Amelia Gentleman’s splendid article (Shock, revulsion – but no surprise, G2, 25 January) ought to prompt fair-minded citizens to cease tolerating the scandal of “men-only” institutions. Every time local authorities grant a food or drinks licence to a club that excludes women, society effectively sanctions that discrimination. Shouldn’t the granting of a licence be dependent on applicants being able to prove publicly that they cater and intend to continue catering for customers or members equally, regardless of their gender, race, religion or sexuality? If parliament were to legislate along these lines, it would send a powerful message to outfits like the Presidents Club.

Tony Cash

London

• Another day, another media report about inappropriate behaviour towards women. Sadly, I am not surprised. We recently ran a poll asking nine- to 14-year-olds if they think that boys and girls are treated the same.

The verdict? Young people feel that they are most definitely being treated differently according to their gender. Many experience sexism on a daily basis and the majority are regularly told they can’t do things on account of their gender – be it playing football or showing their emotions (this is only acceptable for girls, apparently). More needs to be done in schools, at home and indeed by the media to make clear to our children that these attitudes have no place in our society.

Nicky Cox

Editor, First News

• David Walliams says he was horrified by the behaviour of guests at the now notorious Presidents Club dinner (Walliams pulls lot from Presidents Club auction, 27 January). I was more than a little dismayed, when reading his book The Demon Dentist to my primary-aged daughters, to encounter two female characters who are humiliated by having their underwear exposed to the world (much to the hilarity, in one case, of a class of schoolchildren). Walliams goes on to mock the size and style of said underwear. This kind of “humour” aimed at children is exactly the sort of normalising of misogynistic attitudes that leads to (some) adult men feeling that sexual harassment is no big deal. It is. Walliams should think harder about what he writes.

Ghislaine Peart

Hertford

Sex and the City: life as a hostess in London’s gilded halls Read more

• Jane Ghosh (Letters, 25 January) asserts that the hostesses “knowingly participated” in the Presidents Club event and should have refused the job offer. Does she really think the 19-year-old who endured a man exposing his penis to her knew what she was letting herself in for? Or the women who were ordered out of the toilets back into the room? Turning down work is not always an option for young women on low incomes. Putting the onus on them to do so in order to prevent such events taking place is once again making sleazy male behaviour the responsibility of women. How about we continue to let women take what jobs they can, but legislate to ensure that they are not assaulted and humiliated in the process?

Jane Middleton

Bath

• Now that Jeremy Corbyn has fired Lord Mendelsohn for attending the Presidents Club fundraiser (Report, 26 January), will we see the Labour leadership seeking out and firing every MP or official who has ever attended a lapdancing or strip club? While they are at it, they better play safe and fire everyone who has ever attended a stag or hen party too.

Neil Burgess

London

Three hands, three legs? Fans spot Vanity Fair photoshoot fail Read more

• The extra limbs (Three hands and legs? Vanity Fair shot goes out on a limb, 27 January) are not what is wrong with the Vanity Fair photo. What is wrong is that the men are fully clothed from neck to toe to wrist (except for Harrison Ford’s daring unbuttoning) while the women – apart from Oprah Winfrey – wear low-cut, split-skirted diaphanous dresses showing legs, cleavages and knickers.

Sue Ball

Brighton

• In the photograph of Graydon Carter’s farewell to Vanity Fair the six men are all upright, whether sitting or standing, and fully clothed. Of the seven women pictured, two have their legs visible and three are “draped” in postures that suggest they are either too feeble to stand or may be “available” sexually.

It’s quite a view of gender power and relationships in 2018.

Susan Steadman

Birmingham

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters