• 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
Jon Garvey
Jon Garvey
1 year ago

When my Cambridge college produced a Who’s Who of members, there was a category for “club,” and I was surprised how many of my erstwhile chums were members of these London joints. I wasn’t particularly miffed at having been left out of the Inner Circle all my adult life, but I had the distinct impression I wouldn’t get away with claiming membership of the Tufty Club.

That said, my wife’s academic cousin has occasionally met us in London for lunch at her club – which is exclusively female.

34
0
huxleypiggles
huxleypiggles
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon Garvey

“which is exclusively female.”

So you had to trannie up presumably?

28
-2
RW
RW
1 year ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

😅

3
0
huxleypiggles
huxleypiggles
1 year ago

Off – T

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/this-psychotic-denial-of-the-vaccine-link-to-cancer/

Neville Hodgkinson at TCW firmly presenting the case that the jibbies are causing a cancer explosion.

Tell me about it.

25
0
varmint
varmint
1 year ago

The same Guardian readers would probably be ok with that theatre we saw on DS last week that invited blacks only so they could avoid the “white gaze” . —–In the Equality Diversity Gender Race and Climate wars, you can spot hypocrites at 40 paces.

76
0
Mogwai
Mogwai
1 year ago
Reply to  varmint

To be fair, I dread to think how much a vodka, lime and soda would cost in this joint ( and I laugh in the face of a piddly single measure🍸😏 ) therefore zero rodent butts are given from this quarter. I’ll take a Whetherspoons or good old spit and sawdust traditional pub over poncey exclusive watering holes any time.

30
-2
varmint
varmint
1 year ago
Reply to  Mogwai

Yep but it is their club, they can invite who they want and pay 20 quid for a shandy if they like. —–Let’s not give any ammunition to the likes of the Guardian

29
0
Marcus Aurelius knew
Marcus Aurelius knew
1 year ago
Reply to  Mogwai

Exactly, mogs. And if the only way these men can meet up with their male pals is by paying a fortune for said poncy club, then they really can’t be all that special, can they?!

Last edited 1 year ago by Marcus Aurelius knew
2
-2
godknowsimgood
godknowsimgood
1 year ago
Reply to  varmint

How would they tell the difference between a ‘black’ person with brown skin and a white person with a tan?

8
0
sskinner
sskinner
1 year ago
Reply to  varmint

40 paces? A mile!

2
0
JXB
JXB
1 year ago

And here we are today with woman demanding spaces just for women.

”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.”

Which is what it is really about, the usually gobby, me-me-me wimmin, wanting privileges that lower rank wimmin don’t have.

Remember the Suffragettes – equal rights for women? Except: they were agitating for voting rights for upper & middle class women, saying that working class women would not have the intelligence, learning or wider experience to be able to make important decisions about who should govern.

Funny old World.

24
-5
huxleypiggles
huxleypiggles
1 year ago
Reply to  JXB

Annie Kenney, born in Oldham 1879 went to work in a cotton mill at the age of ten. She certainly was campaigning for votes for working class women.

10
-1
DHJ
DHJ
1 year ago

On the second argument: so the legal profession is simply corrupt but women are being excluded from attaining a level of corruption open to their male peers?

Has The Guardian done the Freemasons?

11
0
sskinner
sskinner
1 year ago

In London there are women only clubs and according to The Sybarite the following are the top five:
1. The University Women’s Club “A haven in London for educated women”
2. The Allbright “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other”
3. The Sorority “What belongs to you will come to you, when you create the capacity to receive it.”
4. The Trouble Club “She was looking for Trouble, and she found it”
5. The Merit Club “We are not a women-in-business network”

I’m male (pronouns Oi/Mate) and will never get into the Garrick and so what? Networking has been important to me but first comes competence in something which creates a reputation, which then leads to networking. My old Clarinet teacher (Principle BSO) told the story about a clarinettist that, in his own words, ‘talked my way into the profession, and played my way out’.

Last edited 1 year ago by sskinner
8
0
Jackthegripper
Jackthegripper
1 year ago

I hope the Garrick sticks to its male only membership policy. I enjoy the company of women, but there are occasions I want to get away from their constant wittering and spend time talking about bloke stuff to blokes without having to keep mansplaining to the weaker sex.

11
0

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

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

DONATE

PODCAST

The Sceptic | Episode 45: Jack Hadfield on the Anti-Asylum Protests, Alan Miller on the Tyranny of Digital ID and James Graham on the Net Zero Pension Threat

by Richard Eldred
25 July 2025
0

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

News Round-Up

25 July 2025
by Richard Eldred

Gradually, Then Suddenly: The Death Throes of a Regime

25 July 2025
by Dr David McGrogan

Report on Black Maternity Experiences Blames “Racism” Without Evidence

24 July 2025
by Dr Roger Watson

White Britons Are Right to Resist Becoming a Minority

24 July 2025
by Charlie Cole

Britain Could Be Sued Over Climate Change, Says UN Court

24 July 2025
by Will Jones

White Britons Are Right to Resist Becoming a Minority

48

Report on Black Maternity Experiences Blames “Racism” Without Evidence

29

News Round-Up

17

Half of Public Think Islam is Incompatible with British Values

14

Gradually, Then Suddenly: The Death Throes of a Regime

13

Gradually, Then Suddenly: The Death Throes of a Regime

25 July 2025
by Dr David McGrogan

Wind Power Price Soars 11% as Government’s Promise to Cut Bills by £300 Fails to Materialise

25 July 2025
by Ben Pile

Report on Black Maternity Experiences Blames “Racism” Without Evidence

24 July 2025
by Dr Roger Watson

White Britons Are Right to Resist Becoming a Minority

24 July 2025
by Charlie Cole

Twice as Many People Work in Environment ‘Charities’ Than in Wind Power Generation: ONS Report Reveals Shocking Truth About UK’s ‘Green Jobs’

24 July 2025
by Chris Morrison

POSTS BY DATE

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

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

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

POSTS BY DATE

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

DONATE

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

News Round-Up

25 July 2025
by Richard Eldred

Gradually, Then Suddenly: The Death Throes of a Regime

25 July 2025
by Dr David McGrogan

Report on Black Maternity Experiences Blames “Racism” Without Evidence

24 July 2025
by Dr Roger Watson

White Britons Are Right to Resist Becoming a Minority

24 July 2025
by Charlie Cole

Britain Could Be Sued Over Climate Change, Says UN Court

24 July 2025
by Will Jones

White Britons Are Right to Resist Becoming a Minority

48

Report on Black Maternity Experiences Blames “Racism” Without Evidence

29

News Round-Up

17

Half of Public Think Islam is Incompatible with British Values

14

Gradually, Then Suddenly: The Death Throes of a Regime

13

Gradually, Then Suddenly: The Death Throes of a Regime

25 July 2025
by Dr David McGrogan

Wind Power Price Soars 11% as Government’s Promise to Cut Bills by £300 Fails to Materialise

25 July 2025
by Ben Pile

Report on Black Maternity Experiences Blames “Racism” Without Evidence

24 July 2025
by Dr Roger Watson

White Britons Are Right to Resist Becoming a Minority

24 July 2025
by Charlie Cole

Twice as Many People Work in Environment ‘Charities’ Than in Wind Power Generation: ONS Report Reveals Shocking Truth About UK’s ‘Green Jobs’

24 July 2025
by Chris Morrison

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