Women only playbarn

[blackcats73]

I just wondered what everyone thinks of the following story;

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2185041/Fathers-banned-play-centres-women-decree.html

I sort of understand the women only rule but boys over 9????? Though my Ds (8)is outgrowing playbarns anyway.

Some of the comments (yes I know it's the Daily Mail) from both sides are offensive.

Sorry, not a very coherent post. I'm still trying to work out what I think.

sis you made me laugh, i can imagine some brothers saying that, mostly the unmarried ones!!!

but i agree with you, with different people we act differently, it is normal.

there was a situation in my community years back where we historically have womens only sessions of stay and play as the workers were finding that some women werent being allowed to come to mixed ones. for women such as this these groups are life savers.

Firawla, I think you've nailed it, and that's why I'm in favour of enforcing the law in this case. Yes it's advantageous for some women in the short term in families where any contact with unrelated men is seen as a threat to chastity and any physical activity in mixed circles is a threat to modesty - it gives them a place to go.

But its existence reinforces the feeling that strict segregation is a reasonable way to go. If you have women only play sessions, then surely you don't need to take the children to the library, or the open air playground or the cinema or other such dens of iniquity, and if you dont need to and it makes you uncomfortable (either personally, or due to family pressure) then you might not bother. It's a slippery slope to a fully segregated society, both sexually and culturally.

Firawla, I don't think you did give the impression that women only cover for the sake of men, but it is clear that as with everything in life there are people, men and women, who will judge you if you don't cover or behave in the way they consider appropriate. This is fine if everyone is strong enough to ignore what others think, but not everyone is and I think it is a potential problem along the lines you say that, by having these women- only spaces, gradually some women will find themselves more and more separated. This is fine if it is what women want, but personally I would hate such a restriction. Maybe not everyone is the same.

However, both you and nailak have given examples of women not not ring allowed to go somewhere. That is just wrong and, whilst I see the short term relief women only spaces give such women, long term I think it will just give controlling men more ammunition and more women will end up restricted.

X-post with dilysprice

Not ring should be being. Stupid phone.

I think it's daft. But those places look awful anyway.

but the thing is it didnt work like that. the women only sessions at one childrens centre have recently stopped after 20 or 30 years.

This was as people saw what women were doing, how beneficial it was, and it wasnt harmful etc that they became ok with it, and now the daughters of those people who were going 20 years ago are now taking their own kids to the playgroups. and as other women and men see us in the community going there it makes a big difference. one women actually told me "i spoke to my husband and he said if Naila's husband can let her why should I not be letting you" and this was a women who previously had to bring back pictures the kids made from every stay and play as evidence for her husband.

Women who have not had this are the women who at 40 or 50 after being in the ocunrtry for most of their lives cant speak English.

tbh we have to look at how it has worked in practice in other areas and in other places. Female only swimming sessions, are they beneficial or ammunition for controlling men? female only gyms? female only hair dressers and beauty salons?

Nailak, the main thing that stands out to me in your post is the bit about your friend's husband letting her go somewhere because your husband lets you go. And the bit about her presenting him with evidence is frankly bizarre. That is an example of an abusive and controlling man. He clearly didn't trust his wife to be where she said she was. What did he think she was doing? Men and women are equal - we do not have to ask a man's permission to do anything and once you give a man rights to dictate your life you become his servant. We are in FWR here so I would be surprised if no one agrees with me.

Personally I still think women only places feed this sort of behaviour - DilysPrice deals with this better than I could above.

As to the other examples of female only sessions and places you describe, I imagine they can also be used as ammunition for controlling men. If you can only go to women only swimming sessions you can't go swimming with your sons and not with your children at all if the sessions are late as they are near me.

I don't know of any female only hair dressers or beauty salons. I always assumed the lack of men in beauty salons was down to the services they provided rather than an outright ban. But perhaps they do exist.

Why doesn't she leave him? Why des she accept a life of suspicion and servitude, being 'allowed' to visit placed instead of just deciding to go?

I don't understand why a human adult would allow themselves to be treated like a four year old who has previous of lying.

yes womens only salons do exist, we can't go to normal ones if we cover our hair because we won't be able to take the hijab off in the salon if men can come past or if they have windows to the street

women only salons are a good thing, and women only swimming (and gym) because the alternative is we dont go at all. its just not an option really to go to the mixed ones, for practicality reasons to do with covering.
the softplay thing is a bit of an exageration of this issue cos really, we would be okay in mixed and its not physically impossible to do that while being covered, same as stay and play there is nothing really to make us unable to attend if its mixed
but hair dressing and swimming we cant. well i suppose unless u go down the burkini route..

i used to go to a mixed hairdresser years ago, cos i knew her since i was little. but i would tell her make sure she books it at time with women only, and she put the blinds all shut when i went for apts but even then once the postman came in with a parcel - its not a massive deal as tbh the postman wont notice anything because he doesnt even know who u are or that u normally cover, and wont look cos he just gives the parcel and gets on his way but just felt like 'oh, i shudnt have done that' so after that i went about 2years+ without even getting my hair cut, then i got someone 2 come round n do it at my house, cos finding the women's only places in some areas can be quite hard and heard of some that are not strict enough (people told me some hairdresser let their own brother in just cos hes mahram to her but not thinking of the customers!!!!!!)
but ive heard of some better places near me now so i might go. surely its a good thing if we can get the chance to go n have our hair done and whatever else, in peace and relaxed knowing no men can come in, rather than sitting at home unable to get our hair cut and getting split ends!

if there are womens only services where women will be uncovered then it needs to be done properly strictly, otherwise there is no point. having a womens hair dresser and allowing the odd husband or brother to pop in defeats the point and also womens gyms if they allow male staff in from elsewhere in the building. i had this problem too, with a fitness first - bunch of liars, told me it was strictly womens only then once i joined one other staff member said they do let some men go in the room. tbh maybe my fault i should have joined the one where the whole building was womens only rather than just one section.

i dont think there are many women who would want to take their hijab off and jump in a mixed pool or get in their gym clothes on the treadmill right next to some guy, so this is from ourselves and not about control from men - these women only services are for practical reasons and let us do things we otherwise cant.

so that is different from issues about men controlling their wives not to be allowed to go to stay and play or the park (which i find really wrong when men do that)

You say can't, firwala,but it's a choic you're making. The word you should be using is "won't"

I don't really know where to start with this firawla. It just makes me tired reading about all the self-imposed restrictions on your life. I honestly think if God exists he must despair of all the ways his followers of all religions tie themselves up in knots and make their lives so much harder and more restrictive trying to do his bidding.

But the main thing I think is that men have been very clever here,getting women to genuinely believe they cover to this extent- not just act and dress modestly as both sexes should do equally - by their own choice. Why do men not cover and spend time worrying if a woman sees them? Where is the equality? And this not aimed at one religion in particular. All of the main religions have different ways of making women more restricted than men. It is watered down a bit in the less evangelical Christian churches but still exists.

Anyway i am straying off topic here a bit.

While I can see the problem with women only spaces being used to justify restrictions on women's freedom, and while I think it is wrong for this play centre to be entirely women only, I just want to say ...

Women only spaces can be just a nice refreshing change. Where I work we offer women only workshops in a variety of subjects and they're very popular with women from all sorts of backgrounds. There is definitely a different vibe from mixed groups where men tend to dominate the discussion and get more attention from the tutors and women tend to hold back a bit from getting fully involved.

yes i agree my friend is in a controlling relationship, these spaces give her the support and encouragement and advice she needs, if they didnt exist then what would happen to her?

what is hard? there is nothing hard! we have women only beauty salons and gyms and we go there, who is making it hard?

men do cover to different extent then women, and they should care if a woman sees them as well. any man that doesnt is not following islam.

In my area the steam room and sauna sessions are men only and women only, so obviously there was a need an a want for that.

But nailak, they are men only and women only because you can take all your clothes off. Its hardly the same thing as soft play or even hair dressers. And to be fair, firawla's description of not feeling able to have her hair cut for two years because the postman came in to the hair salon sounded pretty hard to me.

And if what you say about men is true, then where are all the examples of women banning their husbands going in the garden in case the neighbours see them? As always, men have choices whether or not to follow the rules, women are judged if they don't make the choices others think they should and end up restricting themselves in case someone else judges them. Why do men cover to a different extent than women? Why is it not equal?

Maybe I am being unfair. Perhaps the idea of DH having a legitimate excuse not to share the misery of soft play is making me overreact.

This makes me really uneasy actually. Whilst I can understand why some women prefer and feel more comfortable in women only swimming or perhaps gym sessions, I think it's a step too far to have women only in soft play. Swimming and gym both involve women wearing less clothing than they normally would, and therefore for some women who are self conscious or in the case of religion, have modesty to consider, it's totally reasonable to have women only sessions. I know my mother (65 and chubby) would never go to a mixed swimming session because she is too self conscious about her body.
But for soft play, where you are wearing normal clothing, don't have to speak to anyone, or have any contact other than with your own children, its just silly. We will be having women only sessions at the bloody supermarket next!

Also, I think that if this rule has been brought in due to women not feeling able to come due to cultural reasons, then perhaps we should be addressing the problem that certain cultures teach women that it is unacceptable to be in the same room as men outside their family, even when they are not speaking to them or in contact in any other way.
I see it as being rather like telling women not to dress provocatively etc to avoid rape, when in fact the cause of the rape is not the womans dress but the mans belief that rape is ok.
In afraid it is very black and white to me, I do respect other cultures, and that women mixing with men whom they are not related to is considered a bad thing for them to do, but this isn't really mixing with other men, being in the same room as a man, chaperoned by 30 odd other people, and all of their kids, not to mention the staff, really, can this be seen as being immodest? Also, it's affecting people who do not share their beliefs, and that I can't agree with.

Yeah, but in the meantime it will be the women that suffer, because as Nailik pointed out there will be less women that are "allowed" out by their husbands.

Of course it is absolutely abhorrent that a man should have that much power over his wife, but to not recognise that reality will do more harm to these women than good.

What upsets me is that we are still having this conversation after 150 years of feminism. I don't understand in what way men and women interacting socially is a problem, or how it is shameful for a woman if a man sees part of her bare flesh. Or why, if the "problem" is one of men's so called inability to control lust, then why it is women whose movements are restricted. I genuinely don't understand it.