@Felix125
Aparallaxia - I don't quite follow your argument. If you were working class back then with a family & no money then you wouldn't be on a golf course - and that would be the case for both males and females.
The sports club set up by men back then would have needed money to get them going. So, if you are a wealthy upper class husband and wife with servants to tend to the children, then the female would have the money to set a club up too.
I don't think its ever been a written law that a wife required her husbands permission to use their house to meet up with other women. If occurrences like this did occur, then it would be down to the marriage if they had such rules. But i wouldn't have thought they were bands of husbands banning their wives from meeting up with other females.
Google the law of coverture, maybe?
Blackstone: "In law, husband and wife are one person, and that person is the husband."
Women couldn't form contracts, own property, hold money, or retain custody of their own infant children if they had a living father or husband in the frame. The man had complete power. A man could divorce a woman for a single fact, say adultery - but she had to prove two facts: adultery, plus either cruelty, or desertion. And he had no obligation to support her, should she divorce him, despite her having proven appalling ill-treatment, and she had no right to ever see any children of the marriage again (actually, she had no right to do so whether married or divorced, until a shocking divorce case allowed the Custody of Infants Act in 1839, which meant a woman had a right to petition a court to be allowed to retain children until they were 7... if her conduct were spotless, naturally). So unless her parents supported her, and she had no children, she was absolutely trapped (not to mention that a divorce, for a very long time, took a huge amount of money, and women couldn't own any in their own name - are you seeing a problem, yet?) Men also had the legal right to beat their wives as 'reasonable chastisement' until a case called R v Jackson in 1891, and they had the right to rape their wives, even if separated, until the 1990s. No, that's not a typo. Yes, I do mean less than 30 years ago.
And you're assuming all the pressures were from a spouse alone, and not a society that regarded the above fit and proper. Upper class women, as middle and lower class, had to conform. If they didn't, they could be - and some were - deemed insane, and hospitalised. That could be done for all manner of reasons ('hysteria' was a literal diagnosis - thought to be caused by a 'wandering womb' and leading to a very female-specific form of insanity). Women's place was very stridently and firmly supported by the social structures of the time - all, of course, male-dominated, but supported by plenty of women who recognised their own social standing relied upon their doing so.
Women were, in effect, slaves unless their husbands died, because those were the only cases in which they were legally deemed 'femme sole' - women in their own right. In fact the lack of legal personhood was a large part of why the law of trusts originally existed: to hold money for minors, and women, neither of whom had legal standing of their own.
The Married Women's Property Act was in 1882. But my mother's tax records from employment were being sent to her husband in the 1980s - not to her directly. Which was, in fairness, only a decade after the Equal Pay Act, and five years after the Sex Discrimination Act, so what was her issue. 
And while women's colleges existed at Cambridge from the late 19th century, women weren't actually awarded degrees at Cambridge until the 1950s. We have the same monarch on the throne today, so yes, very much living memory.
Women had to have a man's consent to do pretty much anything, for an awfully long time, and while laws can and do change, society still moves more slowly. Women had almost no rights for an awfully long time. It's baffling, the degree of ignorance around this. "Why didn't women just set up their own FA..." in the 1920s. Are you for real?
And you think it's all fine now, do you? We live in a society where fewer than 2% of women who report rapes to the police see any charges made against their attacker. Those are just the ones who report - and we're talking charges. Not convictions. Yet nobody seems to give much of a shit. Spousal abuse is so common, we're looking at around 3 murders a week. Those are just the cases so serious, the woman ends up dead; do you really think it's likely that the vast majority of intimate partner abuse doesn't fall short of that? Did you know women are five times more likely than a man to suffer a sexual assault, and a hundred times less likely to perpetrate one? Have you looked recently at the stats for women in senior roles, across every field? Did you know that the FTSE 350 companies have just 17 women CEOs? Did you know we have the lowest proportion of female judges in Europe, with fewer than a quarter at the most senior levels? We have a similar number in Cabinet. These stats are repeated across pretty well every field. So. Do you believe that women are somehow less intelligent, less capable, less able?
We don't think all men are scary aggressive predators. I mean, my husband and son are two of the loveliest, gentlest, most thoughtful people I've ever met. It's just that all scary aggressive predators are men, and they don't come with it stamped on their foreheads, so we are wary with strangers, especially. We are smaller and weaker physically than men, as we've not been through male puberty. So we're more vulnerable. That knowledge isn't something you turn on and off like a switch. So sometimes, the only way you can truly relax is when you have a single sex space. Changing, or where you're not wearing much generally, is definitely one of those times and spaces.
I have no issue whatsoever with men having single sex gyms, or a single sex space within a gym. I can appreciate that at times it's just more comfortable and relaxing to have time with your own sex, for men as well as women. But there's a difference between say arguing that the House of Commons should be single sex, where clearly that would be of huge detriment to women as a group, and saying that a sauna should be, where it's entirely reasonable, whether men or women, that people don't like being naked with opposite sex strangers. Surely you understand the difference - context is important. No?