Skip to content

From Women’s Rights to Women’s Liberation:
The Second-Wave Feminist Movement in Washington State

by Hope Morris
The Washington State ERA Coalition leads march in Seattle July 8, 1978. Washington had ratified the ERA five years earlier but with the deadline approaching, proponents needed seven more states to ratify.Photo by Howard Staples, courtesy of the Museum of History and Industry (2000.

As late as 1969, very few women were represented in government or significant positions of influence in Washington State, and yet by 1977 the state had legalized abortion, ratified the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), and eliminated decades of laws discriminating on the basis of sex, making it one of the most progressive states on women’s issues in the nation. This remarkable turn-around was enabled by the two distinct wings of the second-wave feminist movement who cooperated to take advantage of key political opportunities.

Liberal feminist organizations such as the National Organization for Women (NOW) focused on pressuring those in politically powerful positions and recruiting women to run for elected office, using conventional political methods and bi-partisan political moderation as a means to change the political status quo. Women’s liberation and radical feminists directly challenged societal attitudes through grassroots activism and demonstrations, proposing radical solutions and extending gender norms and claiming expanded rights of citizenship. The tactics and strategy of both liberal and radical feminists differentiated the Washington movements from those in many states and the national second-wave feminist movement, where the lines between the two often became “blurred,” as historian Ruth Rosen argues.[1] Instead, in Washington the two wings of the movement were clearly defined yet mostly operated together, forming a tense but effective collaboration that achieved important victories.

The movement was successful in opening freedoms and eliminating legal forms of discrimination against women, notably through a state law legalizing of abortion, ratification of the federal Equal Rights Amendment and passage of a Washington State Equal Rights law, and reforms to marriage and divorce laws. Despite these accomplishments other goals such as access to healthcare and protections against sexual harassment and rape were left largely unachieved as the movement began to face increasing conservative backlash. This essay will rely on historian Robert Self’s framework of positive and negative rights, as he contextualizes the second-wave feminist movement as taking part in the shift “from a demand for positive rights and robust state action to a reluctant acceptance of negative rights and a weaker state more committed to liberty than equality.”[2] The difference between negative rights— the elimination of gender-based discrimination and ability to gain equal status with men, and positive rights—the provision and recognition of services unique to women- becomes crucial in the later half of the 1970s and influenced the direction of women’s activism past the movement’s decline.

Early 1960s

The second-wave feminist movement began in the early 1960s with the realization that the role of women in American society was rapidly changing. The 1960 census revealed that the percentage of women in the workforce was rising, an increase primarily fueled by married women and women with children in the labor force.[3] Yet, despite their increased presence in the workforce, women continued to earn less than men, were barely represented in top political and administrative positions, and were often passed over for promotions or higher-paying positions. As Rosen argues, “the economic status of women had actually declined” since the 1940s as women’s wages decreased and disparities in positions of power and among women of color increased as well.[4]

Women not in the labor force were also rethinking structures of inequality. This was most obviously prompted by publication of The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan in 1963, the book credited as the launch point that articulated the “problem that has no name” and awakened the nation’s housewives and working women to activism.[5] Friedan’s book led women to realize that “Since pioneer days, women have been “accepting [more] responsibility, frequently without corresponding privileges.”[6] The 1960s was decidedly an “unliberated” decade for women.[7]

As critics exposed dimensions of women’s unpaid and low paid labor and questioned the foundations of American gendered capitalism, politicians began to respond. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy, at the urging of female advisors, created the Presidential Commission on the Status of Women. The commission’s report, The American Woman, documented many of the ways that women were treated unfairly and unequally and helped persuade congress to pass a mostly symbolic Equal Pay Act in 1963. Several states followed suit and launched their own commissions and investigations based on the national model. Many women contributed their voices to these efforts becoming politically active perhaps for the first time in their lives.[8]

Washington State: An “Invitation to Action”[9]

National patterns of inequality were duplicated in Washington State. Sex segregation in jobs prevailed in nearly every industry in the 1960s, despite the fact that many women remembered different conditions in World War II. In the state's wartime economy, many women experienced a degree of upward mobility in traditional "men’s jobs," working as welders and riveters for war industries such as the Boeing Aircraft Company and finding positions of responsibility in state and federal government. When men returned from the war, however, almost all major employers in the Puget Sound area stopped hiring women and many opportunities that had once been open were closed. The return of men sent many women back to the household. “The revolution in the economic role of women was not accompanied by a revolution within the household,” historian Karen Anderson argued of Washington’s postwar decades.[10]

By 1960, the “typical Washington woman was a high school graduate” who either did not attend college or dropped out to get married. At a time when women nationally were increasing in the workforce, the 344,478 job holding women in Washington represented 31% of the labor force.[11] They mostly worked in what were considered "women’s jobs" in clerical, sales, and service occupations. The average female worker was 41 years old and the majority were married, representing national trends. Of women who were working, many were "Until Workers": “they plan to work 'until marriage'; 'until the house is paid for'; 'until the car is paid for'; 'until the baby comes'; 'until her husband finishes college'; or any number of other 'untils'!" according to a 1963 report by the Washington state Governor's Commission on the Status of Women.[12]

Governor Albert Rosellini, a Democrat, had created the Commission in February 1963 in the wake of federal commission, and months later the Governor's commission had issued a strong report detailing challenges and prospects. The second state in the nation to start such a study, the Governor's Commission envisioned the state becoming a “showcase” of gender equality and was eager to take action on women’s rights and the advancement of equal career opportunities for women.[13]

Formation of the commission brought together the few women who had managed to break into the "good old boys" club of politics. The commission consisted of 29 members from different counties, both men and women, Democrats and Republicans, representing a diverse cross section of the state. Rossellini appointed Mildred Dunn as "chairman," explaining in the significance of appointing a female chair: “women still are inclined to consider themselves inferior to men as they did in antiquity, and we would like to see more women participate on commissions and boards in state and local government.”[14] Many of the group’s members came from the Washington State Federation of Business and Professional Women’s Clubs, who brought 300 women to the state capitol in Olympia to support its formation.[15] Over the next year, the commission met with women across the state, hosting public information-gathering sessions from Bellingham, Yakima, Spokane, Vancouver, Kennewick, and Seattle and bridging the first political coalitions among women.[16]

Part of the commission’s most important work was identifying areas of the law that were clearly discriminatory against women. One preliminary change was to repeal an 1890 law prohibiting women from holding elected public office. The statute had been ignored for some time and Dunn was surprised to realize that the law had never been repealed: “With two U.S. Congresswomen and many other elected women officials throughout our state it was distressing to learn that this outdated law was still on our statute books.”[17]

Governor Rosellini also issued two executive orders regarding sex-based employment discrimination: one to the State Personnel Board reviewing appointment and promotions practices, and another fair practices order prohibiting discrimination against race, religion, color, age or sex in the hiring practices of state and affiliated agencies and contractors.[18] These orders targeted both public and private employers and while they promised an easy solution to employment discrimination, they would be difficult to enforce. However, these early actions signalled the state government’s willingness to respond to the concerns of women, setting an important precedent that encouraged women’s groups to seek further legislative solutions.

And much needed to be done, as the Commission's study clarified. Under Washington law women were not permitted to file for no-fault divorce, could not sue alone for personal injury, did not have rights over property as her husband did, could not apply for credit on her own, or even sit alone in bars, amonst other discriminatory laws.[19]

The commission report ultimately soft-peddled its overall evaluation concluding that “the status of women in Washington is a particularly favorable one.”[20] But was it? This conclusion was reached by citing the existence of a state Equal Pay Law, which had been enacted in 1943 as a way to thank women for contributing to the wartime workforce. However, the law had no teeth and report acknowledged it had “never been tested by a court case even though many women workers are not receiving equal pay for equal work.”[21] Indeed, in 1951, Isabel Watson of the State Department of Labor and Industries unveiled a central contradiction of passing women’s legislation without implementation, saying the law was “not worth the paper it is written on.”[22] The commission’s singular focus on the existence of legislation missed the larger picture: simply stating that women and men were equal did not achieve it. Equal pay thus emerged as a litmus issue that represented how the commission, which was made up of primarily middle to upper class, professional women, did not see eye to eye with the realities of working women in Washington.

Not highlighted in the report but still significant are the ways in which the status of women of color and working women diverged from the majority of white, middle-class, and married workers. First, those classified as “non-white women,” including Black, Asian, Hispanic migrant workers, and ethnic seasonal workers, were more likely to be employed than their white counterparts, as 37.4% of all non-white women in the state were employed.[23] This also reflected national patterns in which women of color were overrepresented in the female workforce. These women often worked more hours and earned less money than white women, with African American women earning “little more than half” as much as whites.[24] The percentage of African American women working in the state increased 104% from 1950 to 1960, by which time 28% of black mothers worked, mostly in personal service and private households.[25] Discrimination in the workforce created divisions, often along racial/ethnic lines, between women who were already working and those seeking to work. The differing conditions of employment, labor, and social class did not provide a sense of gender-based unity among women in the state.

Despite the progress still to be made, by taking proactive action on women’s issues and studying their status in society, Governor Rosellini began the series of events that would bring women’s issues to the forefront of state politics. Two years later, newly elected Governor Dan Evans, a Republican, reinstated the Commission with new chair Mrs. Vesta Cutting, committing his administration to continue Rosellini’s work even as party control switched. Speaking of the original report upon her appointment, Cutting reflected the sentiment that “women have a great responsibility to themselves to qualify for jobs,” adding that the group would also help minority groups in need of more training.[26] In 1965, members of the commission spoke at the Northwest Regional Association of Colored Women, an attempt to bring the organization of Colored Women’s Clubs into the emerging movement.

Support in the Governor's office did not mean that public opinion necessarily followed. Over the next ten years, as feminists fought for rights they also confronted overwhelmingly sexist attitudes in the media and the public. The major newspapers, including the Seattle Times and Seattle Post-Intelligencer, were often hostile, especially in the early years. A 1963 Post-Intelligencer opinion piece blasted the idea of a commission made up of and studying women: “Guv, You Really Stirred Things Up!” Arguments arose over how children would be affected if their mothers went to work. One article on the rise of female employment treat working as merely an option, noting “Many women work to meet their own emotional-intellectual needs… If the husband and children are suffering, then I feel the woman should not work.”[27]

The political strength of women was also growing. On November 22, 1963, Betty Friedan visited the University of Washington at a conference titled “Woman’s Destiny: Choice or Chance?” a discussion prompted by publication of the state and national reports.[28] As panelists discussed implementation of the commission’s recommendations into their everyday lives, they began one of many discussions over the next decade between men and women and amongst women themselves. The next day's Seattle P-I read “Gals! Time to Revolt!” bemusedly warning that Friedan was "frankly inciting women to revolution."[29] The paper, and the public at large, had no idea what would come next.

Women’s Liberation: “The System is Haywire”[30]

By the late 1960s, young women were coming of age in a world that was radically different than that of their mothers. Many young women were influenced by social movements of the 1960s and developed increasingly critical views of the government. Instead of seeking the recognition of equal rights in the law and society as it existed, they turned to radical movements as an alternative vehicle of change. Many also had a profound recognition of opportunities lost to women in the 1950s, often observed through their mother’s lives. In an interview for this article, Erin Van Bronkhurst, a student at the University of Washington (UW) who became active in the feminist movement, said of her mother: “I was the one she put the armor on and sent me out to do battle with the world to make up for the dreams she wasn’t able to achieve.”[31]

The strong presence of the old and New Left social movements in Washington thus energized a culture of activism that fostered leadership and activist roles for women, often centered on college campuses. These movements were especially on display and active in Seattle, a liberal hub of Washington with a history of workers rights and activism. In the 1950s and 60s, this activist culture was built on the foundation of the Communist Party and the Socialist Workers Party, which the Freedom Socialist Party (FSP) broke away from in 1967. In the late 1960s, antiwar groups such as the National Peace Action Coalition (NPAC) and the Peace and Freedom Party (PFP) gathered in Seattle as well as university chapters of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Equally important, civil rights and black freedom movements in Seattle left racial equity deeply ingrained in leftist thought, highlighted by the formation of Seattle’s Black Panther Party in 1968.

Women participated in established organization with the Leftbut were not treated equally by male members and leaders. Dotty DeCoster, a member of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) in the mid 1960s, was recorded as saying “Those of us who were involved in so-called radical politics ... we depended on an occasional good natured guy to answer questions or share literature with us, but if you went to a radical meeting you weren't allowed to talk.”[32] As energy transitioned towards the New Left in 1968, namely with the formation of the Black Panther Party and the growth of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), these experiences got even worse. Members of the New Left were extremely radical on the issues of race and class and yet were quite oppressive and chauvinist to women within their ranks. Van Bronkhurst, who participated in the Kent State and Cambodian war protests on the UW campus, remembered the frustrations: “I remember getting angry because women were not really taken seriously as part of that movement. We were supposed to be around to be girlfriends or cook the meals or something.”[33] In an interview, Stephanie Coontz, a national leader in NPAC and a student at the University of Washington, remembered an encounter with New Left organizers as her first personal experience with sexism, recalling “I remember one of the Seattle Seven jumping up and down in front of my face saying “You counter-revolutionary bitch!”[34]

The blatant sexism women in these organizations faced often made for a rude awakening and forced women to think critically about gender. Coontz spoke of her initial understanding of gender as three-fold: “There’s men, there’s women, and then there’s me.” She did not view herself as having much in common with housewives and mothers defined as the American woman, and this position was more affected by her own rare status as a woman in a position of leadership in the Left and its hostility to the establishment than by a gender consciousness. “I did not understand that women, even those partaking in the establishment, were also victim of these sexist ideas… Many of us young social activists saw female domesticity as a choice middle-class women made in order to be supported by a husband, not as something imposed on them. As a result, we saw ourselves as having more in common with men than women.”[35]

What changed these ideas was the implementation of “consciousness-raising” sessions, where, in a similar fashion to the overnight awakening of housewives to their own oppression in The Feminine Mystique, women in the Left shared stories and experiences of discrimination with each other. As historian Linda Gordon argues, by organizing and partaking in consciousness-raising sessions, women actively engaged in a form of activism.[36] At these "rap" sessions and educational discussions, women experienced the emotional realization that as they were fighting against racial discrimination, they had ignored the similarly all-encompassing existence of gender oppression and discrimination.

Women’s liberation groups first met as organizations embedded within the Left and did not hold separatist positions. The Old Left in particular saw the growth of women’s peace-centered organizations, as the first women’s political group was established in 1961 when women left the Communist Party to form Seattle Women Act for Peace, a nuclear nonproliferation organization.[37] The first group centered on women themselves, however, did not arise until 1967 when socialist feminist Gloria Martin, FSP leader Clara Fraser, and Susan Stern from SDS formed the organization Radical Women (RW) out of a series of classes on “Women in US Society” held by The Free University, an organization in Seattle’s University District that offered countercultural alternatives to college classes.[38]

Radical Women was the state’s first women’s liberation group and focused on answering ‘The Woman Question,’ as it was known within the Left. Their view, written in the Radical Women Manifesto, was that the “liberation of women is interrelated with all the burning injustices that define capitalism.”[39] Importantly, this rested on an understanding that women’s liberation would not be independently achieved but would be accomplished along with class revolution. Radical Women largely focused on this message, striking and rallying with members of SDS and the Seattle Black Panthers, concentrating efforts primarily on labor struggles instead of gender disputes.[40] They donned black hats and clothing in support of women in Vietnam and collaborated with other leftist and labor groups: the Anna Louise Strong Brigade, Fan-Shen Collective, and the Red Balloon Brigade. These connections contextualized women’s liberation on a global scale and kept to socialist feminism’s view that gender oppression was secondary to class struggle.[41]

While women’s liberation first formed out of a need to challenge sexism and chauvinism within the Left, feminist activists extended this challenge to the status-quo beliefs of society at large through grassroots activism and female solidarity. This strategy was exemplified at an April 1968 demonstration against a “Men’s Day” event held at the University of Washington campus. The event, which featured Playboy Playmate Reagan Wilson and an audience of 500 men, followed a domestic “Ladies Day” discussion and tea with First Lady of the State Mrs. Evans.[42] The differentiation between the two events prompted a group of women to storm the stage wearing paper bags over their heads, where they were mocked, jeered, and even physically attacked. But it energized student Barbara Winslow, who recounted the experience as her introduction to activism. She had run on to the stage and attempted to explain to the audience: “This was a women’s liberation demonstration, we’re tired of being treated like sex objects, we want to be treated like human beings.”[43]

The demonstration was followed by similar forms of public activism. In the fall of 1968, Winslow helped to co-found Women’s Liberation-Seattle (WL-S) at the University of Washington campus. The group quickly turned to public and grassroots activism to organize on behalf of women, taking on actions such as distributing leaflets directly into women’s hands and not men’s, charging men more than women, protesting wet T-shirt contests, and picketing football games full of thousands of white male fans.[44] These actions not only countered predominant social attitudes of the time but more significantly formed close bonds amongst both feminist activists and women on campus at large. While the organization was initially a wing of SDS, it later broke with the organization and became an independent women’s group.[45] In an interview, Winslow said “I found it exhilarating… I thought sisterhood was ferocious, difficult, complicated and joyous… it was a period where you could do anything.”[46]

Sisterhood also developed through the growth of feminist publications in radical organizations. Feminist writings initially built on existing underground publications such as the Helix and the Sabot, a “mixed-sex collective” effort Blake Slokener argues was an important attempt by women’s liberation towards an “egalitarian” Left feminist movement. However, as women’s liberation grew and Helix editors in particular became resistant to feminist philosophy, the attempted bridge between the Left and liberation became untenable.[47] This led to a proliferation of independent feminist publications, such as Pandora and Ain’t I a woman! by Women’s Liberation-Seattle, as well as Lilith, a magazine by the anarchist Women’s Majority Union. All of these began to build “feminist institutional cultures,”[48] and were very closely linked to the organizational momentum of the movement, as magazines ran pages advertising women’s groups, meetings, and services.

Pandora was the most popular and widely distributed among these, and as an independently established newsletter written by a female press team, described its purposes as “two-fold”: “to maintain communication and sisterhood among groups, and to give fair and accurate coverage to events and projects which concern women’s struggle for equality.”[49] Van Bronkhurst became editor of the paper and described its need compared to other media sources: “There wasn’t anything- the TV stations were all men, and the radio stations were all men, and they always just laughed. It was a joke, women’s lib. It was a big joke to the men.”[50] Pandora thus emerged as a place for news on the women’s movement to be reported, and I will use it as a source throughout this paper.

As consciousness-raising sessions and activism efforts led women to question their relationship with men, many responded in different ways. Some believed, as Janet Hews from the Women’s Majority Union wrote in Lilith that both men and women were victims of capitalist patriarchal structure: “realizing that the poor bastard, too, is just as victimized as you, even though he doesn’t seem to know it.”[51] Women advocated for equal recognition in relationships with men, refusing to be treated as inferior. But collective action through solidarity was a deliberate tactic that separated women from men, and this provided both social freedom and an overcorrection and analysis of traditional relationships. “I find it completely inconsistent when a woman, labeling herself a feminist, will avoid advocating the destruction of the institution of marriage as it now exists,” Wanda Adams suggested in a “Marriage and Divorce” issue of Pandora.[52] This was pushed further to an evaluation of women’s sexual relationships as radical feminists empowered women to take charge of their sexuality. One woman noted the difficulties of navigating these relationships, stating “the male definition of our sexuality is wrong. And yet we have not developed an independent sexuality for ourselves.”[53]

The development of women’s culture and identities became a core value of women’s liberation and encouraged the formation of identity-based women’s groups that brought lesbians into the movement. Lesbians found that neither the gay liberation movement nor the women’s movement understood their lives, describing themselves as “invisible.”[54] Among the first groups formed by lesbian members of Women’s Liberation-Seattle along with others was the Gay Women’s Alliance, which organized out of the Seattle Liberation Front, breaking away similarly as other groups did from male organizations.[55]

The Gay Mother’s Union also gathered lesbian mothers who challenged the social and legal belief that “if you are a lesbian, then you aren’t fit to be a good mother,” instead arguing that “the ability to raise children is NOT based on the mother’s sex life.”[56] Lesbians built on this support and added to feminist culture: Public gathering spaces including an It’s About Time bookstore and the University YWCA became supportive and comfortable environments for social organization. These insular environments were crucial to supporting lesbians, but, as they were frequented by women’s liberation activists as well, also connected them to political action as issues like the recognition of lesbians as equal citizens, childcare, and reproductive and sexual freedoms were causes they had in common with the broader movement. While lesbian feminism and liberation was unique and its own, they supported the goals of women’s liberation as fundamental to their lives and pushed it to be more open and inclusive of all women.

Therefore, important group values formed among radical and lesbian feminists who were part of women’s liberation: the importance of sisterhood and collective action, consciousness-raising as a tactic of organizing, and the contextualization of women’s liberation within broader national and global causes.[57] These perspectives were influenced by its origins in the civil rights, black freedom, free speech and antiwar movements, and led women to challenge chauvinism both within the Left and society as a whole.

Continue Part 2: Campaigns, Victories, Frustrations


Copyright © Hope Morris 2022
Honors thesis, UW History Department March 2022
winner of the 2022 Library Research Award from University of Washington Libraries

[1] Ruth Rosen, The World Split Open: How the Modern Women's Movement Changed America (New York: Viking, 2000), 263.

[2] Robert O. Self, All in the Family: The Realignment of American Democracy Since the 1960s (New York: Hill and Wang, a Division of Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2012), 12.

[3] Self, 110.

[4] Rosen, 79.

[5] Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1963).

[6] Correspondence from Mrs. Hope Roberts to Governor Grant Sawyer of Nevada, 15 December 1964, 6204-001, Box 5, Folder 23, Zelda K. Boulanger papers, Special Collections, University of Washington.

[7] Stephanie Coontz, A Strange Stirring: The Feminine Mystique and American Women at the Dawn of the 1960s (New York: Basic Books, 2011), 1.

[8] Harrison, Cynthia E. “A ‘New Frontier’ for Women: The Public Policy of the Kennedy Administration.” The Journal of American History 67, no. 3 (1980), p. 634

[9] “Report of the Commission on the Status of Women,” Washington Women’s History Consortium, Office of the Secretary of State, p. viii.

[10] Karen Sue Tucker Anderson, “The Impact of World War II In the Puget Sound Area on the Status of Women and the Family,” PhD diss., (University of Washington, 1975).

[11] Report, p. 1-2

[12] Report, p. 8

[13] Report, p. 5; The first state being Michigan. “State Council on Rights of Women Urged.” Seattle Daily Times, January 21, 1963, p. 22

[14] “Accountant-Mother to Fight For Equal Status for Women,” Seattle Daily Times, February 25, 1963, p. 24

[15] “Commission To Study Status Of Women in Washington State,” Washington Business Woman 32, no. 5 (1963)

[16] Report, p. vi

[17] Report, p. vi. [18] Ibid. [19] “Legislation Status and Results, 1965-1969” Washington Women’s History Consortium, Washington State Archives, Office of the Secretary of State [20] Report, Ibid.

[21] Report, p. 31

[22] Anderson, 224.

[23] Report, p. 4

[24] Ibid.

[25] Cobbins, Quin'Nita F., and Taylor, Quintard. Black Emeralds: African American Women's Political Activism and Leadership in Seattle, 1941-2000. PhD diss., (University of Washington, 2018), p. 104

[26] “Women: “Unlimited Opportunities’ Awaiting You,” Seattle Times, July 25, 1965

[27] Beth Vertrees, “Women Continue To Fill More Jobs,” Seattle Post-Intelligencer, August 7, 1963, p. 14

[28] Hevly, Nancy. “Gals! Time to Revolt!” Seattle Post-Intelligencer, November 22, 1963, p. 18.

[29] Ibid, p. 18

[30] Pumphrey, Ruth, “The System is Haywire” Seattle Post-Intelligencer, January 20, 1970, p. 18

[31] Erin VanBronkhurst, interview with author, February 1, 2022.

[32] Dotty DeCoster, interview with Heather MacIntosh, “The Women’s Movement and Radical Politics in Seattle, 1964-1980”, April 15, 2000.

[33] Erin VanBronkhurst, February 1, 2022.

[34] Stephanie Coontz, interview with author, February 1, 2022.

[35] Coontz, interview with author, February 1, 2022; email with author, April 1, 2022.

[36] Gordon, Linda. “Socialist Feminism: The Legacy of the ‘Second Wave.’” New Labor Forum 22, no. 3 (2013), 24.

[37] Barbara Winslow, “Seattle Women Act for Peace is founded in November 1961,”, January 16, 1999,

[38] Martin, Gloria. Socialist Feminism, the First Decade, 1966-76. Second ed. Seattle: Freedom Socialist Publications, 198, xiv.; John Caldbick, “Helix (1967-1970), February 13, 2020,

[39] Radical Women Manifesto: Theory, Program, & Structure. Rev. Apr., 1973. ed. Seattle: Radical Women Publications, 1973.

[40] “14 Arrested in Ruckus At Struck Seattle Plant” Seattle Post-Intelligencer, April 30, 1969, p. 3

[41] Barbara Winslow, “Oral Histories: Barbara Winslow,” by Jessie Kindig and Trevor Griffey, Antiwar and Radical History Project-Pacific Northwest, Civil Rights and Labor History Consortium, University of Washington, March 25, 2009,

[42] Kathy Massoth, “Playmate Meets Women—Radical Ones” Daily of the University of Washington, April 27, 1968, (University of Washington, Board of Student Publications, 1968), microfilm A3139.

[43] Winslow, p. 233

[44] Barbara Winslow, interview with author, January 28, 2022.

[45] Winslow, p. 233

[46] Winslow, interview with author.

[47] Blake Slonecker, "It’s with Tokens: Women’s Liberation and Toxic Masculinity in Seattle’s Underground Press," Pacific Historical Review 89, no. 3 (2020): 405.

[48] Slonecker, 431.

[49] "Pandora." Pandora 1, no. 1 (1970): [1]. Archives of Sexuality and Gender (accessed March 9, 2022). https://link-gale

[50] VanBronkhurst, interview with author.

[51] Hews, Janet, “On Becoming a Radical Woman” Lilith, September 1, 1968

[52] Wanda Adams, “Marriage: Destruction of the Instruction” Pandora, vol 2 issue 22, August 8, 1972.

[53]Oleson, Darcy, And ain’t I a woman!, vol 1 no 3, May 1, 1970, p. 8

[54] “Gay Women answer: ‘What is a lesbian?’ Daily of the University of Washington, May 21, 1971.

[55] Kevin McKenna, ‘LGBTQ Organizations and Periodicals,” Seattle Civil Rights & Labor History Project; Winslow.

[56] “Gay Mothers’ Group Formed” Pandora, February 8, 1972, p. 2

[57] Lee Ann Banaszak, Why Movements Succeed or Fail: Opportunity, Culture, and the Struggle for Woman Suffrage, Princeton Studies in American Politics: Historical, International, and Comparative Perspectives Ser. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996.