The Garrick Club’s vote this week in favour of admitting women as members mattered. It mattered – and was the subject of widespread public debate – because the club’s prominence in London’s establishment landscape made its exclusion of women seem unjust and wrong. With a large number of senior judges and other public servants as members, it simply could not pass as just another club. Some might argue that this popularity speaks to its standing, others that it also brings responsibility.
The vote lifts a cloud from the club’s reputation, as did a similar vote by the Athenaeum in 2002. These places are not hole-in-the-corner institutions. In my view, the Garrick’s influence on Britain’s public life has been overstated. But privilege and influence are perceived, and that has been enough to make the club’s membership vulnerable to public scrutiny. That vulnerability was evident in the embarrassment some members felt at seeing the issue discussed outside the club’s walls. It was as if misogyny was a vice that dared not speak its name.
