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 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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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

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).

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

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

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?’

Like Sturgeon's SNP you mean?

@emilysquest there are “women only” clubs in London, modelled after historically “men’s club”. They do not wield the same power as men’s clubs mainly because they are newer and do not yet have the history nor are there sufficient senior women with time and interest to join to make them significant “power clubs”.
i personally don’t mind men’s clubs. I think they serve a purpose today different from what they did historically. Why shouldn’t men have clubs designed to suit their needs and interests just like women are seeking to have clubs that suit our needs and interests? There are plenty of clubs that accept both men and women so people can chose what they prefer. The days of jobs being handed out amongst old boy networks are over — at least as far as I can see on the various interview panels on which I have participated or which I have witnessed in recent years.

I think this article gets to the fault lines of the issue on two separate issues: should men only clubs be allowed and should judges and barristers be members
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/mar/27/lawyer-boys-club-concerns-judgment-misconduct-case

“A barrister is facing disciplinary proceedings for expressing frustration at the “echoes of a boys’ club attitude” that she claims were in a family court judgment that went against her client….Proudman suggested the judge had minimised the significance of the domestic abuse her client said she had faced at the hands of her ex-husband.
“I lost the case. I do not accept the judge’s reasoning,” she wrote. “This judgment has echoes of the ‘boys’ club’ which still exists among men in powerful positions.” “

She has now successfully challenged the judge who was due to preside over her disciplinary case to have himself replaced on the grounds that he himself is a member of the Garrick Club so cannot say that he would be free of bias.

Mens sheds dont bother me. Mens rugby /cricket/football clubs dont bother me as long as women are allowed their own equivalent clubs. At present women are not allowed any clubs of their own so for that reason I'd like to see women invade the Garrick.

There is a different problem when those in positions of power and influence who are supposed to be impartial give the appearance of misogyny. So no judge should be allowed to be a member of a club that is deliberately exclusive. Imagine if the Garrick explicitly excluded jews or black people, as some clubs used to do.

The Garrick club is the patriarchy in plain sight. I'm surprised that so many women on a feminist board are ok with it. Women shouldn't aspire to join the Garrick, they should burn it down.

@anyolddinosaur what do you mean by “women are not allowed their own equivalent clubs”? There are clubs set up by women for women (ie the All Bright, University Women’s Club, the Wing, Grace Belgravia) and, generally, women do not want men (or transwomen) to join their clubs. The all-women clubs do not (yet) have the power men’s clubs have but perhaps that is because women do not use clubs in the same way?

Women sport is not protected as a sex based space.

From the Hampstead Women’s Pond to Park Run to Championship cycling.

That’s what I would include as ‘not allowed’

To my mind, the question is not should single sex spaces exist at all, clearly they should as the self-id debate has revealed. The question about the Garrick Club is should judges belong to an organisation that excludes women and exists to provide its members access to networking opportunities with other very powerful men? My view is that the answer is no, because as judges they must be seen as impartial- they should not support discriminatory policies nor should they be taking advantage of their status to build alliances with others in similar positions or those who want to be. This is a very different situation from the WI or a working men's club.

@BoudiccaOfSuburbia I'm not sure what you mean by "Championship cycling" but males have been banned from the women's category in all domestic (British Cycling) and international (UCI) racing since last year. Many other sports have enacted similar bans.

The club is entirely legal based on the EqA, and the case is being brought on narrower grounds than the single-sex space exemption. I don't think it should be made illegal, but I fully support all efforts to allow women to join as full members. They even voted in favour of it (but a 2/3rds majority is required). It excludes women from powerful networks of influence. There is an argument that people in certain positions should exclude themselves from such envionments, and this could be enforced by professional standards bodies.

There might be more to this than meets the eye..?

https://x.com/barbararichlaw/status/1773335264800170120?s=46&t=WHoOZZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

😂😂😂
You think it's an accident that so many of our prime ministers are ex Bullingdon club?
That so many of our politicians are ex Eton?
Why do you think people pay through the nose for private school? Or men pay a fortune to be a member of a club like this? Of course they aren't "paying for a space away from women". They don't need that. The whole world is designed for them. So they are paying for access to a network that benefits them and will give them a return on investment. They are paying for power.

Is equality about getting more women in to elitist institutions - or eliminating that inequality in the first place?

I see that some members are now saying some super-special women should be allowed to join. If I was one of those women my response would be to tell them to fuck off. I can't imagine why they would go along with this.

@Startinganew07 There is no organisation solely for women that men are not invading by pretending they are women.

As an aside, Wikipedia quotes this on its page defining 'tufthunter' (my new word of the day)*:

The Garrick Club is one of those snob snuggeries that abound in London. It consists, for the greater part, of comic authors, Whig journalists, tenth-rate artists, Irish and Ethiopian melodists, fast barristers, faded dandies, “unspeakable” M.P.’s, roue noblemen, impudent showmen, together with a small, miscellaneous shoal of insignificant individuals whose sole title to distinction is that they are inveterate and intense tufthunters. The Garrick has for its object the cultivation of priggism; the enabling of its members to meet for the purposes of mutual “clawing” and congratulations, and the enjoyment of cheap, fashionable dissipations.
—From Reynolds's Newspaper, 1 August 1858

*(UK, slang, archaic) A hanger-on to noblemen or persons of quality, especially in English universities; a toady.