Women only hours in a public pool

[anachronistic]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/nyregion/pool-rules-no-running-no-eating-or-drinking-no-men.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fnyregion&action=click&contentCollection=nyregion&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0

 

women only hours in a public pool? I agree with most of the commenters, let them build their own pool.

[sparkles]

No surprise that Dov Hikind opposes the calls to rescind the segregated hours. Gotta keep pandering if you want to keep your seat.

Heres a clue. You want things your own way? Build your own damned pool. Or don't swim. The public owes you nothing. 

[FrumperedCat]

At one of our leisure centres over here in the UK we have two women only hours a week. Mind you they have two adult pools and the one used for the women only hours is the smaller side pool in a different room. At another local leisure centre with only one pool they don't have women only hours which I think makes sense as it would stop others from being able to swim whereas with the first example the other swimmers can use the main pool.

Perhaps it would be better as well if there were male only hours as in more traditional cultures they would also be subject to the same modesty rules as females.

Generally though I don't have an issue as long as there's multiple pools so that those who are affected by these hours are still able to swim.

[EmainMacha]

Interesting. Women only sessions at public swimming pools are fairly common where I live. I prefer it as some of the men can be lane hogs and there has been the occasional inappropriate comment etc to women about how they look in their swimsuits- i.e. people being lecherous. Many Muslim women particularly use women only swim times but they're open to all women.

[CoveredInBees]

Mmmm.......... As @FrumperedCat says women only sessions has been a thing in the UK for a long time, although it's kind of dying out a little now. It was never a religious thing though, just for women who for whatever reason didn't fancy being in a swimming costume in front of men.   

Our local pool no longer has it, but has different sessions for over 50's, and disabled sessions and 'quiet' sessions for those with either sensory issues or just don't like being crowded.

The spa at our holiday resort used to do single sex sessions back when it was permitted to be stark bollock naked in the sauna.

I think the single sex sessions have just died out because there's no call for them here (plus we only have one pool, and it's almost always sectioned off for school sessions so they can't successfully police it)

 

P.S. when the new pool was built, they had a unisex 'changing village' put in with cubicles instead of single sex changing. I've lost count of the amount of blokes with cameras who've since been chucked out......... but that's a whole other discussion.

[Pammy]

I don't think single-sex swim times are a problem. As mentioned above, there are also 'seniors swim' times, and 'lessons only times' and 'no kids lane swim' times. In fact pool hours are only about 50% 'free public anything' just-plain-open. Is that unusual in the US?

i think, as long as there is demand, having times for certian preferences of a free market hurts no-one.

[princessmahina]

The way I see is that these facilities are meant to serve the community. Different communities have different needs. In my community, we have a lot of football fields and fewer fields for other sports (like baseball), because football is popular. This may not be the case elsewhere.

I see the pool situation as the same. This isn't all pools everywhere, it's two in communities populated heavily with Hasidic people. To best serve this population, they've decided to enact women's only swimming hours (which in general I'm totally fine with, because I've gotten harassed at the gym more times than I can count).

I really don't see a problem with it. Other pools have restricted hours as well that have nothing to do with religion-- the one my mother goes to has several hours a day blocked off for the swim teams.

[refugee]

3 minutes ago, princessmahina said:

I see the pool situation as the same. This isn't all pools everywhere, it's two in communities populated heavily with Hasidic people. To best serve this population, they've decided to enact women's only swimming hours (which in general I'm totally fine with, because I've gotten harassed at the gym more times than I can count).

This is one of the things I love about FJ. Thoughtful discussion that gets me thinking about a topic, and even changing my mind on occasion.

[sparkles]

There are very few places in Brooklyn that are strictly ultra-orthodox these days. (Those damned millennials keep moving in.) So while the neighborhoods many be HEAVILY ultra-orthodox, that doesn't mean they're exclusively ultra-orthodox. Many public facilities are available for rental to specific groups. If such groups are making demands that exclude others, let them pay for their exclusive access. 

My daughter lives near McCarren Park pool in Williamsburg and that pool is open daily to all. There are a few special programs at various pools around the city, but most of these (such as uninterrupted lap swim time) take place before or after hours. None of these programs, that I can see, exclude members of the opposite sex or are exclusive for a particular religious group. 

[Black Aliss]

Some of the YMCAs in our area have women-only swim hours, typically on a day and time when the pool is underutilized. It seems to be popular, not just with women whose religion prohibits their wearing swimwear in a mixed-gender group, but also with women who just feel uncomfortable revealing that much skin for whatever reason. I feel no more oppressed by that than I do by the triathlete-only swim time. In fact, having been leered at by young Somali men just hanging out in a lane during lap swim times, I can totally understand the appeal.

[imokit]

If its Jewish women only, I have a problem. Otherwise if its open to any woman then its fine, no different than an over 50s or disability session.  And women only sessions, won't just be attended by Jewish women, Muslim women will go, as will body conscious people.

[usmcmom]

7 minutes ago, imokit said:

If its Jewish women only, I have a problem. Otherwise if its open to any woman then its fine, no different than an over 50s or disability session.  And women only sessions, won't just be attended by Jewish women, Muslim women will go, as will body conscious people.

I agree. The article didn't mention if all women are welcome to participate.  I'd love a women's only time at our public pool; although, my friends and I wouldn't be swimming laps. We'd be lounging at the edge talking and laughing while we beat the heat without kids.  Kind of like ladies night out, but with chlorine. 

[TeaGrannie]

" Only 45 swimmers at a time are permitted at the pool in Williamsburg. Most days, Ms. Kahn said, there is a line of women waiting their turn, including the occasional Muslim woman. On Wednesday, the lanes were full of women in calf-length, denim-colored dresses with three-quarter sleeves. The only thing that vaguely identified the outfits as seaworthy was a palm tree or a beach ball embroidered on the chest."

So this makes it sound to me as if all women are welcome (see my bolding). I really don't see an issue with it. It's obviously being utilized and is a long standing program. If only 2 or 3 women were showing up that would be different but it's obviously meeting a need in the community. To me this is not really any different than them booking it for a rental for the hour. It's the same result they pay to use the pool during a select time for a select purpose. 

[polecat]

I have no problem with this as long as it isn't required (iow, that women are not being restricted to only swimming during this time). In fact, I could see preferring to swim at a woman-only time if I were simply exercising in the same way that I prefer to work out at a women-only gym. Sometimes men can get really harass-y, and gyms/pools often don't effectively deal with that. Providing women with an optional women-only time allows us to workout free of that type of obnoxious behavior. 

Heck, I don't swim in public pools, but Y pools and such tend to have other types of segregated swimming (senior swimming and such), so I really don't see why this would be an issue in the first place. 

 

[Rachel333]

I don't have a problem with this, for reasons others have mentioned. To me this is a lot different from, say, the buses where women had to sit in the back. That seemed like discrimination where religious people were having undo influence on a public service, while this seems like something that better helps the pool serve a community that includes very religious people.

[Lillymuffin]

Our local Y has women-only swim times. They also have senior-only, lap swimming, lessons, etc. The three local public outdoor pools have adult swims every so often, too. To my knowledge they've never been an issue.

If those times are being used, which they are here and they definitely are in Brooklyn, it seems silly to eliminate them. They obviously serve a need for their patrons. 

[sparkles]

Yes, I know FJ isn't a "hive vagina" and that there are folks here from all walks of life and belief systems, each with his or her own opinion, but let's be honest and say that a main focus of this site is to rail against patriarchy and the limits and injustices put on women by religion and culture. So I find it interesting that this issue is pretty much being given a pass. This demand for women-only swim times isn't because of harassment, nor is it a safety issue. It's because these women are segregated and marginalized because of religion. Patriarchal religion that says women are lesser-than. Their demand for separate swim times is in no way, shape or form the same as separate swim times for team practice, lessons for beginning swimmers, clear lanes for lap swimmers, exercise classes for seniors—all of which relate only to SWIMMING. In this case, while these women may be there to swim, they're demanding exclusive time strictly because their religions dictate that they be kept apart from men. 

Pools, schools, government, what have you, religion needs to be kept out of the public sector. Period. If you're going to fight against religious marginalization of women, then that includes everything and everywhere. Period. I'm not going to give any group a pass even on something as seemingly inconsequential as segregated pool time because it doing so gives a pass to that continued marginalization as well. 

Let them (meaning any religious group that demands special treatment) build their own damned pool that they can use any time they wish (although I'm sure the women will be afforded considerably less time than the men). Problem solved. Don't make the public pay for your fucked up religious beliefs.

As always, YMMV. 

[church_of_dog]

The difference as I see it is that these rules are not forcing women to do something, it's PERMITTING them to do something they are requesting.

The idea that they request it because their religion is oppressive and patriarchal may well be true (I'm not asserting one way or the other) but isn't really relevant, because, as much as we may want to see all oppressed people freed from those bounds, most of us don't feel the way to go about it is to force the change on people.

Also, as many have pointed out, since it's NOT limited only to women of this or that religious persuasion, it serves a good purpose simply because there it meets a community need for a wide variety of women who prefer to swim without men around.

Legislating against it (or refusing to permit a women-only swim time) out of fear of endorsing or propagating an oppressive set of beliefs would be like endorsing the baker who refuses to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because the baker disapproves of their views.  We (and the baker) are free to disapprove of their oppressive religion (and the baker is free to disapprove of same-sex marriages), but personally I don't believe we should be free to therefore refuse them services they request simply because we don't like their views, religious or otherwise.

[sparkles]

Yes, it's permitting them to do something. At the expense of others, many of whom are now being forced out of the pool. And I don't think that not allowing the segregated time is forcing religious change, it's just not bending over for them. They're free to practice their religion, with all of its oppressive and outmoded ways, just not at the public's expense. If a particular group doesn't want to pony up for their own facilities and public rental isn't available, why not rent out a private facility for their swim time? I see notices for businesses all the time that say "closed for private event." Why should the general public be refused access to a public facility because of one group? Why should that groups' rights trump the rights of others?

Eh, I've said my piece. I'll agree to disagree.

ETA: There have been several instances of ultra-orthodox men on planes demanding that women move to another seat because…well, they're women. In every case, the consensus has basically been "Hey dude, fuck you." So here's a case where ultra-orthodox women are demanding that men vacate the premises…well, because they're men. And the difference is…?

[Maggie Mae]

I don't really think people are being forced out of the pool. My city has very limited hours on all 7 of the public and private pools. It's "public" in that it's open for a couple of hours a week. The private pools are equally limited in hours for public access, all of which require payment. The community in Brooklyn (?) asked for a couple hours a week for women only. It's not limited to religious women, just women. I don't see how it is different from sex segregated gyms, which we have lots of in the US. Well, we have lots of women only gyms, but it's illegal to have men only gyms. 

I just don't see this as a religious issue. 

[Lillymuffin]

True, it may be largely women who subscribe to religions that relegate them to the status of 'lesser' who avail themselves of the women-only time at this pool, but as several posters have mentioned it's not reserved just for those women. I've gained a truckload of weight over the last 18 months thanks to health issues and my body confidence is currently nonexistent. If I were going to shoehorn myself into a bathing suit, which I'm not, I'd feel (marginally) better doing it only in front of women. 

Ultimately the group whose rights have triumphed here is women. Considering that most of the world is set up for the benefit of the male population (medication, business, what-have-you), I think it's nice that a few enclaves are occasionally women-only. That may have started because of a religious group, but it doesn't prevent nonbelievers from availing themselves of it. 

[Walking Cat Bed]

If women are using the women-only swim time by choice, awesome. I'd love that. But I love university gyms because they are typically adults-only, and if I get there early enough in the day, it's me and one or two other people. 

 

My previous university had open swim throughout the day at one of the two pools, classes or team practice in the other, and I think an hour or two a few times a week for "family swim". If the women-only time is part of a regular schedule that includes adults-only, kids allowed, seniors only, etc, I'm fine with it. If that's the ONLY time these women are allowed to use the pool...Problems.

[alexandracabot]

Two those who pointed out pools have senior and kids' swim times: yes, but almost always not to the exclusion of the entire pool. It's confined to a few lanes.

And to those who pointed out that there are sex-segregated gyms: yes, but not public gyms on public property paid for by taxpayer money.

It simply isn't legal in this country to ban someone from using public facilities because of their gender, even if you think it's a nice thing to do for these women. If it was Hasid men asking for women to not be allowed in a public pool, there would be an outcry. Or — as has happened before — what if the ultra-Orthodox wanted men and women to be required to sit separately on public buses (with women in the back)? Obviously not legal either — so why would this be?

2 hours ago, church_of_dog said:

Legislating against it (or refusing to permit a women-only swim time) out of fear of endorsing or propagating an oppressive set of beliefs would be like endorsing the baker who refuses to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because the baker disapproves of their views.  We (and the baker) are free to disapprove of their oppressive religion (and the baker is free to disapprove of same-sex marriages), but personally I don't believe we should be free to therefore refuse them services they request simply because we don't like their views, religious or otherwise.

Uh, what? They're not being refused services, they're asking for special accommodations at a public facility based on their religion, at the exclusion of other people. This is not the role of the government and never has been. Your analogy is totally off. An equivalent situation would be if a group of evangelicals wanted there to be certain times were gay couples were not allowed to get married at City Hall because their religion doesn't allow them to be married in the same place as gays. They can just go get married another time, right?

 There's no need to "legislate" against this because it's already illegal. You can't stop a man from going into a public taxpayer-funded facility because he's a man.

1 hour ago, Maggie Mae said:

I don't really think people are being forced out of the pool. My city has very limited hours on all 7 of the public and private pools. It's "public" in that it's open for a couple of hours a week. The private pools are equally limited in hours for public access, all of which require payment. The community in Brooklyn (?) asked for a couple hours a week for women only. It's not limited to religious women, just women. I don't see how it is different from sex segregated gyms, which we have lots of in the US. Well, we have lots of women only gyms, but it's illegal to have men only gyms. 

I just don't see this as a religious issue. 

No, men are explicitly being forced out of the public pool; there are certain times they are not allowed to swim in a public facility because of their gender. The entire community in Brooklyn didn't ask for this, a small, politically connected religious subset did, and they vote as a bloc, so they got what they wanted. Many many other people in Brooklyn are explicitly against this. 

Find me a public sex-segregated gym in the US and I'll eat my shorts.

[sparkles]

Quote

I don't really think people are being forced out of the pool.

From the article:

Quote

Women’s hours are held three times a week during the summer months. At 10 a.m.

on Wednesday, a lifeguard’s whistle squealed. “Everybody out,” she said.

In fact, the message was just for the men.

That sounds like forced to me.

Quote

The community in Brooklyn (?) asked for a couple hours a week for women only. It's not limited to religious women, just women.

True, the schedule at the Metropolitan Recreational Center says "Women's Swim" (and one that says "Women and Girls".) That's only because if they said HASIDIC Women's Swim they'd have even more of a discrimination problem on their hands than they do now. But you're fooling yourself if you think this accommodation has nothing to do with religion, and one specific religion at that.

From the article: 

Quote

For 20 years, the center has blocked off female-only hours to accommodate the area’s large Hasidic population.

The article does mention that they do get the "occasional Muslim woman," most likely because the schedule advertises a general "Women's Swim." I'd love to A. be a fly on the wall to see how said occasional Muslim woman was treated (very coldly, is my guess) and B. if she ever returned (I'm going with NO.) There was no mention of other non-ultra orthodox women attending. So I'd also love to see how my daughter and her friends would be treated if they showed up for "Women's Swim." Given how they've been treated in various parts of Brooklyn, I'm thinking "shunned" might be an appropriate description.

Quote

If women are using the women-only swim time by choice, awesome.

It's really not much of a choice if they're using the women-only swim time because

religion forbids them from being around men, so they can't/won't avail themselves of

pool hours that are open to all. I find it somewhat offensive that Dov Hikind likens

this "accommodation" to making the facility accessible for the disabled. And I'm in

full agreement with the director of the NYCLU who says

Quote

“People who have a religious objection to men and women, boys and girls,

swimming in the same pool at the same time have every right to their beliefs

and to limit their swimming in accordance with those religious beliefs,” she said.

“But they have no right to impose a regime of gender discrimination on a public

pool.

 

Quote

Ultimately the group whose rights have triumphed here is women.

Sorry, I don't see this as a triumph at all. More like a step back and a reinforcement of the perception of women as delicate flowers and lesser-than. 

Again, MMV, as it obviously does. And so it goes.

[Maggie Mae]

22 minutes ago, alexandracabot said:

Two those who pointed out pools have senior and kids' swim times: yes, but almost always not to the exclusion of the entire pool. It's confined to a few lanes.

"Public" pools in my city are simply not open for more than a few hours a week. They are closed to the general public, for the majority of the time. There is an hour when "disabled" people can use it. There are times when it's open for kids. There are time when it's open for senior. And then there is one hour a day every other day when it's open for adult lap swimming. And one hour for open swim. NO ONE ELSE is allowed in during each of these times. The majority of the time it's just closed. Or for gym class or something> I don't know. I stopped worrying about the public pool because it was more expensive than the private pool.