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 think Cath Leng may be right. It's a stunt:

https://x.com/lengcath/status/1773571713680179546?s=46&t=WHoOZZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

https://x.com/lengcath/status/1773596204934259103?s=46&t=WHoOZZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

Simply not true. Traditional gentlemen’s clubs ban work from taking place there (some have business rooms where it is allowed), and the Athenaeum used to have a rule in centre table that people didn’t disclose who they were. The club is for R&R, not corporate networking.

You don’t apply to be a member, you get invited, by someone who knows you, and other members vote on it.

But networking, even social networking, is hugely important in many professions. As the female lawyers say, if you’re appearing before a judge and that judge has seen you occasionally at their club, it’s going to make a huge difference to how they view you.

It’s naive to imagine that the Garrick and similar clubs aren’t largely about soft networking (and having somewhere nice to go in town).

Any such person simply shouldn’t be a judge.

Since not all judges / lawyers or even more than a small percentage could belong to the same club, does this mean that judges should lead purely Trappist lifestyles with no social interaction?

Some claim there is a distinction between men and women’s spaces, because men have more influence, but that’s not workable in law. Is someone going to monitor female participation in any industry and then reverse the permissible clubs once it reaches a certain level?

Ironically, though, if clubs are forced to behave like corporate HR departments they will soon close. A private club by definition is exclusive. Forcing them to admit anyone and everyone would make them pointless.

I think the primary issue isn't that it's male only but that it is an exclusive club whose members receive career benefits and opportunities not due to merit. It's obviously unfair that it excludes women, but it also excludes those who aren't wealthy or well-connected. Even if it allowed women in it wouldn't be fair.

That said I don't know how you could prevent that kind of club - I think the solution needs to be more about the way in which jobs and other opportunities are opened up more fairly. Perhaps any club member should recuse themselves from court cases or decisions on recruitment where a club member is involved in any way? I imagine that would quickly become so annoying that it might make it less attractive to be a member.

So do all clubs need to be closed and all lawyers / judges become Trappist Monks with no pastimes or hobbies? It just isn’t workable - or desirable. Instead people should disclose connections that make them too close, but simply belonging to a club with several hundred members isn’t enough

@UnaOfStormhold except in order to be invited and vetted you need to have more than just a career and money.
Nice move that women will now be able to join. Any mention of successful applicants yet or will that be kept private.

lol and you think those rules are abided by?

Yuck. Privilege squared

And you think people who go there behave like they’re at some insufferable corporate meet and greet? Even if it was true you’d also have to close women’s networks and every support group by the same logic

Oh that women's clubs were stuffed to the same extent with MPs, judges etc.

But how do you decide which clubs are allowed to exist and which aren’t? Monitoring memberships until a percentage of important people join then close it down?

Ah don’t be so disingenuous we are discussing the Garrick FFS

I’m not being disingenuous, just pointing out that it isn’t easy to ban something without banning a lot of other things as well. You’re presumably not suggesting an Act of Parliament saying “The Garrick is banned but other clubs all fine”. So, what is your criteria for allowing some clubs/organisations but not others?

Well it’s basic morality, really. Look at your club and see if it is something to be proud of and trumpet. If it’s not you’re doing something wrong.

Meaning what exactly? Obviously no one who belongs to the Garrick or any other club thinks it’s a bad thing. The question is what change to the Equality Act or anything else would bring about the result you’re hoping for.

I don’t believe anyone is suggesting a change to the law. What actually happened was that the Garrick membership list was leaked to the media, which showed that many in the British establishment were members, the King, the Cabinet Secretary, the heads of MI5/6, the Deputy PM, many of the most senior judges, etc, etc.

This led some members to resign, as they couldn’t be seen to be members of a club that excluded women, particularly those in the public sector. And some judges were forced to recuse themselves from some cases, as it was suggested that as members of a female excluding club they could not impartially judge certain cases.

I believe the club has now voted to admit women, as so many prominent members were threatening to leave. Any women who are proposed by a sitting member (it might have to be by two) will still have to be voted in by the entire membership.

This doesn’t affect most of us, but is merely illustrative of how women are still often excluded from the very male establishment.

I don’t think it was any secret that many senior judges et al belonged. And mere membership wasn’t enough to exclude them from cases, it would have to be where there was a clear risk of bias eg if a judge had proposed a litigant for membership.

If I was a bloke and belonged to the Garrick I’d think it was not right that it’s closed to women when it’s such an influential place. So I wouldn’t be a member. I don’t necessarily think it’s the place of law to correct this - it’s very disappointing that so many of the patriarchy at this club think it’s ok. They need to take a good look at themselves.

Nor would I, but that doesn’t mean the Garrick has to be banned. Even now women are being admitted, the vast majority of lawyers male and female won’t become members. The ones I know who are members dismiss its importance on the basis networking is frowned upon, the club is about escapism not more work.

Having said that, I agree appearance of bias is important, but so is freedom of association.

‘High Court judge removed from overseeing rape case over Garrick Club membership’
The Independent, 15 April 2024

Wasn’t just because of the Garrick, it was because the father (it was a domestic abuse case) was also a member. Same would have applied if they both belonged to another club. Charlotte Proudman made a lot of noise about the Garrick but doesn’t always help her own cause nor that of women generally.

‘At least four judges resign from men-only Garrick Club after backlash’
Guardian, 25 March 2024

But @Dexysmidnightstroller the vote has passed. Women will now be allowed, via the complex admission process.