Right: Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls: `I remain to be convinced as to why organisations such as the Melbourne or Athenaeum clubs should continue to operate under separate rules from everybody else'.
.Arguments against single sex clubs
1. Single-sex clubs discriminate against the excluded gender (especially women)
It has been claimed that private clubs, in denying membership to either men or women, are discriminating against the excluded gender.
The Victorian Attorney General Mr Rob Hulls, has stated, 'One issue on which I suspect many Victorians would have more clarity, however, is the entitlement of private clubs to restrict membership on the basis of any attribute they find objectionable, such as gender, disability or religion. Discrimination laws currently don't apply to private clubs, which can ban women, or people of a certain religious faith, without any recourse.
I remain to be convinced as to why organisations such as the Melbourne or Athenaeum clubs should continue to operate under separate rules from everybody else. In this day and age, it's hard to imagine the value of a men's club too exclusive for the current Governor-General, Deputy Prime Minister, or Chief Justice of the Supreme Court...
It's important to articulate what we consider to be an unfettered fair go; what we consider to be, in all the competing circumstances, a fair cop; and what we believe is a no go.'
2. Single-sex clubs seek to foster influence and entrench privilege
Men's clubs are condemned as bastions of male privilege where wealthy and influential leaders in business, politics and academia network. Membership of such clubs is seen as a way of consolidating power while the exclusion of women from such clubs is believed to reduce their capacity to gain and exercise power.
Rachel Ball and Melanie Schleiger have argued, 'Men-only clubs may appear innocuous, but they are a significant obstacle to substantive equality for women.
The exclusionary nature of these clubs systematically deprives women from developing their career potential and breaking into powerful business, political and community networks.
Denying women equal access to these elite and powerful institutions also reinforces the stereotypical view that women are inferior as leaders and business professionals.
The significance of these exclusionary practices - and their endorsement in our laws - should not be underestimated.
Elite men-only clubs are not the same as the local women's gym or the Monday night tennis team.
Leaders from the corporate sector, politics and the law are invited to join - at least in part - because they occupy positions of power. If the Chief Justice of the Victorian Supreme Court and the Governor General of Australia were men, they would have automatically been invited to join the Australian Club.
This automatic invitation is not based on an assumption that all high office-bearers are great conversationalists. It is disingenuous to say that such clubs play no role in perpetuating discriminatory hierarchies.
Nor should we be placated by claims that discrimination against women is a 'non-issue'. In 2008, women in ASX 200 companies held only 2 per cent of CEO positions, chaired 2 per cent of boards and held 8.3 per cent of board director positions. Australia is failing to make progress.'
Philosopher and author, Damon Young, has similarly noted, 'What Hulls is getting at is something else: a patriarchal vision of the world, where men (usually rich, older and white) sit by the furnace of power, and shut the boiler room door on women. And he sees this, it seems, as a relic of the 19th century, with its strictly defined gender roles, and celebration of the rich, powerful, Anglo-Saxon gentleman.
Even if this were a caricature, there's no doubt that gentlemen's clubs do often attract wealthy, powerful men. And in doing so, they provide a forum for networking in an old-fashioned way - while business is off-limits, the atmosphere still provides the glue that keeps old boys together. In this, they're like sporting clubs and private schools, both of which remain tarnished by problems of misogyny and male aggression.'
3. Single-sex clubs are anachronisms
It has been claimed that in limiting themselves to a single-sex membership, these clubs are seriously out of step with contemporary reality, as men and women work together in most areas of modern life and women occupy prominent positions in all walks of life.
One-time member of The Anthenaeum, John Ridely, a former Victorian Liberal Party state director, has argued that the single sex clubs could not rightly continue to proclaim they are forums for Melbourne's civic, social, political and economic leaders when they exclude 50 per cent of the population.
The governor-general has traditionally been granted honorary membership of men's clubs such as the Athenaeum, however, Ms Bryce is currently denied membership because she is a woman. This is said to demonstrate how out of touch these clubs are. Their single sex-policies mean they are unable to have as members either the current Australian Governor-General or the current Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard.
The Deputy Prime Minister has claimed, 'Our institutions have not always looked forward. I'm sometimes tempted, on days when I am Acting Prime Minister, to go down to the Melbourne Club with our female Governor-General and apply for membership on the spot. But then again, it has been remarked that the second-most-common appendage at the Melbourne Club is a walking stick.'
It has also been suggested that it is unhealthy to have young members joining such clubs and thus perpetuating outdated attitudes.
One of those who quit the Athenaeum Club was the former diplomat, Ian Wilcock. Shortly afterwards he wrote, ' Particularly shocking to me was the attitude of younger members ... who are clearly unable to adjust to the world as it is and who seem to want to retreat to some kind of boys' tree house where they might be untroubled by half the human race.'
4. These clubs practice other forms of discrimination in addition to that based on gender
It has been claimed that many of the single sex clubs also practise discrimination based on class, religion and ethnicity. In particular some of these clubs are said to be prejudiced against Jewish people and allow them either limited or no access.
In an article published in The Age on May 10, 2009, Peter Munro wrote about the formation of a new club the Melbourne Forum. The club has a conscious and stated policy of non-discrimination. Munro wrote, 'Some people who attended referred to a lingering sense - rightly or wrongly - that Jews were not fully accepted at the establishment clubs, although the Melbourne and Athenaeum have had Jewish members for many years. Arts Centre president Carrillo Gantner made an "impassioned plea" at the lunch for people to sign up, one guest said, and he was applauded when he criticised lingering prejudice against Jews.
Ms Adler, who attended the lunch, told The Sunday Age there was a need for a group embracing all religions and both genders. "My ethnicity would be such that there aren't a lot of clubs in Melbourne who would welcome me," she said.
"I'm a Jewish girl and the Melbourne Club is not renowned for welcoming people who are Jews."'
5. These clubs should not be granted a permanent, unjustified exemption under Victoria's equal opportunity legislation
There are a number of automatic exemptions granted under the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act. It has been claimed that these permanent exemptions entrench prejudice as they allow certain groups to discriminate without having to justify this discrimination.
In arguing against these exemptions, the Victorian Attorney General. Robert Hulls, wrote, 'The Government has also initiated a review of the exceptions and exemptions currently contained in the Equal Opportunity Act, which allow non-compliance with the legislation by small businesses, religious organisations and private clubs. These groups are automatically excluded from the provisions and can discriminate against any sector of the community without having to justify it.'
It has been claimed that were many of these clubs required to justify their policies of exclusion they would find it very difficult to do so.