'The ladies ought to have
at least three nights in the week':
women and Victorian Turkish baths

    

                           

This is a single frame, printer-friendly page taken from

one of the linked parts of an article published on Malcolm Shifrin's website

Victorian Turkish Baths: their origin, development, and gradual decline

        

Original illustrated page with notes and links

                           

 

        
4: Availability of the baths to women

Women’s areas were generally smaller, or else they were the same as the men’s second class baths, as in Cookridge Street, Leeds. These plans of Nevill’s Northumberland Avenue baths show that the difference could be considerable.

And it seems typically Victorian that the Keighley Board of Health decided to build separate first and second class baths—for men and women to use on different days—instead of one bath for men, and a second for women, both of which could be used every day.

In the Turkish baths open to the general public, women almost invariably seem to be at a disadvantage compared with men. Where facilities were shared, only one, Richardshaw Lane in Leeds, allowed women equal access. Of the fifty establishments for which occasional figures are available, over half limited women to the equivalent of one day per week, while the remainder divided roughly equally between one-and-a-half days, and two.

In 1858, a letter to the editor of a local paper about the Leeds Road establishment in Bradford read:

I know it is not orthodox for ladies to be newspaper correspondents. This however is a subject in which our sex has equal interest with the gentlemen… The ladies ought to have at least three nights in the week. On the two nights of the week the rooms are inconveniently crowded, and even sometimes during the afternoons.

Such complaints were not—and still are not—unusual. Women were told their days were not sufficiently patronised. One company chairman, apologising for the provision of just one day per week, said they had found,

wherever they had enquired that the ladies had not taken advantage of those baths, and, however much they might desire to be gallant to them, they wanted to see their funds first.

James Forder Nevill put it more bluntly, saying that they tried to open a ladies bath in Paddington but ‘Paddington women won’t take Turkish baths.’

Undoubtedly, Josephine Butler’s supporter, Dr Baxter Langley, was closer to the mark when he argued that,

Turkish Baths at present exclude women by their high prices, and in any public arrangements the female sex should be specially catered for.

But providing publicly funded Turkish baths was of doubtful legality at that time, and none was built in London till after Victoria’s reign.

5: Entrance charges and attendants' wages


                                  

 
 


The original page includes thumbnail pictures which can be enlarged.
All the enlarged images, listed and linked below, can also be printed.

Floor plans of Nevill's Northumberland Avenue premises

cooling-room at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1928

Cardiff Ladies Turkish Baths

Top of the page
             
                   

 

All complete pages,
with images, footnotes,
glossary & bibliography,
can be reached from the

Printer-friendly single frame
versions of all text pages
(and from them, all images)
can be reached from the

You can bookmark this page

Home Page

You can print this page

Site map

Victorian Turkish Baths: their origin, development, and gradual decline

Comments and queries are most welcome and can be sent to:

malcolm@victorianturkishbath.org

The right of Malcolm Shifrin to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him
in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988