Garrick Club

[emilysquest]

OK so there is an article in the Guardian today about the Garrick Club, which famously excludes women and which all the top male barristers and judges etc belong to. Now DH is GC (under my tuition) but he just said, how is that different from women (rightly) wanting their own spaces? I am trying to think of the most coherent answer to that.

Also, just idly wondering, if they did stay men only, which seems unlikely, would would the position of transmen be?

It’s only a problem if there is a career advantage to membership which there clearly is. It’s a men’s only space not because men want to feel safe there without women. It’s an elite club that women are excluded from that a great deal of networking goes on in.

Kinda like the Masons but costs thousands and with comfier chairs.

Good point tho about self ID. Could we all rock up there identifying as men and get in? How does one prove one’s manhood for membership?

Women want sex segregated spaces for reasons of safety and personal bodily privacy.

It's not about a networking opportunity which elevates your career/contacts from which you deliberately choose to exclude over 50% of the population.

Members of the Garrick who don't want women as members (44% but enough not to be able to change the rules) aren't concerned about being sexually assaulted/harassed by women. They just want to preserve the patriarchy.

The Mayfair did allow their first (and only) "woman" to the club. Yup a current male member who had transitioned and they decided not to ban. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/04/private-gentlemans-club-allows-first-woman-member-150-year-history/

Not sure if the Mayfair still has the same policy.

How do you objectively distinguish between the Garrick and a club like Allbright that explicitly states that it is there to function as a place for ( wealthy) women to network?

You can say “but patriarchy” (and that may be very valid) but if you are making rules, what distinguishes one from the other?

Tbh I think we should let men have their clubs and let women have our clubs. I’m sure that men benefit from an all-male environment in the same way as we benefit from all-female. Live and let live. I’m fairly adamant on the need for all-female spaces and I can’t square away the logic of not also accepting men’s spaces.

He is absolutely correct. It isn’t different at all, and it’s a case of cognitive dissonance to suggest that it is. Single sex spaces should work both ways, and that’s completely fine by me.

I was reading about this in relation to the legal profession, and in some jurisdictions you can't be a judge if you are a member of a discriminatory association. There's a concern that it will lead to judicial bias. Many senior judges in England are members of this club, including the judge who was in charge of the undercover cops inquiry. I also remember Lady Hale saying she was dismayed by the number of judges and barristers who were members of the club.

my son in law belongs, i believe they have a strong vetting process. so not apply pay be accepted.

But single sex spaces DO work both ways! You have women's toilets, you have men's toilets. You have women's changing rooms, you have men's changing rooms. You have women's prisons, you have men's prisons.

The problem with those things is that men, who already have their own spaces, are invading women's spaces.

Gentlemen's clubs are a different kettle of fish altogether.

Some brave gal needs to test the model.

Even better, if they were to do it in the spirit of our sister transwomen in prisons and sports, they’d announce their supreme ‘maleness’ (in their head and inner spirit obvs) by looking as feminine and as womanly as possible. Tits, teeth the lot.

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.

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.

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 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.

Doh, punch up, not down 🤦🏼‍♀️

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.

Agree.

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?

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

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

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.

Does anyone know anything about the women's only clubs, and how much societal power they have by comparison?

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.

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".

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?