Main Edition
US
FR
March 30, 2024 - 8:00am
“BREAKING”, began Emily Maitlis’s tweet on Thursday evening, so that we understood the gravity of her announcement. She had “been given sight of” — I guess that means she had seen — a letter proposing the potential first female members of the Garrick club, signed by current members including Stephen Fry and the never-knowingly-correct Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins.
Which brave pioneers were primed to strike a mortal blow at the crusty male establishment? Eminent female lights of the establishment, like Mary Beard, Channel 4’s Cathy Newman, former judge Elizabeth Gloster, and former home secretary Amber Rudd.
Since the Garrick was founded in 1832 to help boost the social standing of actors — its namesake, David Garrick, was 18th-century England’s premier thesp — the London gentlemen’s club has kept its membership strictly gentlemen-only. Though 50.5% of Garrick members voted to admit women in 2015, it didn’t meet the two-thirds threshold for change. But after the Guardian published excerpts from a leaked membership list last week, this perma-blokeyness had been under renewed pressure. MI6 chief Richard Moore and civil service boss Simon Case have both resigned from the club, presumably outraged to finally discover why all those jolly drinks evenings were such sausage fests.
If you think this is a remotely progressive campaign, I have a seat in President Hillary Clinton’s cabinet to sell you. Anger at the Garrick is a relic of “girlboss” feminism: more women CEOs, the argument goes, and never mind about the wages of the female cleaners who scrub the office toilets overnight. The term titled the 2014 autobiography of American fashion tycoon Sophia Amoruso, and reached its apotheosis in Clinton’s 2016 tilt at the White House.
Girlboss feminism presupposed that the West’s political and economic settlement was more-or-less swell: all that was needed was a smidge of recalibration to get a few more women to the top. But people didn’t want a Manolo Blahnik heel stamping on their face forever any more than a well-polished Oxford shoe. After the populist convulsions of 2016, the term became one of derision rather than affirmation. Serious progressives realised the moment demanded a critique of power that went beyond putting women on corporate boards.
Needless to say, “serious” is not a word that gets much of a workout when talking about the British establishment. This current fracas is really an intra-elite struggle. The main contention, beyond the fact that male-only establishments are generally a bit icky, is whether the Garrick is just a place for fun, or a place where professional networking goes on, which women shouldn’t be shut out of. It’s a reasonable point, but the sheer energy being poured into the whole thing — at least two KCs have given up billable hours to analyse whether the club’s existing rules really exclude women — indicates an establishment that has its priorities out of joint.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeInteresting article. ” Girl boss feminism” long overtook most of the last Club outposts of the Raj with the storming of sacred spaces as the ” Gentlemen’s Bar”.
However where does this leave current ” gender fluid” fashions?
Or will the GC next succumb to that phenomenon?
When these protests began against men only clubs in the 80s and 90s, I though they would regret it because they will end up loosing women only spaces.
Whats suprising about this one today is they they are still poking that hornets nest.
But the game plan all along was to invite themselves in everywhere ‘to smash the patriarchy ‘ but claim it was unsafe to let men in theirs. The usual poison of identity politics.
Not sure if it was the game plan all along, but it is how it has wound up.
They count on the fact that men aren’t insecure, malicious creatures like themselves , and won’t do the reverse, and try to invade their spaces in return.
It’s not just about these clubs. Take all the manufactured outrage about women in football or gaming, and how “evil” men are keeping them out. Leaving aside the fact that women who do participate mostly can’t compete, as women football teams have demonstrated against under 15 boys reams. It would still be ok if they were actually keen on it.
But they refuse to take any interest while simultaneously complaining about being “excluded”. Hence you have one mandatory DEI woman in every EPL football commentary team, but hardly any women in the actual crowd watching the football game itself. It’s nasty, manipulative, pathetic behaviour.
Let the women in, then all the men promptly hand in their memberships and start a new club. Easy
By “all the men” you actually mean “all the insecure little worms who are scared of women” can go start a new club. One assumes that includes you?
I don’t imagine they’ll be missed too much…
It’s not my cup of tea, but surely people should be free to affiliate with whomever they like? I’m sure they don’t need the likes of us dictating who they can hang out with.
I’d wager most are married so they wouldn’t be afraid of women. It’s just nice to have a chat with just blokes now and again though, for the same reason my missus likes a girls night
Are you buying the the first round of drinks?
You miss the point. It’s not a question of whether women are scary. We like to have time away from you because we find your company exhausting.
Thats probably true. Though it applies to wives more than to women in general. The key point about these clubs is probably that wives cannot follow their husbands there. And it’s certainly no worse than going fishing.
I am one of those insecure little worms who encourages my wife to regularly go out and have fun with her female friends, while I manage the kid. And don’t get jealous about the fact that she enjoys her time on her own with her friends.
I suppose you need to be a brave, modern woman to be offended by the fact that the other sex like to have their own space sometimes.
Absolutely no problem. Rename the club “Garrick Club Brothel, Women Are Required to Perform Their Regular Duties” and invite them all.
And you wonder why everyone hates you…
I’m happy to know that you hate me. This irrefutably proves how much smarter I am than you, Everest compared to a cesspool.
“Garrick Club Brothel, Women Are Required to Perform Their Regular Duties”
I think we all know what this proves – and it ain’t how smart you are, sonny!
But more ‘ate you, Plonk.
Women want what men have. Just let women in and consider it the latest episode in a very long running compliment.
Women demand female only “safe spaces,” but they continually try to invade or destroy male spaces.
They claim that female only spaces are essential but can’t abide men having their own space.
Hypocrisy
Different issue. Safe spaces are needed for the 1 in 5 women whi have suffered abuse from men. Rape crisis centres and women’s refuges should be single sex to ensure women feel safe and can recover.
Not the same as an elite debate about access to power etc, as in The Garrick club issue. Another bad move by the Guardian (itself an elite club) that will serve to bolster the current assault on women’s single sex spaces by trans activists.
You seem unaware that some men are abused by women.
Earl Silverman was a Canadian who tried to introduce men’s shelters, after being a victim of abuse and getting no help, even being ridiculed.
Feminists hounded him, forced the government and private sponsors to withdraw funding, until he finally gave up and committed suicide.
Those same feminists are probably today pushing for trans “women” to be allowed into women’s shelters though, so at least they are genuinely non sexist, they don’t care for victims of domestic violence irrespective of sex.
Few men have any interest invading female spaces and are happy to see those that doing facing serious punishment.
I wonder if the women nominated by The Guardian actually wanted to join The Garrick Club? Its columnists glowed hot with anger that women not being allowed to become members meant they were missing out on the supposed ‘networking’ advantages available to the men. How would they benefit, however, if the majority of the club’s members resented having female membership imposed on them? Despite the bile of the Guardianistas being impressive, it also seems misplaced and unlikely to succeed in changing anything.
True. Also, would that be the same Guardian that was found out using unpaid intern labour and dragging its feet over paying freelancers? I think we should be told, as such behaviour doesn’t much help the advancement of social equity (as claimed).
Well done, Jos, (though a bit miffed that someone else shares my name!). 99.9999 per cent of the population won’t give a hoot about this particular hoo-ha, but it does raise a question: why on earth would men want the likes of Beard, Rudd, Newman etc in their club? At least get some good-looking totties in. Or perhaps I just don’t get the point of a private club for the very rich.
Not exactly the most important of issues but the surprise is the berks in this Club thought sensible to have defended such a position for so long. ‘Manna from Heaven’ for a few of the Unherd commentariat of course to enable a rant about, err women, and esp the notion of left wing women. Hence no doubt why such a bit of red meat nonsense chucked their way.
I can usually predict with a high degree of accuracy exactly what you clowns will say on any given subject but I’ll admit that even I am surprised by the level of stupidity on show in these comments.
We can predict with absolute certainty exactly what you will say on any given subject and are never surprised by your level of stupidity …… Snap!
Your self-regard is equalled only by the comical extent to which it is undeserved.
Here, have a port. A white one if you insist.
Will this include trans women? Will they be able to use the ladies bogs? Assuming there are ladies bogs.
Personally I prefer mixed company, and could imagine being bored to death in a male only club.
But I realise I’m not typical for the U.K. Although men and women continue to marry and cohabit, it’s pretty clear that lots of them don’t actually like the opposite sex very much. Instead, whenever they can, they form single sex groups rather like those they formed at school.
I find it a bit infantile, but if that’s what they want I don’t honestly see why they shouldn’t have it.
“The men in the Garrick, and the women who want to get in, do not properly understand the country they run.”
Well this might seem a bit more important were it not for the fact that the bastions of gender equality in the media seem equally clueless about the nation – if not a great deal more so. For example of the BBC – does anyone seriously imagine that ivory tower full of buffoons has the remotest inkling how anything at all works?
And as has been remarked here before, the people whose job it is to run the country clearly don’t know how to do it either: not just the 5 year term representatives from whichever party won the last election, but the entire system that is supposed to be the professional administration. It gets more expensive and less effective with each passing year.
So, by all means let women into the Garrick Club. It won’t make a blind bit of difference to what actually matters, but it might shut the feminists up for a bit and give the rest of us a bit of peace.
How much does membership of these sorts of clubs actually cost?
Your sanity, to judge by some of the people I’ve heard mentioned in connection with it.
I feel really sad that Mary Beard has joined in this awful rubbish. At one time I actually thought she had a brain.
What on earth does it matter? I can’t believe the Fry monster is crying over it, he is the biggest elite luvvie of them all, apart from perhaps Elton John; close call there.
Women have always had their clubs too, and the likes of the WI, although not so much now they are admitting trans.
You could have made the disadvantage argument thirty years ago when women were not so involved in corporate life; but not now.
Just leave everyone alone to do their own thing and stop forcing your twisted world view on them.
Where’s the trans angle on this? There’s got to be one.
You really are obsessed with trans folks, aren’t you?
Are you one? Be honest now.
Those who cannot create, destroy.
“She had “been given sight of” — I guess that means she had seen…”
That’s pretty funny. Well done!
One might wonder what is so special about the Garrick club that a certain group of elite women insist on joining it when they could perfectly well join other clubs that already allow women in it. Perhaps the Athenaeum?
What did these woman do to prevent the Rotherham( and other towns ) Grooming incidents of white working class girls, some who had been in care by Muslim men mostly of Pakistani ( no Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist men of Indian descent involved ) descent and why did they not support Ann Cryer when she raised the issue? It is always interesting to understand peoples priorities.
Are the ladies rabidly pursuing entrance to gentlemen’s clubs willing to accept the banning of women-only clubs? Anyone know?