Strange

The T.M. Zink Womanless Library: Was It Ever Built? Where Is It?

by Tina Kells | August 31, 2009 at 12:53 pm

9872 views | 1 Recommendation | 8 comments

The Zink Womanless Library was intended to be devoid of all things woman. The Womanless Library was to have no books by women authors, no art by female artists, and a decor that would in no way appeal to or be created by women. The Womanless Library was a dying dream of Iowa attorney T.M. Zink, clearly expressed in his 1930 will. The Zink Womanless Library was to be a monument to his hatred of women. It was a dream never realized.

According to the terms of his 1930 will T.M. Zink put aside $100,000 US in a trust that was to be left alone to grow for 75 years. After 75 years the proceeds were to be used to build his misogynistic masterpiece, the Zink Womanless Library. The Womanless Library would not only ban anything by or even about a woman, it would ban women as well, complete with a well placed sign at the entry stating "No Women Admitted."

Attorney T.M. Zink must not have been a very good lawyer, his Womanless Library will did not stand up to court challenge, even back in the relatively woman un-friendly 1930's. Zink's daughter, who had been left only $5 in the will challenged it in court and won. The estate of T. M. Zink ultimately fell into the hands of a woman, his daughter, and the foundation trust for the Zink Womanless Library was never established.

In 1930, when Iowa attorney T. M. Zink died, the details of his will were made public. He stipulated that his $100,000 estate be placed in trust for 75 years, at which time the accumulated principal was to be used to establish the Zink Womanless Library.**

Like Truman Capote’s famous Black & White Ball, the ZWL would be defined more by what (in Capote’s case, who) it excluded than by what it contained. The library’s shelves would tolerate no authors, its walls no works of art, its furniture no decor sullied by the dreaded gender, and its portal would declare: No Women Admitted.

"My intense hatred of women is not of recent origin or development nor based upon any personal differences I ever had with them,” he explained, “but is the result of my experiences with women, observations of them, and study of all literatures and philosophical works."

1 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Add a comment

Jennifer from Madison, WI (not verified)

at 19:20 on August 31st, 2009

I had to look too! lol I figured it would never stand.

kristy foster (not verified)

at 23:55 on August 31st, 2009

Did the Court violate the constitutional Rights of Mr. Zink ?it was his money, he should be able to do with it anything he wants to... I do agree that the court should have awarded the Daughter (if she was under 18yrs old at the time) a living allowance as it is the duty of a parent to care for child... but for a Court to say... we think your Views are Politically Incorrect & therefore we are going to Void your Will.. is horrible There are many organizations that do not allow Women (or Men) to join... This is OK, the Girls Scouts, don't allow boys to join... Elks club is Men only... Private schools for one Gender etc.

Tina Kells

at 15:13 on September 1st, 2009

Pretty sure that back in the 1930s political correctness was not a big issue :)

mike unregistered (not verified)

at 04:39 on September 1st, 2009

Kristy,We have no idea why the will was ultimately overturned. Why do you assume it was done so because it was politically incorrect?

Leah J (not verified)

at 05:29 on September 1st, 2009

It doesn't really matter, because even if the court required the fund to wait out the 75 years, it would have been 2005 by the time the fund was ready, and it wouldn't have been legal anyway. If he had setup a private organization to maintain the fund and the library was for that organization's private use, it would be considered a private entity and would/could have been built and maintained by that group. However, since it was just one person with a fund to build a public building that was discriminating against a specific gender, that's illegal. Even in 1930, he should have known that. If he really wanted it built, he should have worded it better. Maybe he just wanted to cause a fuss - which he's obviously done, since nearly 80 years later, we are still discussing it.

LF (not verified)

at 06:10 on September 1st, 2009

LOL.... reading this I knew it would never be built...it's flat out wrong. FYI...there is Boys Scouts as well as all boys schools & all girls schools hence equal opportunity given to both genders. The courts have to use "Wisdom" and what is best for the people over what one persons desires...hence his need to spread his hatred 35 years into the future. I agree with the courts on this decision. It was his money however if the use of his money would have aided in the bombing of the Twin Towers would you be so supportive of him and his rights to use his money as he wish?

Hillery (not verified)

at 18:21 on September 2nd, 2009

I think it's a bit of a shame, really. I don't think it would have hurt anybody to have the library, and it was his money after all. Further, if the daughter was an adult and he only left her five dollars, he must have had his reasons. Where is this entitlement coming from in the first place? Just because you are related to someone who is rich and dies does not mean you are entitled to their money. Frankly, I would have liked to have seen the library (though I would not have been allowed to, being a woman).