Women-only parks in Swabi, Pakistan

Women-only parks

Displaced Swabi women at refugee camp
 near Swabi, Pakistan (2009)

Location: Swabi District, Pakistan

Critics often smugly tell us that the desire for women's space is "white" or "middle class" or "elitist." That it's nothing more than a dinosaur related to the second wave of western feminism. Which of course is "white" and "middle class" and "elitist." Ad nauseum.

How this lie manages to get perpetuated again and again is quite the mystery, given that there is zero evidence to support it.

Long time readers of Lost Womyn's Space know that women's space is documented in many indigenous cultures and in western cultures (broadly defined), as early as ancient Greece.

In fact, if anything, women in countries outside of Europe, Australia, Canada, and the U.S. are more unabashedly militant about demanding women's space than their western sisters. Here is an example from Swabi, Pakistan, where feminist activists are demanding women-only parks. (So technically, these parks aren't "lost" so much as they have failed to come into existence--except in the imagination and political will of dedicated women):

Swabi women demand exclusive parks

The Newspaper's Correspondent — Updated Mar 21, 2014 12:54pm

SWABI: Women political activists have expressed resentment over the successive governments’ failure to establish separate parks for women in the district.

Speaking at a function here the other day, the women activists, including PTI lawmaker Ayesha Naeem and former provincial minister Sitara Ayaz, said that parks provided a sense of pride to womenfolk.

They asked the males in Pakhtun society to treat the women as equal partners, paying attention to their requirements and providing facilities to them so they could be able to enjoy their life.

Ms Naeem said women lawmakers in the previous government didn’t take steps for establishing women only parks in the province. “Women getting elected on reserved seats should work for ameliorating the lot of their gender,” she stressed.

Speaking on the occasion, Sitara Ayaz said parks were place for women and children to come close to nature and learn from each other through interaction. “No doubt parks reflect the quality of life of a community or nation has,” she said.

Pakistan People’s Party, women wing’s district president, Naseem Akhtar said parks were places which helped the women to remain physically active and strong on one hand, and to improve community’s health on the other. “Visits to parks could help to reduce stress,” she added.

They demanded separate parks for women in the district and sought support of male lawmakers in this regard.

“The number of parks in Peshawar and other cities has cropped up,” said Ayesha Naeem, adding that women should not be confined to the four walls of their homes.

Though a women only park has been established at Tarbela Dam, no such places exist in other parts of the district.

“The park has been set up by the dam authorities at Jobi colony, having boundary wall and all the other facilities. Strict security arrangements have also been ensured so women and children could enjoy without any fear,” said Ishrat Khan, a college student. —Correspondent

Women sit together on outskirts of Peshawar

Despite the fact that Peshawar is very different than, say, Pittsburgh, the men's objections in the comment section are pretty identical to that of any similar proposal in the west. We are mansplained as to how these demands will undermine the fight for "women's rights," which of course means women must expend all their energy pleading with men to be nice and include them--hopefully with minimal threats, harassment and violence if you please.

When women bring up that women-only parks are a health and safety issue, that women can't walk, run, or exercise in heavy burkas and the like, especially in hot weather in "male" public spaces, the men waive that away too. You can't have equality and segregation! So get exercise by doing housework at home!

Really, just the same sh**, different place....In reality, they don't support women's space or "women's rights." And no serious feminist would say that one has to be chosen over the other. No real male ally is going to say, sure, we'll give you equal representation in Congress as long as you give up women's locker rooms. No one could possibly take that kind of "offer" seriously.

See the women's park tab for other examples of fights for women's parks. And notice how very similar the reasons listed are for why women wanted them--and why men objected.

Women-only trout stream



A Mistress of the Gentle Art
from A Woman's Trout Fishing in
Yellowstone Park (1897)


Women-Only Trout Stream

Location: Connecticut, USA

Opened/Closed: 1932

This definitely falls under the category of quirky uncategorized womyn's space.

From the Calgary Daily Herald, August 11, 1932:

TROUT STREAM WILL BE FOR WOMEN ONLY

HARTFORD, Conn., Aug. 11.--(AP)--Connecticut women are to have their own trout stream, from which husbands and brothers will be barred. Fish and Game Commissioner Thomas H. Beck on Wednesday announced the state department plans to lease a stream on which women exclusively may fish. 

"The ladies have taken an increased interest in practically all forms of outdoor sports," he said. "Connecticut has nearly 200 miles of state-leased trout streams for its sportsmen. Now we intent to do something for the anglerettes."

So far I have yet to find any additional information on whether the women-only trout stream was actually established, and if so, where it was located. If it was established, it would also be fascinating to know how "anglerettes" felt about it and whether it was a popular place for women to go. Did "anglerettes" lobby for their own fishing space, or was this an idea randomly devised by Mr. Beck?  Did this experiment last past 1932, and if so for how long? Lots of interesting questions....

A Newark woman's plea: a place "reserved for women" at Weequahic Park

Lake and Boat Landing, Weequahic Park, Newark, N.J.

A Newark woman's plea: a place "reserved for women" at Weequahic Park

Location: Weequahic Park, Elizabeth and Meeker Avenue, Newark, New Jersey, USA

Opened/Closed: plea was published on July 29, 1917

Once in a while, I happen to find a womyn's space that was never "lost" as such because it (apparently) never came into three-dimensional existence. But for a time, the womyn's space did exist in the hearts and minds of women who fervently wished for such a space to come into being.

One of these women was very eloquent writer named Olive, who desired nothing more than just "a small part" of Weequahic Park reserved for women.

From the Newark Sunday Call, July 29, 1917:

Oh, for a Manless Lodge in Some Park Wilderness

Here is a copy of a plea sent by a Newark woman to the Essex County Park Commission and gallantly considered by it at a recent meeting.

---

Would it be possible for you to have a part, a small part, of your park at Weequahic lake reserved for women? The signs say that no dogs are allowed at large in the parks: perhaps some signs could read, "No men allowed on these walks," those surrounding the park that you assign to women. Surely if dogs are excluded altogether, degenerates might be barred from certain portions of a public park.

Broad and Market Streets, Newark, New Jersey (1912)

There are women who like to be alone, who love the trees and the winds and the scents of the earth; who have no view which is not obstructed with red tin roofs or yards never free from lines of drying clothes; who need, for the peace of their souls and nerves, one quiet hour in the air; who need to flee the victrola belt where everyone has raised a piano to be a pianola which plays "America, I Have a Boy for You" and "The Wor-r-ld Will be Jea-lous of Me-ee," interspersed with eight hours of "classical exercises," "executed" under one hundred eighty pounds of pressure. 

It would not inconvenience many men if you allotted us a small part of the park. We are restricted from a few walks in New Jersey, freely given to men--the franchise for example. But just because the law classes us with degenerates and imbeciles do we have to have our confreres-in-law forcing their attentions upon us the minute we dare to be so unconventional as to sit under a tree in a public park at 3 o'clock on a bright afternoon, alone? I know that your commission will see that we are not further annoyed. 

Here is a wonderful day. But would I dare to go to Weequahic Park with only my knitting for protection?  Even I, who am considered bold and daring and rash, would not risk it.

View of Lake Weequahic Park,
Newark, N.J. (1909)

The memory of such insolence as I endured last Monday is still with me, and I sit on a screened porch and listen to my neighbor's "musics" and the swish of the winter's coal being shot into their collars--while the park is quiet and green and desirable.

Please! There aren't many of us who know we need outdoors. Those willow trees near Elizabeth avenue have a nice, quiet open spot.         

OLIVE

This was the editor's fairly sympathetic (if somewhat patronizing) response:

What is a woman to do who wants to be alone now and then, somewhere outdoors, and in a big city, and the men won't let her alone? The question has a jocular tang to it, but it is taken very seriously by some Newark women, and mere man himself can not but feel there is logic to "Olive's" plea to the park commission.

The parks belong to the people. Are women people? If not, will they become people when they get the vote, and may they then call for and obtain the enactment of laws setting aside spots in parks for the use and enjoyment of their sex exclusively? Man answers, "No, certainly not, it would be contrary to the spirit of American democracy;" and woman makes reply that some men are altogther too democratic and man-made laws do not properly keep them in bounds. The park commission is said to be informally contemplating play places for little girls, apart and distinct from those for little boys. If it can do this logically, why may it not properly provide a recreation space for the big girls? It is an absorbing subject the further you go into it.

The park commission side-stepped the crux of the question and informed "Olive" that its policeman would try and afford her protection. But the commissioners and "Olive" and all of us know that her protection would exist only so long as the policeman stood guard over her. Some form of genus homo would appear and the ancient annoyances which the daughters of Eve have had to endure since ever the gates of the Garden of Eden swung open on their hinges would be resumed.

What's to do about it anyway?

How long must civilization struggle onward and upward before "Olive" and her kind may gaze upon a happy earth dotted with little "Houses of Refuge," in the open, where none but feminine voices may be heard mingling with the other and tuneful sounds of nature, where the wicked shall cease from troubling and the women be at rest? It will be aeons hence, we are afraid, and we say it with a pensive regret. Anything that woman wants should, if good for her, be granted. And would not the "Retreat for  Man-Wear/Woman" be good for her, and, maybe for the rest of us too? If she wishes to flee from man, man should put nothing in her way to prevent. But the law, democracy, the sociological fitness of things are grave problems to get around or over. Can any thoughtful reader suggest a way? How inspiring to contemplate: a place under the willows along Elizabeth avenue with women, women only, in ones and twos and threes, sitting, strolling, knitting and gossiping, with the rest of the world gazing from afar off upon this new spectacle of the untrammeling  of womanhood. Certainly no innovation that is within the power of President Franklin Murphy and his associates to devise and create would attract so vast and so curious public attention.--Ed.

This was not the only effort from this era to establish space within an American public park for women. Also see this initiative to provide a similar safe space in Kansas City's Budd Park in 1916.

Budd Park

Budd Park (1913)

Budd Park

Location: St. John Avenue and Brighton Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri, USA

Opened: Budd Park opened in 1891; section of park became women-only in 1916

Closed: Park still exists; when women-only section was eliminated has yet to be determined

The herstory of womyn's spaces tends to be one of elimination, burial, and subsequent amnesia. Budd Park's history as a woman-only space is a near perfect example.

Frankly, even I was astonished when I found this particular herstory nugget, as up until now I hadn't heard of any "official" women-only public parks outside the Middle East. And to practically trip over one in my own backyard, right here in my own hometown, was little less than jaw-dropping.

Needless to say, the official Kansas City Parks and Recreation narrative offers no clue:

Budd Park

Judge Azariah Budd moved to Kansas City with his wife, Nancy, in 1879 after working several years in law. He acquired 40 acres of land and spent his time clearing and cultivating it as well as raising cattle. Budd passed away in 1889 and willed 20 acres of his property to the City, if they paid his widow $3,000 annually until her death. The City accepted the property in 1891 and transformed it into Kansas City’s second park (the first being West Prospect Triangle, now known as Andrew Drips Park).

Nancy Budd donated four additional acres to the park 10 years later, and the City acquired two more after that. In 1896, John and Adriance Van Brunt designed a distinctive frame shelter building near center of the park. Following this construction trees, maintenance buildings and steps were added to the park. A children's play area, tennis courts, roque courts and a wading pool and a swimming basin were later added.

From here, the official history skips to 1927, and how the Van Brunt frame shelter was torn down and replaced by one of native stone designed by Edward Buehler Delk.

Budd Park Shelter (constructed 1927)

Well, it turns out that a LOT that took place here between 1896 and 1927 has been slashed from the record.  

The first indication that there was a missing story here was this article (I stumbled up this while looking for information on the aforementioned women-only parks in the Middle East):

From the Crawfordsville Review, August 8, 1916:

PARK FOR WOMEN ONLY.

No Chance for Spooning in Kansas City Playground.

Kansas City, Mo.--A park exclusively for women was established by the Kansas City park board following the pleas of a business women's organization for a recreation and rest ground where women can enjoy themselves unmolested.

The site was chosen on a high point overlooking the Missouri river, where tennis courts, croquet grounds and a "Dutch oven" will be constructed and a shelter house built.

Wow! What was going on here? Where the heck was this park anyway? Shifting gears, I redirected my focus away from the Middle East and back to the Midwest so as to search anew.

Then I located this article. From the Telegraph-Republican, August 16, 1916:

KANSAS CITY CONDUCTS PARK FOR WOMEN ONLY

(By Special Leased Wire)

Kansas City, August Mo. 16. [sic] -Kansas City's park for women has just opened. The park board is about to have a temporary shelter house erected and other improvements installed in the section of Budd park set aside for the women.

Entrance to Budd Park (no date)

The Business Women's council has employed a young woman to remain at the park and minister to the comfort of the young women who come there for recreation. The secretary will see that the girls coming to the park become acquainted and enjoy themselves. She will pay special attention to lonely girls.

Double wow. Unfortunately, I can find nothing more from the comforts of home. May be heading into the dusty archives to follow up on this. Stay tuned.

But do take note of the very heterosexual imagery in the historic postcard reproduced above. This is a classic example of the great chasm between how public spaces are typically depicted (i.e. male-female couple strolling arm-in-arm, etc.) and what actually took place in and around these spaces. The actual story is one of women organizing to create a safe space for women within an urban public park, where women would be free from the sexual harassment and violence of men. Of women fighting for and winning official authorization and funding to construct recreational facilities and shelters for the exclusive use of women and girls, and even hiring a woman to befriend "lonely girls" and facilitate social connections between female park visitors. And all this before American women had the right to vote! But there is no pretty picture illustrating all that...

Yanbu Women's Park

Yanbu Women's Park

Yanbu Women's Park

Location: Yanbu, Saudi Arabia

Opened: September 2008

Closed: December 25, 2008

Sometimes you'll hear people attack women-only space as reactionary, as something inherently backwards and regressive. As something that's especially entrenched in ultra-religious, anti-woman countries like Saudi Arabia. It's not something we want in "modern" countries, no sir! "Mixed" (male-dominated) spaces are always more "progressive" don't you know.

News flash: Backwards and regressive countries like Saudi Arabia certainly don't like "mixed" spaces. But they're also supremely ambivalent about women-only public space. They basically fear anything that doesn't keep women locked up at home, isolated and depressed. Can't let the ladies get a little fresh air or anything. As for getting a little exercise or....GOD FORBID! SINGING! That is strictly verboten! So back in 2008, the authorities in the city of Yanbu shut down the only outdoor recreation center for women in the town.

Notice that even though the ladies dutifully held "religious lectures for women" on the premises, Yanbu Park was still considered a threat to "religious regulations." And notice how the place was closed down by what we'd call the vice cops. Sound familiar? Interesting that whenever the women folk gather together--whether it's for dancing in a 1950s New York bar or singing in a Saudi Arabian park--the men folk classify it a "vice" matter.

Then there's the matter of economic self-sufficiency. The park provided jobs for women. Also scary! And not allowable. Women must be financially dependent on men!

From Arab News:

YANBU: The Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice closed down the only women’s park in Yanbu on Thursday. The move resulted in the loss of 60 jobs for local women, Al-Watan newspaper reported yesterday.

Suleiman Al-Hamadi, vice chairman of the commission’s Yanbu branch, said the reason for the closure was complaints by people in nearby houses that they were disturbed by the sound of music from the facility. “The commission closed the park with the permission of the local administrator as it received many complaints from local residents about loud music and singing from there,” Al-Hamadi said.

Local women frequented the facility, as it provided health and sports clubs meant exclusively for women.

Shaimah Al-Anazi, owner of the entertainment facility, told the daily that several policemen ordered women and children visitors out from the park and closed the facility without giving any reason for their act.

Muhammad Al-Balawi, chairman of Yanbu Municipal Council, had inaugurated the park last September. The opening function was also attended by Ata Allah Al-Nazawi, director of the General Organization for Social Insurance, and Ibrahim Al-Alouni, director general of Abdul Latif Jameel Social Services Program.

“I will approach the Madinah governor and the chief of the commission to find out the real cause of closing the park, which is the only outdoor entertainment facility for women in this city,” Al-Anazi said. “It was a small village that catered to women’s entertainment needs while conforming to the regulations and Saudi traditions.”

Al-Anazi said she did not get any notice or warning from the authorities before closing the facility in which she had invested SR2 million. She suspected that the commission might have been provoked by an allegation by some people that the facility violated religious regulations.

She said such allegations are baseless and, on the other hand, the facility used to hold frequent religious lectures for women. She added that some people also mounted pressure on the guards in the park to quit their jobs.

Umm Emad, a divorced woman who worked at the park, said she and her three children would have no income to support themselves if the park remained closed.