The " Right " of Refusal !

A spat at the height of the judiciary has shone the light on Melbourne's elite "Gentleman's clubs " because they have not moved with the times and still refuse to admit women as members.  This has evoked a stinging criticism from the Victorian Court of Appeal President, Christopher Maxwell who deplored the fact that Supreme Court Justice Marilyn Warren had not been invited to become a club member - because of this " men only " rule.  Justice Warren is a woman !

This seems to be heading into confrontation because Justice Warren has declined an invitation to speak at one of these clubs because of this rule and Christopher Maxwell has knocked back a similar invitation because to accept would appear to be endorsing discrimination.

In the city of Melbourne several hallowed clubs have been a bastion of masculinity since the nineteenth century.  Membership is by " invitation only " and it is rumoured that in some instances a prospective entrant can be " black balled ".  Proposed members must get the approval of the existing membership by those members anonymously casting a white marble into a container.   Should a single member cast a black marble - the membership will be refused.

Many hallowed institutions that previously banned women from membership have changed their rules after attack from the feminist movement, but Federal sex discrimination laws make an exception for single sex clubs - and of course that also applies to women's clubs that exclude male membership.

Women's groups seem to be very vocal the moment any form of barrier  impedes their progress and they claim the " right " to legally remove obstacles.  There seems to be a vast imbalance in what is permissible when women prefer to restrict entry to their gender and what they will allow to happen in the male world.   It is also rare to find a male trying to tear down a female bastion to entry.

The barriers are often subtle.  Many weight loss clinics either hold " female only " sessions or are exclusively open to only women because their members prefer the sweaty business of exerting energy to be carried out in female company.   Many clubs and associations are concerned with women's issues and while their constitution does not exclude men, any male who tries to gain entry will be frozen out with unmistakeable signals that their presence is unwelcome.

What seems to be missing is the difference between excluding gender as a barrier to a trade or a profession and the right to gather together mutually in an atmosphere where the interests of a single gender predominate.   Coal mining was long deemed a male only trade and women were excluded from many professions until well into the twentieth century - and the armed services have only recently allowed women in combat roles.  In today's world, few avenues of earning a living are closed to the fair sex.

It seems grossly impertinent for women to demand entry to institutions which originally formed to provide a sanctuary for men to escape the needs that society imposed on the conduct of the sexes at mixed gatherings.  Subjects too delicate to be discussed in mixed company can be  freely expressed and many men who felt uncomfortable in the presence of women are able to gain stature and confidence by their absence.   They are able to make friendships without the complications that opposing sexes bring to those equations.  The clubs were a harmonious retreat where matters of men's interest predominate.

Today's feminists see any gathering of men as an affront to be attacked.  The gaining of membership is usually just the prelude to an entire change of the fundamentals to remove the attributes that men find appealing.  They see this as as a degree of "storming the castle" and instituting change that will make men walk away in droves.  Anything that appeals exclusively to men is an affront to women - and must be destroyed.

This attack on the Melbourne clubs seems to break new ground.  It seems to suggest that since a woman has become a Supreme Court Justice this elevation must automatically open all doors because of her standing.   It is noticeable that when Julia Gillard became Australia's first female prime minster there was no outcry to force her entry into these same clubs.  It seems that mere politics attains a lesser level of autocracy to the judiciary.

Australian law wisely differentiates between the world of commerce and the world  of social connections.  Both of the sexes have freedom to form their own associations if they so wish, provided that in doing so they do not provide barriers to the others advancement.  That is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future !