Jo Arden on why we still need women-only clubs like WACL…
It might seem contrary for one single gender club commenting in anything but supportive terms about the existence of another. But Amelia Gentleman’s analysis of The Garrick Club this week in The Guardian, reminds us that we have a long way to go as women fighting for equality.
For context (because let’s face it, there’s no chance that any women reading this are members), The Garrick Club was founded in 1831 so that ‘‘actors and men of refinement and education might meet on equal terms”. It was founded as a gentleman’s club and so it remains, claiming 1300 of the most distinguished ‘actors and men of letters in England’. It does not offer membership to women.
Over the years the club has come under fire for its single sex policy. Views vary on this stance, from it being merely a bit stuffy to being misogynistic. The Guardian has been publishing articles about the matter since 1966. Even amongst The Garrick’s own members it is a hot(ish) topic. The last vote on whether to accept women members garnered a 50.5% positive response, a majority but not the two thirds majority needed to make a change. We could roll our eyes and move on, we do after all have our own clubs as women now, WACL being one of a burgeoning number. But it’s not so much that the women are not there, it is more about specifically which men are.
Amelia Gentleman dives into the member list, exposed for the first time in The Guardian (18th March 2024). It is, as the article promises, ‘a roll-call of the British establishment. Influential, powerful men from the arts, media, law, finance, and the Civil Service as well as both the House of Lords and the House of Commons come together at the Garrick. The rule book prevents business from being conducted at the club and some members use that to defend against suggestions that the male-only policy contributes to cronyism and disadvantages women.
That is exactly what this kind of club does. It excludes women from the intimate, off-the record influence which has paved the way for a white male elite for centuries. It is protectionist bigotry. We need to think seriously about whether men who lead our businesses, arts, the law and especially those who a 51% female electorate vote to lead our country have all of our best interests at heart when they continue to be members. Their continued patronage of the club suggests a certain equivocation about exactly how equal they believe things should be. As they say, a principle isn’t a principle until it costs you a game of Billiards and a selection of fine wines.
Every year there is a debate about whether it is right that WACL is still single gender. Younger women who might not have yet experienced the glass ceiling, whose careers started when we already had gender-pay gap reporting, maybe who work in businesses with female leaders, rightly question the relevance of a club which is made up of women for all women. WACL exists to accelerate gender equality for all women – we are making progress, in small ways and big. But the existence of the Garrick Club is a reminder that women are still excluded from all kinds of tables: whether that is figuratively in boardrooms, or literally in a private members club in Covent Garden. Their rules exclude, and until we are at every table where decisions are made that affect the lives of women, we need our own clubs. The Garrick has been excluding women for almost twice as long as WACL has existed – clearly, we still have a lot more to do.
About the author
Ogilvy UK