The metropolitan liberal elitists as the BBC despise the MCC, the private club that owns Lords, almost as much as they despise working class folks who vote for Reform UK. Today is the AGM of the MCC, of which I am a member, and our club wants to flagellate itself for being sexist. The BBC cannot get enough of it, if only the MCC was to admit that it was racist and homophobic too and that it had been damaged by Brexit.
The problem is that although women were allowed to join the MCC in 1998 currently only 3% of members are women. And the reason for that is that there is a 30 year waiting list to join so those first women who applied back in 1998 are now only just getting in as full members. And back in 1998 most of those applying to join were blokes. Even today most folks applying to join are blokes.
And so it really is not the MMC’s fault that the membership is overwhelmingly male. We are told that by 2075 the ratio will still be 80/20 in favour of men. But if that is the case it suggests that most folks applying during the next 20 years will still be men. How do you address that?
Among the ideas being put forward to solve this are shorter waiting lists for women. But surely that is sexist. What does it actually gain for a private club to have more female members. Maybe, some say, there should be a quota for applying by gender. But is that really fair or indeed something that will benefit the club? Passionate male cricketers being barred from applying just because they are chaps? Should daughter two, a successful sportswoman but not a cricketer, get priority over her boyfriend, less of an athlete but a keen cricketer? Discuss. Iam sure the MCC would, as it flagellates itself, say yes but does that make for a stronger club?
There is, of course, another proposal being considered today, to turn our membership into a shareholding democracy. If that happens there will be sellers – who will be overwhelmingly male – and if there is demand from women that could change the balance of ownership materially and quickly. But what if market forces still see men dominating ownership as, incidentally they do in most listed companies where ownership is largely among private investors? Would the MCC then demand that men be forced to sell their shares more cheaply to women? Could it really restrict the sale of an asset in that way?
And why, incidentally, end at quotas for women. What about ethnic minorities and gays. Surely the MCC should be ensuring that to reflect the UK as a whole, 0.5% of our members are drawn from the trans community whether they like it or not. One oif the reasons tat the BBC hates the MCC is that most folks there, as in the UK at large but not on the BBC itself, are white.
This discussion is complete nonsense from start to finish. Women have not applied to join the MCC in sufficient numbers as cricket is still largely a male game. My guess is that the vast majority of members of the British netball association are women for exactly the same reason. Throw in a 30 year waiting list and the MCC could not have done more.
The problem is that although women were allowed to join the MCC in 1998 currently only 3% of members are women. And the reason for that is that there is a 30 year waiting list to join so those first women who applied back in 1998 are now only just getting in as full members. And back in 1998 most of those applying to join were blokes. Even today most folks applying to join are blokes.
And so it really is not the MMC’s fault that the membership is overwhelmingly male. We are told that by 2075 the ratio will still be 80/20 in favour of men. But if that is the case it suggests that most folks applying during the next 20 years will still be men. How do you address that?
Among the ideas being put forward to solve this are shorter waiting lists for women. But surely that is sexist. What does it actually gain for a private club to have more female members. Maybe, some say, there should be a quota for applying by gender. But is that really fair or indeed something that will benefit the club? Passionate male cricketers being barred from applying just because they are chaps? Should daughter two, a successful sportswoman but not a cricketer, get priority over her boyfriend, less of an athlete but a keen cricketer? Discuss. Iam sure the MCC would, as it flagellates itself, say yes but does that make for a stronger club?
There is, of course, another proposal being considered today, to turn our membership into a shareholding democracy. If that happens there will be sellers – who will be overwhelmingly male – and if there is demand from women that could change the balance of ownership materially and quickly. But what if market forces still see men dominating ownership as, incidentally they do in most listed companies where ownership is largely among private investors? Would the MCC then demand that men be forced to sell their shares more cheaply to women? Could it really restrict the sale of an asset in that way?
And why, incidentally, end at quotas for women. What about ethnic minorities and gays. Surely the MCC should be ensuring that to reflect the UK as a whole, 0.5% of our members are drawn from the trans community whether they like it or not. One oif the reasons tat the BBC hates the MCC is that most folks there, as in the UK at large but not on the BBC itself, are white.
This discussion is complete nonsense from start to finish. Women have not applied to join the MCC in sufficient numbers as cricket is still largely a male game. My guess is that the vast majority of members of the British netball association are women for exactly the same reason. Throw in a 30 year waiting list and the MCC could not have done more.
But why let facts or data get in the way of a spot of bashing an institution that the BBC is convinced is a legacy of an inglorious past history. If BBC reporters were MCC members they would be bombarded with messages about eradicating sexism and EDI, the MCC these days is almost as woke as the BBC itself.
