Why the Garrick Club was right to not allow female members
The decision by one of London's most famous members' clubs to not accept women members is an acknowledgment that men still want and need male-only spaces, says Martin Daubney
Men only: The Garrick Club in London Photo: REX
By
Martin Daubney
08 Jul 2015
The Telegraph
12 Comments
With all the “shock! horror! gasp!” predictability of the Greek people rejecting austerity, or a Tube strike during a major sporting event, outraged cries to ban men-only clubs are back in the news. Again.
This time it is the
Garrick Club in central London, which asked its male members to vote on allowing women through their sacred cat flap. Despite a majority 50.5 per cent of the old boys saying “yes” (the average age of members is 70) as club rules dictate a two-thirds majority is needed for now the hens will not be allowed in the cocks' enclosure.
The Guardian – of course – is upset about it, calling it “sad”.
The rest of us, however – the ones who don’t comb the world looking for “sexist” minutiae – might simply shrug, “So what? Who’d want to go in a club where the average age is that of a retirement home? And anyway, there are plenty of other places women can go, including
several in London”.
And you’d be dead right.
London’s
University Women’s Club hasn’t allowed men in since it opened in 1886, and to date there have been precisely zero protests from men.
As well as practically every place men are allowed into, there are considerably more women-only spaces these days than men’s – gyms, pools, saunas, spas, taxis and the bingo (OK the last one was a joke).
Again, there hasn’t been a single complaint from men.
Why would there be when, for most men, all-women gatherings are as enticing as a trip to the dentist? Most of us do our level best to avoid a dreaded girls’ night out, not because we’re misogynists, but because it just doesn’t interest us – and we appreciate the need for you to talk about “stuff”.
Here’s the thing: single-sex clubs and spaces are not and have never been illegal.
In 2010, when Labour introduced the Equality Act, they looked at making men-only spaces illegal, but, crucially, to do so they would have to make all women-only spaces illegal, too.
But they didn’t want to do that. Because that would be sexist.
So Labour – chief among them Harriet Harman – found themselves in a bit of a quandary: either they banned all single sex spaces, or allowed them all and told everyone to stop whingeing about it.
The equalities brigade can moan about it all they like – and, by jove, they do – but there’s absolutely nothing they can do about it, save for make noise, sign petitions and generally harass.
Their calls to ban men-only groups are a paper tiger. Yet men-only spaces are routinely drowned at birth if they are suggested.
For example, practically every University in Britain has a Women’s or Feminist Society, yet
men’s student groups are routinely blocked or even prohibited.
Women are banned from Johnny Shanahan's Barber Barber shops in Manchester and Liverpool. As a result, mad harridans started posting tampons through the letterbox of the Liverpool shop (Photo: The Vain Photography)
This tampon wielding hysteric would not get in Johnny Shanahan's Barber Barber shops … especially not with those locks
Last year, a Liverpool barber, Johnny Shanahan, was
accused of breaching equalities legislation for banning women from his shop.
There are precious few men-only spaces left, and even those - Pratt’s, Boodles, Brooks’s, the Turf Club and the Travellers Club - are beyond the reach of most of us.
What we need are more
mainstream men-spaces where we can go to simply relax, let off steam and be men.
Put a woman in a room and most men change: they posture, preen and pose. In single-sex groups, they still do that, but for a shorter time before we cut to the chase, and open up with honesty.
I see it in my work as Committee Member for the Southbank Centre's
Being A Man festival, where we agonised at great length before excluding women from certain sessions (addiction and intimate sexual matters).
But I also see it as a man, husband and father. Be it a simple “lads and dads” camping trip, a pint after a kickabout, a haircut at a traditional barber’s, "man time" is good for us. We need men-only spaces more than ever before. It’s not only cathartic, it could save our lives.
Garrick member Benedict Cumberbatch (Photo: Getty)
Martin Seager of the
Male Psychology Network told me recently that “When men have psychological issues, they don’t open up around women, because they feel guilty or weak. There are vast public health issues to do with men”.
We don’t have to strip to the waist and get all tantric about it. Just a simple pint and a “how are things going, mate?” is a start.
There is, however, one final, delicious payoff in the
Garrick affair. With joyous hypocrisy, posh totty Benedict Cumberbatch – of “This is what a feminist looks like” T-shirt fame – is a member.
Furthermore, he describes the Garrick’s library as “an oasis of quiet”. Could that solace be boosted by the fact that Mrs Cumberbatch is excluded?
See? Even one of Britain’s foremost male feminists likes some time away from his other half. Tell that to your missus next time she tries to clamp down on your man time.
Why the Garrick Club was right to not allow female members - Telegraph
Why are our universities blocking men's societies?
As another society for male students to address important issues is blocked, Martin Daubney asks why universities aren't taking male concerns seriously
Adam Frost: 'They told me I could have a men’s group, but only if it was a branch of the Fem Soc' Photo: Adam Frost / The Tab
By
Martin Daubney
16 Jun 2015
The Telegraph
409 Comments
A male Durham University student was so moved by the suicide of a close male friend that he felt compelled to start a society for other men who may need support – only to find it blocked by the Student Union this week for being too “controversial”.
When
Adam Frost, 21, a third-year Italian and French student, proposed the Durham University Male Human Rights Society, he was ridiculed on campus, with remarks such as “Isn’t this a bit like starting a society for white people’s rights?”
Adam told me: “Last October, a friend who was depressed reached out to me, but I didn’t know what to say. I tried to help, but two weeks later I found out he’d killed himself. That hit me hard. I started looking into male suicide and
found some shocking statistics. The reason behind that is that male depression isn’t taken seriously – we’re supposed to just ‘man up’ and deal with it. Men are ridiculed.
“It’s incredible how much stigma there is against male weakness. Men’s issues are deemed unimportant, so I decided to start a society.
“But it was rejected by [Durham's] Societies Committee; they said it was 'controversial' – and that my aims were 'too similar to those of Fem Soc [Feminist Society]'. That’s just not true. They told me I could have a men’s group, but only if it was a branch of the Fem Soc, which struck me as unacceptable.
“To show why, I went through the Fem Soc policy documents, where it specifically says, ‘Feminism exists for women’ and ‘it would be extremely unreasonable to expect this space to support and cater for the needs of men'.
Durham University (Photo: Alamy)
“So it’s ridiculous to say the Fem Soc can cater for the needs of men when in a sense it discriminates against men.
“[The documents] also state that society favours men and I don’t think that’s true – in terms of court sentencing, child supervision orders, cancer funding and, of course, suicide. There are also lots of affirmative-action initiatives to encourage women to get jobs in high-paid sectors.
“None of the Fem Soc's remit has anything to do with men’s issues. It doesn’t come on to their radar.”
Despite Adam making a powerfully eloquent and heartfelt case for a standalone men’s group, on Thursday, Durham University’s Societies Committee rejected his plea, telling him he could only operate from within the Feminist Society.
“Fem Soc have been great, and have offered to work with me, but I don’t think that’s satisfactory, as they don’t have men’s issues as a pressing goal,” he says. “That’s fair enough – so why can’t I set up a men’s group?
“To be clear, I’m not interested in waging ideological war against feminism and want to distance myself from those
MRAs and misogynists who seem to spend a disproportionate amount of time bashing feminism. I want to help men. Instead of just bitching about stuff on the internet I want to get into activism.
“Now, I’m left with the choice of setting up a society outside of the Student Union, but I won’t get any funding, will have to pay for rooms and won’t be able to book speakers without approval. It would just be guys in a café.
“It makes me incredibly disappointed in the system. It reinforces the idea that society doesn’t care about men’s issues."
When Telegraph Men asked for Durham's official take on the matter, Joely Charlton, the student union's activities officer, said: "All new society applications are considered against the same criteria. Where new groups have aims and objectives which overlap with existing groups, we recommend collaboration rather than the duplication of student groups.
"The male human rights application detailed overlapping aims and objectives with several existing student groups. We recommended that they attempt to work with some of those groups in the first instance."
But, to my mind, Durham’s refusal to allow Adam to start a men’s group follows a similarly depressing call made by
Staffordshire University in February, when the Men’s Rights Society was blocked by the university's Woman’s Network, who called it “dangerous”.
Similarly, men’s groups from as far afield as Australia, USA and Canada have been faced with similar Left-leaning, feminist-driven flak, making it feel like modern universities support diversity in all forms – so long as it isn’t male.
As a long-time advocate of men’s rights and a committee member at the
Being A Man Festival – which takes place later this year at the Southbank Centre in London, and which was set up to give modern men a forum to voice their concerns without fear of ridicule – Durham’s decision is retrograde and counterintuitive when, specifically, the biggest killer of young men is suicide. Men need to talk now more than ever – and we know they best achieve that in men-only environments.
Do we really live in a world where not offending university feminist societies is deemed more important than helping men in need?
And are universities becoming increasingly hostile towards men? The latest data from Ucas revealed that the gap between the number of female and male university applicants
rose to record levels last year; 2014 figures showed 58,000 more female admissions.
Widespread media reports of rampant "
lad culture" at universities, and the establishment of
compulsory consent classes at a number of institutions, helps create a stereotype that all male students are potentially dangerous sexual predators.
Banning or hamstringing societies that would encourage men to speak up on serious issues further adds to the growing perception that universities are becoming unwelcoming spaces for young men.
This itself is an important issue that male students at our universities should be talking about. And they shouldn't have to ask permission from their local Fem Soc first.
Why the Garrick Club was right to not allow female members - Telegraph
