X Close

Why would women want to join the Garrick anyway?

"Pass the port, old boy." Credit: Getty

May 8, 2024 - 10:00am

Following a vote last night, the previously all-male Garrick Club, founded in 1831, will now be opening its doors to women. No doubt this will be seen by those on the “progressive” Left as a great victory in the long battle against sexist, misogynistic Britain. For those on the Right who resist these impulses, it’s a sad day for the old-school male, no longer free to enjoy the exclusive company of his own kind. The Garrick vote may seem like a victory for proponents of a certain kind of gender equality, but is there really anything here worth celebrating — or crying over, for that matter?

Back in the Eighties when I joined the Groucho Club in Soho, we assumed that those old, stuffy, reactionary gentlemen’s clubs such as the Garrick, White’s and the Travellers Club were places of the past. Those Colonel Blimp figures had no place in modern, multicultural Britain — a country that thanks to Tony Blair and the New Labour project at the end of the Nineties was rebranded as Cool Britannia.

Now the Garrick has been rebranded by this vote, in which 60% of members elected to admit women. The club’s break with its single-sex past means it can no longer be accused of misogyny. Fresh blood — from a new wave of women members reportedly including classicist Mary Beard and former home secretary Amber Rudd — will give the club a new lease of life and kudos. Thanks to progressive-minded feminists, the Garrick might even be seen as respectable.

The Garrick is supposed to be where Britain’s power elite come to meet and make deals and connections. It’s full of High Court judges, top barristers, politicians, the head of MI6 (until recently, at least), members of the House of Lords, the heads of arts organisations, famous actors, journalists and even King Charles.

So isn’t it a sign of progress that women can now join the power elite? Not exactly. For the Garrick has not suddenly become a club for women; rather, it is a club for a certain type of woman. Successful, affluent, socially ambitious — the kind who longs to appear on one of those annual “50 Most Powerful Women in Britain” lists and who dreams of dinner with Helena Kennedy.

The new-look Garrick may be a little less male, but its establishment mindset won’t exactly disappear overnight. Under the fig leaf of inclusive feminism, clubland really has nothing to fear.

I’ve always thought it odd that a so-called gentlemen’s club like the Garrick could be so ungentlemanly as to reject the company of women. No true gentleman would do that. But the question that has been missing from the whole debate is this: why would any woman, or any man for that matter, want to join a club of such crusty old squares? Garrick men wear the club’s salmon-pink and cucumber ties and never trim their nose hair! And do women really want to get cornered by Sting or Jacob Rees Moog as they discuss tantric sex or the benefits of Brexit, respectively?

There’s a small group of elite women whose names had been put forward for membership over the years, including Joanna Lumley and Mary Ann Sieghart. (The latter was refused membership but settled for lunch instead. Has she no pride?)  I do not understand why so-called feminists and progressives would like to join — such as Mary Beard, who has said: “I have enjoyed my visits to the Garrick and would love to become a member.” This is the place where there remains a large number of men — 40%, going off last night’s vote — who don’t want you there because you’re a woman. Isn’t that enough to put you off for life?


Cosmo Landesman is a journalist and editor.

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.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

38 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments