• Login
  • Register
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result

Do the Anti-Garrick Arguments Stack Up?

by Noah Carl
26 March 2024 11:00 AM

In recent days, The Guardian has been on the warpath against the Garrick – one of the last remaining London gentlemen’s clubs that refuses to change its men-only membership policy. The newspaper’s coverage has already induced several prominent members to resign – though not before they tried to salvage their membership with the half-baked excuse that they wanted to reform the club from within.

This author can’t see anything wrong with the Garrick’s membership policy. In fact, it’s a positive good that men-only clubs exist. After all, the sexes are not indistinguishable and the dynamics of mixed-sex groups tend to differ from those of single-sex groups. Yes, it can be enjoyable to fraternise with men and women together. But it’s also pleasant to spend time in an all-male environment.

The Garrick’s critics, however, aren’t convinced. They make two main arguments against the club’s “antediluvian” membership policy (to quote former Garrick-member and aspiring gender activist Simon Case).

The first is that it’s unfair, unequal and downright non-inclusive for the club to bar women from membership. This is the weaker of the two arguments. Why? Well, if it’s “unfair” for the Garrick to bar women, then pretty much all single-sex associations have to go. That includes sports teams, lesbian bars and mosques (which are often segregated by sex). Some anti-Garrick campaigners might welcome this change, but many would not.

What’s more, even if the club did start admitting women, it’s membership policy would still be deeply “unfair”. Let’s be frank: 99.9% of the population are ineligible by virtue of being too poor and socially irrelevant. The quibble is over whether the female part of the remaining 0.1% should get to join. A move to allow women members would not be some grand victory for “equality” and “inclusiveness”, since the overwhelming majority of women (and men) would still be excluded.

Note that “0.1%” is surely generous on my part. The Garrick’s current roster has around 1,500 names – which amounts to just 0.002% of the population. And there’s apparently a ten year waiting list for new members. Whether a handful of high-powered women should get to join an ultra-exclusive dinner club is hardly the burning civil rights issue of our time.

The second anti-Garrick argument is slightly more compelling: women in professions like law and politics are disadvantaged with respect to their male peers, since they can’t mingle with senior judges and cabinet ministers in the Garrick’s hallowed halls. As the nominally Conservative MP Caroline Nokes opined, “It’s wrong in today’s society to have places that are still so pivotal to the establishment that exclude 51% of the population”.

There are several objections to this argument. In the words of one anonymous current member, the club is “very much not a networking venue”, with business meetings being specifically banned. While I’m sure the occasional favour gets exchanged across the dinner table, that’s explicitly not what the club is for.

Moreover, women aren’t actually barred from attending the Garrick but merely from becoming members. So the extent of their supposed disadvantage is rather limited (though they do have to be formally invited, which I suppose could be prohibitive for some).

Put all that to one side. There’s a stronger objection to the argument outlined above: The Guardian’s own reporting clearly demonstrates the club is not “pivotal” to any single profession let alone the entire establishment. Going by the numbers given here, Garrick members comprise: 8% of Supreme Court judges; 14% of Court of Appeal judges; 6% of High Court judges; 7% of KCs; and just 1.5% of MPs. The percentage of Lords who are members can’t be computed as the article simply refers to “dozens”. There are 792 Lords in total.

In other words, 86–94% of senior lawyers are not members and 98.5% of MPs are not members. To insist the fate of the nation is being decided at 15 Garrick Street is preposterous.

If membership were limited to senior male lawyers, say, and a large percentage of them were members, the argument that female lawyers are at a disadvantage might have some merit. But this plainly isn’t the case: the overwhelming majority of senior male lawyers are not members. Any professional advantage conferred by membership is enjoyed only by the few dozen men who happen to have been elected.

Now, you can claim it’s unfair that those specific men get to consort with one another at a swanky venue in Covent Garden, but that’s entirely different from claiming that women face a disadvantage compared to men. And then you’re just objecting to the fact of life that some people are more connected than others.

The Garrick isn’t some public body that is obligated to elect anyone who’s sufficiently “important” regardless of their personal characteristics. It’s a private members’ club whose purpose is to provide those members with merriment. And if maintaining the club’s long-standing traditions is what best achieves that purpose in the eyes of members, then it should keep on keeping on. The arguments against the Garrick don’t stack up.

Tags: Garrick ClubThe GuardianWoke

Donate

We depend on your donations to keep this site going. Please give what you can.

Donate Today

Comment on this Article

You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.

Sign Up
Previous Post

Rows Over Nike’s New England Kit and a Chip Shop Mural Reveal the Woke War on Our National Flags

Next Post

World’s First Inquiry into Excess Deaths Established by Australian Parliament

Subscribe
Login
Notify of
Please log in to comment

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

15 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

DONATE

PODCAST

Episode 36 of the Sceptic: Karl Williams on Starmer’s Phoney Immigration Crackdown, Dan Hitchens on the Assisted Suicide Bill and Tom Jones on Reform’s Local Council Challenge

by Richard Eldred
16 May 2025
0

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

Chinese ‘Kill Switches’ Found in US Solar Farms

15 May 2025
by Will Jones

News Round-Up

16 May 2025
by Richard Eldred

Spy Agency Report on the Alleged “Extremism” of AfD Turns Out to Be So Stupid That it Destroys all Momentum for Banning the Party

16 May 2025
by Eugyppius

The Folly of Solar – a Dot on the Horizon Versus a Blight on the Land

16 May 2025
by Ben Pile

Civil Servants Threaten to Strike Over Trans Ban in Women’s Lavatories

16 May 2025
by Will Jones

The Folly of Solar – a Dot on the Horizon Versus a Blight on the Land

29

Civil Servants Threaten to Strike Over Trans Ban in Women’s Lavatories

26

Spy Agency Report on the Alleged “Extremism” of AfD Turns Out to Be So Stupid That it Destroys all Momentum for Banning the Party

19

News Round-Up

18

Chinese ‘Kill Switches’ Found in US Solar Farms

27

Trump’s Lesson in Remedial Education

16 May 2025
by Dr James Allan

Spy Agency Report on the Alleged “Extremism” of AfD Turns Out to Be So Stupid That it Destroys all Momentum for Banning the Party

16 May 2025
by Eugyppius

The Folly of Solar – a Dot on the Horizon Versus a Blight on the Land

16 May 2025
by Ben Pile

Renaud Camus on the Destruction of Western Education

15 May 2025
by Dr Nicholas Tate

‘Why Can’t We Talk About This?’

15 May 2025
by Richard Eldred

POSTS BY DATE

March 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Feb   Apr »

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union
  • Home
  • About us
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy

Facebook

  • X

Instagram

RSS

Subscribe to our newsletter

© Skeptics Ltd.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In

© Skeptics Ltd.

wpDiscuz
You are going to send email to

Move Comment
Perfecty
Do you wish to receive notifications of new articles?
Notifications preferences