This spoken word recording is a collection of personal musings and letters to the editor of The Fresno Bee, most of which ran in the paper. They were written under my then-name, Harriette Susan Ramos. The issue was primarily women's rights but included other progressive concerns. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s I was heavily committed to political activism and for some of that period I served on Fresno's Commission On The Status of Women, was president of Fresno NOW (the National Organization for Women), served on California's NOW's Executive Board and volunteered as a counselor at the Marjorie Mason Shelter for victims of domestic violence. I participated in protest marches, spoke to women's groups and classrooms, did media interviews, lobbied politicians, spoke against anti-woman legislation, wrote and performed political songs at rallies and conferences, traveled to and lobbied in states that had not ratified the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution and generally worked for gender equality along with other progressive causes. Learning to rise above patriarchal oppression was more difficult than I anticipated.and the struggle continues. Believing in a vision of a world in which women are valued as fully as are men keeps me going.

Spring 1978 A shy, introverted woman, Gail Rubin, 39, had returned to her home, Israel, from New York, some years earlier.  Her aunt was married to the brother of Senator (D-Conn), Abraham Ribicoff. Gail often wandered alone on an isolated beach near her kibbutz, taking pictures of the many seabirds which congregated there. The day in question included the newly-formed PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization). The PLO came ashore for their first foray and encountered Ms. Rubin.                             Solitary watcher of birds                             Death rises dripping from the sea                             Wrong beach today

February 1983 February fifteenth marks the 163rd anniversary of the birth of a phenomenal American. Each of us who believes in the rightness of the democratic process and in the expansion and exercise of human rights should mark this day with reflection and pride. As the tenacious, outspoken and courageous leader of the protracted struggle for women's suffrage, Susan Brownell Anthony stands as an inspirational figure to today's feminists. We want to encourage all people, particularly the young, to read of Ms. Anthony's lifetime as an activist. We hope to impress upon them the reality that suffrage for women did not descend into this patriarchal culture as manna from heaven, but rather is attributable to the monumental efforts of many women (and some men who cared), led by this extraordinary woman. Would it not be appropriate to set aside a day of national recognition of the woman most responsible for the enfranchisement of over half of the population? We, as participants in this second stage of feminism, will continue to honor Ms. Anthony's memory by making manifest her assertion that, "There shall never be another season of silence until women have the same rights as men have on this green earth."

November 1987 In response to Rabbi Segel's letter of 10/28 regarding language and feminism, I'd like to make some observations. I readily applaud those who "respect the dignity and legitimacy of women's rights". I, too, am a product of an education: "in which the proper use of the English language was a matter of primary concern". But at this juncture, the rabbi and I sharply part company. I don't interpret The Bee's use (or anyone else's, for that matter), of gender-specific and inclusive language as a manifestation of "pseudo-sensitivity" toward women. Such usage appears to exhibit an understanding of the following concepts.     1) Language is a living construct, properly adapting to changes in culture and values;     2) the language in which we think structures our attitudes which, in turn, direct our behavior;      3) women will not be viewed as truly equal to men until we remove the linguistic perspective establishing the male as the standard by which all things human are defined (man your post, manpower, manmade, mankind, for example) and women are as mere addenda, somehow aberrant to the norm.  If we replaced the above exclusionary list with this one - woman your post, woman power, woman made, womankind, do you suppose that men might feel left out? Might such words, if intended to refer to all humankind, reflect a matriarchal system which has rendered men powerless, socialized them into submission, to female dominance while restricting the number of societal roles they are allowed to play? Of course, feminism does not envision to the return of the matriarchy of ancient times, when God was a woman. Feminists, female and male, believe in the social, economic and political equality of the sexes, and the changes necessary to bring that about. I, for one, don't foresee the sky falling if a woman could earn a Spinster of Arts degree. But then I am a true feminist, not a hypocritical one.

October 1982 Don't I wish, as a member of the National Organization for Women, who has been through Consciousness-raising, that I were "totally enlightened - visualizing, clarifying and instructing all of 'man'kind (emphasis mine) upon all things". I do, however, feel qualified to enlighten Eugene Howard Austin (letter 10/10) as to the true nature of Consciousness raising. CR deals with the unique socialization to which females are subjected and the commonality of the societal injustices perpetuated against women. An understanding of this fairly limited purpose of CR can strike fear in the hearts of intransigent male chauvinists, determined to keep us "in our place." CR is the primary path over which women pass to recognition of the patriarchal system which has oppressed us for thousands of years. CR provides women with the knowledge and impetus to change their responses and, ultimately, feminists believe the inequitable system itself. The meaning of Mr. Austin's ramblings about NOW's "visceral form of thought control based upon eliciting specific responses programmed in us all through our natural childhood preparation and training" escapes us altogether. I do, though, question how "preparation and training" can be natural. These activities entail a selection from a wide variety of child-rearing options. Leaving children in a feral or undomesticated state could be considered "natural"; preparation and training cannot. I also submit that the existence of a "mother instinct" is unsubstantiated. Female socialization has traditionally coerced women into making child rearing their most important, if not sole, function. Women who have been through feminist CR, however, have acquired tools to severely limit society's sexist impact on their children. If this birthing instinct is real, non-sexist upbringing of girls will not affect their overwhelming desire to reproduce, right? Mr. Austin should applaud a method of parenting which would expose the "mother instinct" unsullied by cultural pressure. Feminists are not opposed to reproduction; we are opposed to that being our only life option sanctified by society. We remain dedicated to CR as a tool whereby women can liberate themselves from the stultifying limitations imposed by a male-dominated world. We would hope that the Eugene Howard Austins could support our efforts; we are determined, nonetheless, to achieve our goal with or without their consent.

November 1987 In mourning the American lives lost in Vietnam (as names etched on the Moving Wall, recently viewed in Fresno), Eli Setencich, on November 2, referred to Jim Doyle's regretting the loss of the cure for cancer and the great book which might have come from any of the young men who died in that dreadful war. At the same time Mr. Doyle grieved for the president to whom one of the young women killed might have given birth. Well, how about a little consciousness-raising? Might we not dwell on the loss of the woman who would have ended cancer or written the great American novel? May we not sorrow for the president, lost to us forever, who will never be fathered by one of those men? Here in the late twentieth century women are finally finding belated acceptance as something other than walking wombs. More and more of us are demanding recognition of our talents, not merely our biological ability to incubate males who are then to venture forth doing the really important work of the world. Making babies is worthwhile and satisfying for most women, but we don't all do it and it isn't all that we do.

December 1981 I am writing regarding Thursday's public hearings in Fresno concerning John Schmitz's proposed human life amendment to the California Constitution. As one who gave testimony in opposition, I was bothered by a number of allusions made by those on the pro-fetal-life side, including the Senator, to a faulty analogy between legalized abortion in this country and Nazi Germany's program of extermination of "undesirables". In so doing they displayed their ignorance of the issue at stake here - government intervention vs individual freedom. Adolph Hitler believed and acted on this belief to the extreme that, "We must do away with the conception that the treatment of the body is the affair of each individual." Elsewhere he stated that, "The sacrifice of personal existence is necessary to secure the preservation of the species." The Nazis preached against and punished contraception and women whose main purpose was not motherhood. Anti-feminism was a major component of Nazism. Aryan women could not choose abortion because that was considered an attempt to control the means of reproduction in defiance of the patriarchal state. "It must be considered reprehensible to refrain from giving healthy children to the nation." Non-Aryan ("unhealthy") women, on the other hand, were discouraged or prevented from reproducing via segregation, threats, labor camps, forcible abortion, sterilization, imprisonment or death in concentration camps. I am in no way suggesting that Senator Schmitz or those who supported him are Nazis or knowingly promoting Nazi thought. I am merely pointing out that the analogy which they insisted on bringing up is false. Recognizing the German woman's right to determine the outcome of her own pregnancy could not have evolved into an official state program of removing the "unwanted". The right would have remained in the hands of the people, each woman having power over her own body alone. Only by allowing the government to assume such authority is there a danger of such atrocities ever taking place. Aryan women died, non-Aryan women died because the state controlled women as the means of reproduction. Such public policy is an affront to the rights of women, an endangerment to their lives and a threat to all personal freedoms.

November 1987 I am delighted that Harry Allison (letter 11/23) has deigned to "grant women equality" as if he were actually in a position to do so. However, as his sarcastic response to our letter of 11/16 (from the undersigned and Doris Zepezauer) indicates, he clearly remains ignorant of the significance of exclusionary language. Languages in daily use by living people are themselves living and developing entities. It is inevitable and entirely proper that they change as societies change. While I am also a linguistic traditionalist in many ways ((I fail to see how the acceptance of run-on sentences improves communication) at the same time I applaud new words, usages and constructions that accurately reflect our cultural realities. Mr. Allison's description of "chairperson" as an "awkward, self-conscious obscenity" seems a bit hyperbolic. Dare I infer that "chairwoman" (another alternative to the misuse of "chairman") fills him with similar loathing? I have never had Mr. Allison's good fortune to live in a society in which my sex formulated the rules and decided who would play the game. Therefore I can only hope that I would exhibit a more insightful, egalitarian attitude toward attempts by the oppressed sex to render the system more just. Mr. Allison writes like a man who perceives himself under siege, fearful of losing undeserved privileges. He makes a quantum leap, which I assume he thinks humorous, moving from the feminists' dissatisfaction with the misapplication of "manpower" to "bisexual power". Yes, I can imagine although not without some difficulty where the term "bisexual power" might be relevant. But Harry's deliberate trivializing of this point lends credence to my impression of him as a narrow-minded, sexist male determined to appear obtuse. I would consider the creation of a Spinster of Arts degree a not insignificant step on our way to recognizing the full humanity of women; such a designation might move us a little distance toward dispelling the thoroughly arrogant male idea that a never-married woman is, by definition, a failure, somehow deficient, pitiable. The Harry Allisons of the world do serve to keep progressive folks like feminists grounded in patriarchal reality. We must not forget that for each person struggling to move civilization beyond rampant inequities there are probably a thousand working equally hard to maintain the status quo, unsatisfactory and destructive though it may be.

December 1987 "We the People of the World, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure planetary Tranquility, provide for global security, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Federation of the Planet Earth." Is there time? Dare we hope? Two hundred years ago in Philadelphia, the weakness of the Articles of Confederation was recognized. From the end of the revolution in 1783, lawlessness had reigned among the newly independent thirteen states. New York and New Jersey shot it out in New York harbor over the right to tax incoming ships; Maryland and Virginia threatened war over the Potomac; Connecticut settlers waged three wars with the state of Pennsylvania. So in 1787 a new Constitution was drafted, based on the federal principle, which allowed each state to rule itself internally but granted to the federal government the authority to resolve disputes between them. Today, faced with major problems of a global nature (massive hunger, dwindling natural resources, exploding populations, pollution, conventional wars and the threat of ultimate, full-scale nuclear warfare), it is apparent to many that international lawlessness cannot be endured much longer if life on this planet is to survive. Isn't it odd that while we insist on the need for local, state and national governments, we tolerate (nay, many defend) anarchy on the international level? The federal principle, so effective in establishing and maintaining the United States and a number of other nations, the principle so revered, is just as valid when applied on a global scale and even more vital. The most obvious mechanism for establishing enforceable world law is a strengthened, restructured United Nations. As presently chartered, the U.N. is a confederation of member states, with no power to tax its members for support, no power to enforce its resolutions, no power to enforce its judicial decisions, no power to move against members who violate its rules and no power to protect any nation from aggression by another. Under an umbrella of world federalism, each nation would transfer part of its external sovereignty to the global authority, relieving it of the need to maintain burdensome military machinery. The world federation would have the power to settle international disputes and solve international problems through enforceable world law...

May 25, 1981 My middle school son recently elected to remain seated during the pledge to the flag. He did this out of a deeply-felt conviction that he could not, in good conscience, repeat this pledge any longer. As an agnostic he was not comfortable with "under God" and felt it to be an intrusion of church into state. He does not believe that there is "liberty and justice for all" and, moreover, wishes to reserve the right to evaluate his degree of support for this country as the situations requiring it occur. He was directed by the principal, to whom he'd been sent by the teacher, to produce written permission that he be allowed to remain seated. While I appreciate the fact that no one attempted to compel him to stand, and that they did listen respectfully to his explanation, I am, nonetheless, concerned over the role that the school is playing. I understand that it is expected that one patriotic activity be carried out daily, an exercise, I submit, in the propagandizing of our children. I would find it encouraging if considerably more effort went into teaching them how to think, critically, than into what to believe. A pledge made to the effect of, "My country, right or wrong" hardly develops rational, skeptical thought. In our home we promote the concept of loyalty to one's species, believing that lesser loyalties, including nationalism, do violence to the hopes for world peace and, to the extent that they are successful, threaten human survival.

October 1978 Personally, I am more than pleased that someone has finally seen fit to attempt to protect the rights of parents with regard to the impact made upon children by teachers in the public school. Proposition 6 was too long in coming and I am in hopes that other far-sighted people will take it upon themselves to initiate additional legislation in this area. There are, it seems to me, a number of other facets of a teacher's character which should rightly come under close scrutiny and control of the public. For instance, as a flaming liberal, I definitely want to protect my children against any inroads made by a politically conservative instructor.  As a person who strongly believes in the evils of alcoholic beverages, I would be horrified at the thought that my child may sit in a classroom presided over by a teacher who imbibes (albeit only at home). Recognizing as I do the ill effects of the smoking of tobacco, I would hope that my offspring could be spared the dangers inherent in their being educated by one who engages in this filthy habit. And finally, speaking as a practicing agnostic, why, in god's name, should I have to allow my youngsters' academic careers to be guided, or misguided, by a believer in the supernatural. Inasmuch as individuals' personal habits, political alignments and religious orientations materially affect the quality of our culture, I deem it critical for the protection of the younger generation that we exercise a high degree of control over teachers in these regards. I am hereby aligning myself with all the narrow-minded bigots who support Proposition 6.  I am sure that we are willing to grant the Constitution's basic rights to all others of whom we approve.

side 1: This Spoken Recording Wrong Beach Today Susan B. Anthony Response to Rabbi Segel Total Enlightenment It Isn't All That We Do side 2: Personal Freedom Amendment Response to Harry Allison Articles of Federation Pledge to the Flag Proposition 6