and dodgy influence. Ditto the Masons. It's fine when it's a support group or a social club. Less so when it's the only way of getting power in certain roles.

Doh, punch up, not down 🤦🏼‍♀️

I think it is the idea that you can punch down, but not up.

it is fine for black women to straighten their hair, but cultural appropriation for whites women to wear corn rows.

it is fine for disabled people to make jokes about able people, but able people cannot make disabled jokes.

it is fine for women to demand single sex spaces (for safety and other reasons, but not for men to have single sex clubs which are venues for career networking.

it really isn’t that hard to comprehend- just think, who is in the position of power.

It depends on the context and objective of the single sex group/organisation. The majority of women's only spaces are designed to address disadvantages that women face in society - for example provide safety, privacy and dignity, or aiming to address the pay gap and disadvantages in the work place based on their sex. The Garrick club is about networking - not to address any perceived disadvantages that men have, or male specific challenges. As a PP said, there are examples of male only groups/spaces that I would consider equivalent to female only spaces...such as Andy's Man Club, or other organisations aiming to support men's mental health.

So no, there is no equivalence between the Garrick Club and women's spaces.

I can't find the clip on youtube, but I seem to remember KJK being challenged on this and she used the phrase 'corridors of power' IIRC in saying that the men only clubs used to be where decisions were made that affected women but that women were not involved in the conversations. So yes, those sorts of institutions should definitely not exclude women.

Social groups and clubs, I totally agree that there should be spaces and groups and groups that are for men only and spaces that are for women only.

Single sex spaces for women - like refuges or anywhere where we're getting changed and therefore vulnerable are about protecting our privacy and dignity as well as our safety.

The male equivalent of these are things like Andy's Man Club and the men's shed projects that there are in various places, which are about men supporting other men and therefore perfectly justified in being single sex.