Everyone is contributing their opinion about the Garrick. Is the Garrick able to admit women as members? If not, ought it to do so on principle? If principle is unforthcoming, then should it do so as a result of the intrusive harassment of the Guardian newspaper? It is tempting to make mock, as the whole debate is a bit of a swirl in a latte mug. But the world à la mode is always a bit like this. Teacups storm; then twitter storms; somewhere or other there is reputation-destruction or old fashioned scapegoating, and the world continues on its way.
The Garrick, if I understand the story, requires a two-thirds majority to change the rules; but some lawyers have counselled that the rules already permit women to be admitted as members. What is odd is that the issue has arisen in an atmosphere of moral affront and certainty worthy of Miller’s Crucible. Sting will resign. He will not stand so close to anyone refusing to admit women as members. So will Stephen Fry. He will use the Garrick as his washpot instead of Moab. So will Mark Knopfler, on the grounds that the argument wouldn’t be convincing enough if only one Geordie musician chimed in. Why aye, there have to be two of them – and in harmony. They don’t want the Garrick to be money for nothing and the chicks for free: they want the chicks to pay their fees too.
This – the Garrick – is a thorny subject. Boris Johnson wrote about it in the Mail, though he seems to have written his piece with a certain someone looking over his shoulder. Everyone in the world knows that Boris has two hands, neither of which knows what the other is doing unless it reads the other’s copy. One hand wrote: 1. Don’t force the Garrick to admit women as members. The other hand wrote: 2. The Garrick should admit women as members. Let us try to be of sterner stuff: which, in the first instance, means writing without imagining that the thorn in the flesh is looking over one’s shoulder.
As usual, the only way to make sense of this is to relate it to the longest possible history. A few centuries ago there was nothing wrong with men spending time with men. The world was full of monasteries, colleges, guilds, clubs, associations: and latterly the great London clubs, which were formidable in the 19th Century. The Reform was founded in 1836 – it admitted women in 1981. The Athenaeum was founded in 1824 – it admitted women in 2002. The Carlton was founded in 1832 – it admitted women in 2008. The Garrick was founded in 1831 – and it hasn’t caught up with the fashion yet. Suddenly, the Guardian has got out its moral spray can, and everyone from Simon Case downwards has had to signal his particularly conformist virtue by resigning or threatening to resign or resigning.
I have no axe to grind. I am not a member of a club. Peter Avery, an old Persianist, once suggested that I should join a club. And David Barchard, former FT correspondent to Turkey, was surprised when I said I had nowhere to stay in London. They were clearly fooled by my massive forehead, respectable dress and severe deportment into thinking I was someone who would value such things. Well, not so. I was never very clubbable: I was in fact ‘his own man’, as was sometimes said disapprovingly in my wake. But there is a principle at stake, as usual, and I suppose it is always worth offering a word for the sake of a principle, even an obsolete one.
The question is whether all our institutions are – to use the now famous Gramscian phrase – to suffer from the long march of women through them. And whether – rare question (noblesse oblige requires its not being asked in mixed company) – it is good for all our institutions to have the hand of the gentler sex on the keys, the till and the rulebook. Let us be sceptical – maybe it is, maybe it is not – and let us also marvel at a world in which everyone, including our great celebrities of the 1980s, suddenly find they all agree on the most pressing controversy of the age.
The principle is to do with truth. Like many others, I think ‘the truth’ has always had a vexed status in the world: but that it seemed to count for very little, very suddenly, in 2020. Why was this? Well, one obsolete possibility is that it had something to do with all the women in the room.
On August 6th, 1831, Samuel Taylor Coleridge said the following:
There is the love of the good for the good’s sake, and the love of the truth for the truth’s sake. I have known many, especially women, love the good for the good’s sake; but very few, indeed, and scarcely one woman, love the truth for the truth’s sake. Yet without the latter, the former may become, as it has a thousand times been, the source of persecution of the truth – the pretext and motive of inquisitorial cruelty and party zealotry.
This is fascinating. It might be true, or not true – even though it might not be considered good. Discuss. But one cannot discuss it unless it is said. And one can imagine it being said in the historic Garrick. But one cannot imagine it being said in the current Garrick or the Garrick of the future if Stephen Fry, Gordon Sumner, John Simpson and Mark Knopfler are to have their way.
Samuel Taylor Coleridge was rather clubbable: he liked talking at great length, though, according to Madame de Stäel, he lacked a capacity for conversation: being a monologist. (Read Coleridge’s Table Talk, which is incredible.) D.H. Lawrence, on the other hand, was not particularly clubbable. He visited Cambridge once, met Russell and Keynes, and thought of spiders. He married Frieda and spent most of his life in exile with her – Italy, Australia, New Mexico. He considered the most fundamental relation in the universe to be the one between a man and woman in marriage.
But even though this was the case, he had a hankering after something else. Birkin’s last words in Women in Love are “I don’t believe that” when Ursula tells him that the love of a woman is enough. And in Kangaroo, the female character cries when the male talks about sharing activity with men: “Her greatest grief was when he turned away from their personal human life of intimacy to this impersonal business of male activity.” This impersonal business of male activity. Notice the binary here: Lawrence associated masculinity with impersonality and femininity with personality. Discuss. Or, let’s say, if you are reading this silently (and not out loud over oysters and champagne to the women in your clubroom), Consider.
I suppose I have to be provocative and suggest that if there is such a thing as ‘impersonal male activity’, and that if this is valuable, then it may be difficult for this to be understood in a modern world in which women are marching at length through our institutions and revising the rules of those institutions in relation to an inability to respect or understand ‘impersonal male activity’. Now, this ‘impersonal male activity’ might be a bit foolish, like the braggarting of boys. Peter Martland, the historian, once told me that Corpus Christi College, Cambridge changed immediately as soon as women were admitted. The dining hall had formerly been a place at which more food was transported by sporting projection than by tray: now it became a genial and genteel café of chivalry and courtship. But sometimes this ‘impersonal male activity’ might be extremely important: especially if Coleridge is right and men will occasionally consider setting aside the ‘good’ for the sake of the ‘true’.
COVID-19 was an exquisite exhibition of the politics of the (apparent) ‘good’ triumphing over any concern with ‘truth’. And when I say ‘triumphing’ I am alluding to the grotesque display of glorification, intimidation and humiliation which was found in the original Roman triumph. See Mary Beard for details. There were women who were critical of the pandemic protocols (not, however, Mary Beard): the ones I admired were Laura Dodsworth, for investigating ‘nudge’, and Laura Perrins, for unlimited moral scorn. But even they were better at observing what was ‘not good’ rather than what was ‘true’. I imagine that many readers of the Daily Sceptic relied on podcasts – and mostly podcasts involving conversation between men. As everyone knows, the BBC has long insisted that there is no such thing as broadcastable conversation between men. There must be a woman in the room. Is it not significant that there was, and is, a taste (at least among men) for conversation between men – conversation with risk of boredom, since it has impersonality in it, but conversation also with risk of truth? London Calling, the Lotus Eaters, Louder with Crowder offered male conversation and something like a proper scale of values, not wholly created by the situation. For me, the most significant encounters of the pandemic were Delingpole-and-Yeadon and Weinstein-and-Malone: they convinced me that everything was worse than I thought (as if the surface of reality was not bad enough): and, in those conversations, even if the truth was not known, the truth was spoken about as if it mattered more than anything else.
I doubt the fuss about the Garrick is of any importance. There is a great moral fear of not being ‘egalitarian’ among our elites. And so they are falling like dominoes or playing cards: pretending that their collapse is a consequence of morality. But there is a principle at stake, and even if this principle is not one anyone is likely to defend or even consider nowadays – on the grounds that it is ‘not good’ to consider it – there is an awkward question about whether our civilisation is not in danger for yet one more reason, which is that in our institutions we seem disinclined to let men talk about anything without a woman somehow being involved.
What is truth? Does anyone care about truth? Is there a possibility that truth has been completely mechanised into ‘my truth’? If so, this means that when we talk about ‘truth’ nowadays we are actually talking about something that is ‘good’ in some respect – possibly only good for the speaker, though admittedly also possibly objectively good – but certainly not ‘true’.
Dr. James Alexander is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at Bilkent University in Turkey.
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.
You ain’t seen nuthin yet.————- Soon it will be won by a fox. And it will be a crime if you mis-pronoun the alleged fox and don’t allow it into the chicken coop to send the feathers flying.
I was just considering where we likely sit on the Wokeness curve.. Thinking we must surly be very near the peak..
Then I read your post and you may well be right.. There will be no end to this utter absurdity..
How has a minority achieved the unachievable
So let’s just make this clear..the agenda really is to erase half of the human race..women. They can pretend it is not, but it is.
A misogynist in a frock..is still a misogynist…..
This isn’t just a barmy idea..they now have hormones and medication to make a man lactate..even though it appears unhealthy for the baby..why would they care?
It’s not about the children, it’s about them….similarly, babies are already made in test tubes….and artificial wombs/uterus are being made which would allow for ‘extra corporeal pregnancy’..why would these men need women at all…?
Make no mistake this is a very real and serious problem and we must all defend real women, their spaces, whether it be hospital wards, toilets or prisons, and never allow these people to take a real woman’s place..in anything…..
P.S the Russian Miss Universe meanwhile..who is beautiful..unlike the Netherlands horse teeth person…is being persecuted for being Russian…
world!!
Go figure the hypocrisy and utter stupidity?…..!!
https://www.insider.com/miss-russia-says-miss-universe-pageant-competitors-avoided-her-biased-2023-1
Although I’m in total agreement that it’s farcical that an imposter usurped all of these more worthy and legit women I still think what a totally pointless competition that should’ve been scrapped donkey’s years ago. I mean, beauty contests? A bit Butlins circa 1972 isn’t it??
Agreed. This is one thing they are welcome to.
And this bloke wasn’t even particularly good-looking.
I’m wondering if any of these strange, exotic creatures have managed to enveigle a straight man into a relationship after the initial shock of discovery (or, once they open their mouths to speak?)
Wimbledon ! Ukraine woman beats Russian woman then refuses to shake her hand !
Glad it wasn’t just me that noticed the teeth straight away, he could open beer bottles with them. It seems pretty certain he only won to boost the organisers woke credentials.
Perhaps the lovely Jacinda in disguise?
Wasn’t so much the teeth (wot, no orthodontics???) as the (very male) shoulders, chest architecture (behind the drug induced breasts) and arm musculature that caught my eye. Probably hasn’t got much of an a*se either. That ain’t no dame, that’s for sure.
Ha, these guys are all over the shop, including infiltrating this site, as was evidenced very recently. From Robert Malone’s ‘stack, lots of very interesting links. We all know we’re being watched and surveilled, I just didn’t know to what extent. Reuters, Nov 2020;
”The British government considers tackling false information about immunization as a high priority as the prospect of a reliable vaccine against the coronavirus draws closer, the Times said.
A vaccine is seen as the world’s best bet for beating the COVID-19 pandemic that has led to more than 1.2 million deaths, roiled economies and disrupted billions of lives.
GCHQ is Britain’s main eavesdropping agency and has a close relationship with the U.S. National Security Agency, as well as the eavesdropping agencies of Australia, Canada and New Zealand in an intelligence alliance known as the “Five Eyes”.
“GCHQ has been told to take out antivaxers online and on social media,” the Times said, citing a source.
The report said the focus of the operation is taking down hostile state-linked content and disrupting the communications of the cyberactors responsible.”
https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/gchq-jtrig-five-eyes-and-covidcrisis
Many thanks for the link.
Just love them accusing Putin/Russia being the cause of and promoting antivaxxerism.
I confess. I’ve been a sleeper agent for about 40 years.
It’s laughable.
But it really isn’t.
It’s bloody serious.
You’re welcome and you’re right regarding blaming the Russians. Beyond farcical. I thought there was some very interesting material in that substack, particularly the stuff by Glenn Greenwald. It’s all extremely intricate and elaborate, which makes it all the more ominous I think. The lengths they’ll go to and the amount of psychology involved. Even the short vid at the end by The Guardian was quite revealing. I’ve certainly been enlightened anyway as I was pretty ignorant about all of this stuff.
The other day I posted this ( see below ) and it got removed, along with a couple of posts from other people. Not offensive in any way or breaking any sort of site rules. Still up on Twitter though so Elon is obviously OK with it. I was blaming the DS team but now, paranoia setting in, I’m not so sure;
https://twitter.com/_aussie17/status/1678032232521564160
It was clearly as rigged as many an election. Did these women really not see it coming?
I know which cult I’d prefer to be in.
Bloody spellchecker….
Women are being erased, femininity is being erased, masculinity is being erased, the family is being erased, humanity is being erased. Send like an attempt to destroy our civilisation.
Metrication, decimalisation and decriminalisation of male homosexual activity were early indicators of the deliberate destruction of England.
Yes this force is a dry one and cannot disguise its hatred of the female. But we are approaching the first step of identifying the enemy and so these preludes have to play out. Ultimately it is a merciful destiny and there is no other way for mass awakening to come about. Things are looking a lot better now than they were a year ago in that regard. It remans to be seen, that if for example a new scare were to appear – some terrifying disease for example, whether compliance would occur at the same level as it did three years ago.
It’s always been a numbers game, Kett knew this in 1549…
https://youtu.be/HwT7RtN44Fc
The Revolution will not be Televised
I liked his analysis. It is true but I don’t think that we are in some stasis point. It is incoceivable that world power arrangements will allow this to continue any longer because we, the West, have demomstrated our weakness to the point where collapse is inevitable. You could draw a positive from the last few years. In the sense that most of the peple now who are alert to this agenda weren’t in 2020. And these systems rely on high levels of compliance in order to function.
As long as women participate in these events they deserve no sympathy.
There was a time when a woman could look into a man’s eyes and he could provide her with some kind of leadership and he could get a reciprocal energy from her. Not long ago don’t throw it away or let it go. Doesn’t matter if you can’t get an erection anymore, there are solutions.
If you don’t write poetry you should.
You’re quite the bard.
Some men enjoy beating up and abusing women
Women have enjoyed a few decades of peace in the west
But men have found a great work around
Pretend they are women!
Unless women start working together
They’re stuffed…
And some women enjoy beating up and abusing men.
The highest levels of partner abuse exist in lesbian relationships.
Women have enjoyed a few decades of being able to utterly screw men financially and in terms of relationships with children when marriages end. (I have no personal experience of this but have male friends who have suffered and am capable of societal observation)
The time ahead isn’t pleasant by any measure. How do you even tell a person how much they have lost. If you can answer that question then you are a long way there.I think the young people are yearning for it anyway and humanity will find a way through.
Trust me when things get nasty and feral there will be few people who have time for transsexuals. I know when to button my lip and keep my mouth shut. If you don’t in a time like this then you will get what is coming to you.
Vaginas aren’t “front holes”. If a transgender wannabe male has a vagina surely it’s a manhole and any sanitary towels she uses are manhole covers.
Good one! Although I shudder to think what kind of fluid would issue forth into the manhole covers.
Similarly, I wonder what is going into the unfortunate babies at the receiving end of a ‘lactating’ male. Whatever it is, it’s probably laden with some sort of hormone; Dark Horse podcast were musing on this subject this week.
Truly looking forward to Novak’s victory in the Women’s Singles this weekend. Wonder if he can partner himself in the mixed doubles as well?
The conclusion is that we are in an abusive relationship with government and institutions.
That’s it in a nutshell! An abusive relationship!
There seems to be a lot of dismayed faces behind that imposter.
Interesting thought: when it comes time to replace said bloke whenever, will they be forced to replace with a similarly chemically induced bloke, then another and another? Because surely, if you replace an ungainly bloke with a beautiful woman, that would be transphobic, wouldn’t it? At the same time as being completely misogynistic – or will that have been fully legalised by then? And of course that would mean it’s Trans Universe, not Miss Universe, and become even more devoid of meaning than it currently is.
Still can’t quite take in that this is happening in my lifetime
I will never acknowledge anything other than male and female genders and if that upsets anyone that’s too bad!
I see this less as an attack on women as a further attack on men. Everything – and I mean everything – that men hold dear is being attacked. Men only clubs were the first to go, then everything else that men enjoy had to be destroyed often in the name of feminism – Star Wars, Bond, Indiana Jones etc. All had to be destroyed. Next they came for sport and demanded we pay as much attention to women playing sport as men. There are no safe spaces for men left. They came for beauty pageants before but never quite destroyed them, so they are trying again. Of course, ultimately, the idea is to utterly destroy western civilisation – all our norms and customs.