Women only swim sessions

[SpringerLink]

I was talking today with someone (m) who I normally think is quite enlightened and not misogynistic. So I'd appreciate anyone's views...

My friend was recounting something a friend (call her Mary) told him, and was really angry about it.

Mary tried going to a women's only swim session. The session was also 16+. Mary took her boy toddler with her to the session. She was refused entry because (a) she had a child and (b) the child was male.

My friend thinks it's outrageous that the swim centre mentioned that the child was male as a reason, and that excluding males from a swim session is somehow "radical feminist" and should be stopped. I'm extremely shocked by this, and think it's completely reasonable to have women only spaces.

His view is that somehow Mary is being discriminated against, and so is Mary's child.

It's it radical to think that males, whatever age, can be excluded from some places and events?

well it was for 16+ so perfectly reasonable

I would have thought no children would be the main reason, regardless of whether the child was male or female.

I think it’s more likely the sessions are adults only? Every women-only swim session I’ve been to has been. They are for lane swimming, not for children jumping about with floats and pool noodles. There are separate family swim sessions.

I think excluding a baby based on gender is silly, yes. But I doubt that is what happened.

It's not radical to want men to be excluded from women only events and spaces. I don't think that most women woud object to male toddlers and small children to be with their mothers. I would have thought the fact that he was under 16 was the main problem.

The child being male when you're talking about a toddler is a little silly, but the pool were right to refuse service because the child was under 16. The purpose of that session was for adult females to be able to swim. Not for a family splash about.

Female only swimming is so important in my mind and I was really upset when our leisure centre stopped it. When they used to run them there would be 1 hour 3 times a week when women could swim knowing that they wouldn't have someone trying to swim over or under them, splash them, try to incite a race or competition, get butt hurt if a woman swam a bit faster than them. It was a much more relaxed and less pressured environment.

If infants were permitted, then I think she might have a point, as their sex is irrelevant in this context.

But they weren't. It's 16+ and is is completely right that infants (regardless of sex) were denied entry

I also doubt the story that the maleness was the main issue. But my male friend is very fixated on this being mentioned as a reason.

I also think women only swimming space is really important. Not only for the much more pleasant swimming experience but also for people who can't or won't get in the water if men can see them in a swim suit.

It came up again today because the age has been reduced to 8+ and there is some family swimming now at the same time, but it's still women and girls only.

I also doubt the story that the maleness was the main issue. But my male friend is very fixated on this being mentioned as a reason

Your male friend sounds like a bit of a twat, tbh.

I agree. And it worried me because he's generally not a twat about this kind of thing. But he's now brought it up a few times in the context of female only spaces, and it's becoming clearer that he doesn't really understand the concept of male privileged at all.

I'd think the child was refused because it's an adult female session. They aren't an adult and if you let in a toddler where do you draw the line 8yo, 12yo 15yo. No kids simples.

They might not have as many lifeguards for adults only sessions either.

About 25 years ago our local pool ditched the female only sessions in the aim of equality. Males complained they didn't have a male only session. So rather than add another single sex session the Female session became Adults.

Men hate women having anything to themselves.

It's strange that he's really angry. It would seem that the reason the kid was not allowed was because it's an over 16 session not because he's male. Which is fair enough. However, the fact he was a boy had nothing to do with it so it's wrong for them to have given it as a reason.

In terms of male privilege - does he feel things like members only clubs (offical "posh" ones, golf clubs, freemasonry, or more informal ones like men vs fat, "mens shed" etc) only accepting males are OK?

Even completely excluding the male privilege aspect the reason there aren't equivalent mens swim sessions or mens only gyms is because there isn't a need or desire for them! Does he really think that corporate bodies would miss out on a money making opportunity if there was one? If enough men requested male only swim times I'm sure the leisure centre would accommodate- they don't because they don't feel the need - they don't feel unsafe or unwelcome in general sessions, their religion doesn't prohibit being seen by women in swimsuits etc. I'm willing to bet if the gym did offer male only sessions lots of men would actively avoid them for fear of seeming "gay"!

Yeah, no male should ever be excluded from anything he wants to do.

The reason for it being a 16+ session will predominantly be because occasionally women may want to do something that doesn't include children (I know, shock horror).

There are often mum and baby sessions to enable that scenario, but specifically this was a swim session for adult women who want to be able to swim without men, without children, just women. Does he really think that's a big and unacceptable thing to want?

An adult only session is important, be it women only or indeed open to all. Women (and men if an open session) can swim without the concern of being interrupted by children splashing about, or swimming into them, so they get the desired level of exercise.