Demanding that a club admits women doesn’t stop men from meeting to talk shit about football, organise a golf trip or tell bad jokes while getting a bit drunk
I'm worried about the erosion of mutual status here as well. I've got a vested interest, but the ability of a group of people to act as an incorporated org, if they so choose by e.g. getting a bank account in the name of the group not an individual member, is very useful.
Mutual structures, associations, etc. give people access to wider infrastructure that individuals are excluded or 'protected' from. It allows people to own something as a community in a way that's not dependent on some single patron who's willing to take on large financial risks / responsibilities.
The government can't mandate that the Garrick changes their membership policy without also creating precedents for ending mutuals' operational freedom.
It's like when anywhere with a bunch of men, with wives and girlfriends also there, if a bunch of men start laughing a woman always makes her way over to find out why.
I'm worried about the erosion of mutual status here as well. I've got a vested interest, but the ability of a group of people to act as an incorporated org, if they so choose by e.g. getting a bank account in the name of the group not an individual member, is very useful.
Mutual structures, associations, etc. give people access to wider infrastructure that individuals are excluded or 'protected' from. It allows people to own something as a community in a way that's not dependent on some single patron who's willing to take on large financial risks / responsibilities.
The government can't mandate that the Garrick changes their membership policy without also creating precedents for ending mutuals' operational freedom.
It's like when anywhere with a bunch of men, with wives and girlfriends also there, if a bunch of men start laughing a woman always makes her way over to find out why.