‘Cuz it’s a private club, Honey

Yet the Garrick Club’s strictly male-only membership is now under threat
Now, a female lingerie tycoon has accused the famous gentleman’s club not only of having a sexist membership policy, but also treating women like “second class citizens”, and has launched a legal bid to force the club to accept female members for the first time in its 189-year history.
Emily Bendell, 39, from east London, has instructed lawyers to use UK Equality law to seek an injunction preventing the Club from "continuing to operate its discriminatory policy" which she claims is "unlawful” in a bid to force the club to overturn its ban on women members.
The founder and CEO of lingerie company, Bluebella, told The Telegraph: “This is where QC’s, politicians, journalists are – people of influence and power over our country, right in the middle of London, and it’s not okay that there’s no good reason, in my opinion, that women shouldn’t be members…
“We wouldn’t accept an exclusion like that on the grounds of race, so why should we accept it on gender?”

It’s called freedom of association. It’s right up there with freedom of speech and equality before the law as a cornerstone of a free and liberal society. You get to associate with who and how you wish. So does everyone else.

End of.

26 thoughts on “‘Cuz it’s a private club, Honey”

  1. “It’s called freedom of association. It’s right up there with freedom of speech and equality before the law as a cornerstone of a free and liberal society. You get to associate with who and how you wish. So does everyone else.”

    Yeah, right. As long as there are no more than 6 of you. National socialist bar stewards.

  2. If they win, I’m signing up at a ladies only gym. There’s a lot more of them than the odd old boys club.

  3. A while back there was a similar row about a private golf club. Same arguments on freedom of association, private property, etc. The members lost and were forced to take female members regardless. I am sure they got a warm welcome and a hearty stake.

    Dort angrily backed the attackers in that case, despite it being private proerty owned by the members, and with no sense of hypocrisy, then defended the council inflicting women-only nights for the council swimming baths, paid for by all council tax payers.

    Female Logic eh? Does not compute.

  4. “We wouldn’t accept an exclusion like that on the grounds of race”

    I saw a large building in Manchester with a sign saying “PAKISTANI COMMUNITY CENTRE”. Wonder how racially diverse its membership is?

  5. Are you still allowed to have a club where existing members hold a secret vote on each new entrant? (Presumably the term “blackballing” is no longer acceptable discourse.)

  6. “Why does she want to be a member of a club that doesn’t want her as a member?”

    Her target is Western civilization. Incremental disruption of the culture is the path.

  7. Reckon that pass was conceded long ago. No Irish. No blacks. No dogs. Once you lose that, you’ve lost the lot. Discrimination is binary. You allow it or you don’t

  8. El Draque Said:
    “Why does she want to be a member of a club that doesn’t want her as a member?”

    She can’t bear feeling left out, and would rather destroy it than allow it to continue as it is.

    Of course she could set up her own club but, as I’ve said before, people who complain like this can’t be bothered doing that.

  9. I remember seeing a documentary about the guy who owned the Eastenders booze shed in Calais. He was an East-end geezer who made a shedload of money, and he then set up his own private club for him & his mates because the other clubs wouldn’t have him. This lady could do the same but, as already pointed out, that’s not the point, is it?

  10. “It’s called freedom of association…..”

    And you, I’m afraid, are living in cloud cuckoo land if you belief that that right still exists. It’s almost half a century since that right was denied in legislation in the UK and more than that in the USA.

  11. The bitch has form.

    A businesswoman who thinks office romances should be regulated, and those between seniors and their subordinates should be banned, has been slammed by Good Morning Britain viewers – who dubbed her ‘patronising’ and a ‘snowflake’.

    Founder & CEO of Bluebella, Emily Bendell, from, London, claimed that relationships in the office need to be declared and there should be ‘guidelines’ surrounding them, arguing that there’s an ‘imbalance of power’ if an employee dates their boss.

  12. “It’s almost half a century since that right was denied in legislation in the UK and more than that in the USA.”

    Still legal in U.S.

    If your club has a high enough profile, you’ll be pestered by the press. The Augusta National admitted two women after years of pressure from the press. They weren’t legally obligated to.

  13. Can’t they self-identify as men? To get pass the membership committee?

    BoM4 – Chuck some mascara on and introduce yourself as ladette.

  14. I absolutely respect the right of anyone who wishes to live in a diverse, multicultural society being free to do so.
    Why do they have such a problem with me NOT wishing to do so?

  15. ‘has launched a legal bid to force the club to accept female members’

    BTW, proper clubs don’t ‘accept’ members. They invite people to join; you can’t apply to join. You get in because members want you in.

  16. Gamecock

    “Still legal in U.S.”

    So I can still refuse to serve blacks? School bussing was a figment of my imagination? All that civil rights legislation from the Sixties was for naught?

    Whatever the rights and wrongs of the above, you can’t claim that it doesn’t impinge on my freedom to associate with whom I wish.

  17. @Tim the Coder – September 9, 2020 at 9:14 am

    A while back there was a similar row about a private golf club. Same arguments on freedom of association, private property, etc. The members lost and were forced to take female members regardless.

    It was “The Honourable Company of Edinburgh Golfers” at Muirfield. They initially voted to continue to exclude lady members, but changed their minds at a second vote. This was because the R&A informed them that if they didn’t take females they would lose the option to be a course used to hold “The Open” – something conferring considerable kudos and not a little money!

    Essentially, they were blackmailed into it by the somewhat more “woke” R&A.

    I would have thought that a club as exclusive as “The Garrick” would only take members by invitation, not by application, so what’s to stop them stating that of course membership is open to all 97 sexes and genders? Just only inviting blokes to join.

  18. Tim the Coder: As you point out, it’s wicked for wicked males to exclude poor helpless females. But it is immoral for poor helpless females NOT to exclude wicked males.

  19. “School bussing was a figment of my imagination?”

    Your imagination is completely frigged.

    The subject is private clubs. Private clubs in the U.S. can discriminate against non-members.

    “So I can still refuse to serve blacks?”

    Sure. If you are in a private club and they are not members.

    It’s not a black thing. They won’t serve you, either.

  20. Gamecock

    The proximate cause of Tim’s post was in regard to a private members club, but he then went on to talk about freedom of association, which is as dead as a dodo.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *