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?

Yes, they did once the negative publicity started, much like the actors et al who suddenly discovered after 30 years of membership it was unconscionable. (Or David Walliams and his damascene conversion about hosting the presidents club).

Yes, which doesn’t mean any or certainly not many will be able to join, as there’s no obligation on the club to accept any application.

Which leaves the basic problem unanswered. How do you develop a law which bans single sex clubs you don’t like (The Savage Club in London for eg still excludes women, and has some barristers / judges as members), but allows women-only networks and clubs?

But @Dexysmidnightstroller with the membership voting for women, some of the members will push and begin the process. You may not want to trust the process but certainly worth giving them 1yr.
Due to confidentiality though it may not be made public.

A small number of already wealthy and successful women will join I expect, but if anyone thinks a large number will join and gain a career boost from all the networking I suspect we will be disappointed.

Assuming that the Garrick is all fine now, however, that leaves the other clubs and the question I posed earlier about how anyone could regulate to end any perceived or real unfairness.

The Lady chief justice didn’t seem to agree with you.

And Helena Kennedy has argued for a US-style system that would bar judges from joining the Garrick. The US federal code of conduct for judges says they “should not hold membership in any organisation that practises invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin”, adding that such membership “gives rise to perceptions that the judge’s partiality is impaired”.

The word “invidious” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. I assume she isn’t trying to ban BME associations or women’s networking, so who decides what’s acceptable?

We all want a fairer world, but I’m struggling to see how you could justify interfering with some clubs but not all.

@Dexysmidnightstroller but if your wealthy and successful and vetted by 100? No clue as to the size or number who need to agree. You’re not in need of a career boost (or much of one).
No clue if the food is good, but probably a quiet refuge if doing something in London.

@CurlsnSunshinetime4tea the food is very good. (It used to be notoriously terrible.)

I believe that all members have to agree and that someone can be turned down on the basis of one rejection.

Separately, the journalist Giles Coren appears to have suggested, writing in the Times about the Garrick recently, that he was possibly blackballed (is that the term?) on the basis of his Jewishness. He drew an analogy with the rejection of Oliver Letwin some years before, if I remember correctly. Shocking if correct.

I didn’t get that from his article but given the number of senior Jewish judges who have been members (Lord Brown, Lord Neuberger for eg) I’d say that’s disgraceful of him to say unless he has evidence. I’m no fan of the Garrick but seriously that’s an appalling accusation to make without concrete evidence.

assuming more of a reflection of certain behaviors rather than religious affiliation. huge assumption but i presume none of these gentlemen join in an effort to be harassed by annoying fellow members. i'm envisioning the process tends to lend itself to people of similar personalities; discrete and trustworthy in a boys club kind of way. anyone known to be poor at handling their liquor or in your face loud and annoying might not pass the vetting process.