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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

different rules for different people then?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Doesn’t that interfere with freedom of association though?

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

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?)

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.

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

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.

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.

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, 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.

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

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.