What part of "Private Gentlemen's Club" is hard to understand?

Private gentlemen’s clubs are known for being exactly that: private and full of gentlemen. The whole concept is very 19th century – which is when most of them were founded of course – but two centuries and several suffragettes later, it looks like nothing much in that world is going to change.  
Especially at the Travellers Club, in Pall Mall. 
Its members were asked to finally put the ‘women’s issue’ to rest by voting on whether they wanted to permit female members to the club. A surprisingly large 40 per cent said yes, but they failed to win a majority, with the remaining 60 per cent voting no. Us pesky women will still only be allowed to attend the club as guests of male members. [Didact: And thank the Lord for that. At least common sense prevailed in this case.]
The reasons for women's continued exclusion that crop up in the whopping 8,000 word report on the matter, commissioned by chairman Anthony Layden (just so you get an idea of the clientele, he is the former British ambassador to Morocco and Libya), are nothing if not mind-blowing. 
One member wrote of his avid fear of letting women in: “The male congeniality of the bar and [smoking room] would be destroyed. Hen parties would appear and shrill voices be heard.” 
Good god – shrill voices? I say, shall we ban women from the entire capital?! 
Another concerned member said: “My experience of the club table at the Oxford and Cambridge Club, where one does unfortunately encounter lady members, is that their presence leads to very different and far less enjoyable themes of conversation. 
Raising the children perhaps? Gender inequality and sexism? Oh, I’m sure this gentleman wouldn’t know about anything of the sort. He’s probably just frightened the ladies will spend all night discussing periods and lipstick.
But, apart from shrill voices, hen dos and girl talk, why is it that these gentlemen don’t want women to join their ranks? Is it because of old-fashioned, unfounded and sexist fears – or do they have some legitimate reasons for wanting their single-sex space? [Didact: Yes, let's take a guess at that, shall we?]
I realise that it is rather too much to expect a feminist to grasp concepts like logic, reason, and common sense. Still, this particular young lady's inability to understand the obvious is nothing short of astounding- almost as astounding as that nose of hers.

Let us start with this absurd conceit that men should be forced to let women into their private spaces. This makes a complete mockery of the right to freedom of association- a right that must be earned by showing that one associates with responsible people who are not a detriment to society and civilisation, and a right that the feminist Ms. Sanghani would presumably defend at all costs when applied to women. If men form voluntary associations with each other and seek to associate only with those that they like and trust, that is their business. If those associates are male only, again, that is their business and theirs alone, as long as they do not commit violent acts of aggression or attempt to infringe upon the ability of others to live in peace. Any infringement of that right to voluntary association can, and should, rightly be met with retaliatory force.

Then we come to this notion that the author seems to have that the conversation and atmosphere in a gentlemen's club would be improved by having women invade the private and peaceful spaces of men. Apparently Madame Schnozz has never spent time around other women during a kaffeeklatsch. Back during my blue pill days, I used to endure that miserable experience quite frequently- I endure it every time I go back to the old country and spend an afternoon with my mother, visiting various friends and relatives. The amount of gossiping, banality, and utterly trivial conversation that goes on during those visits is enough to drive a saint to drink. (Since I am no saint, I take great pleasure in drinking.)

And that is from spending time with women my mother's age or older. When I visited my sister recently, I found myself spending time with her friends for considerable lengths of time. Let's just say that the conversation was neither deep nor meaningful- and it sure as hell wasn't relaxing. Is it really right and proper to force the introduction of such noisy, vapid, content-free discussion upon an environment where men can go to relax and unwind in solitude, quiet, and good company with good food and drink?

For that is what a gentleman's club is. These clubs provide a venue in which men might relax quietly, drink fine liquor, smoke if they choose (filthy habit, in my opinion), read good books, relax in comfortable chairs, play cards or billiards, and pass an evening in pleasant conversation with other men that they respect and admire, with the frankly priceless ability to speak and act as men. Clubs like these provide a badly needed avenue for men to unwind and recuperate after a hard day's work- that was their original purpose, anyway- and also provide a venue in which to conduct profitable business discreetly. No woman should ever be allowed to take that away.

The funniest thing about the whole article isn't actually in the article. Buried one third of the way down is a poll widget that allows readers to choose whether men's-only clubs are a good idea. A whopping 92% of respondents think that having single-sex clubs is a Good Thing. If ever there was a more resounding defeat of feminist stupidity, I have yet to see it.

The shrill, irritating whining of women like Ms. Sanghani notwithstanding, private men's-only clubs a great idea, and should be kept that way. And fortunately, most sensible people (a lot of them are likely men) seem to agree.


Popular Posts