Operation Hand Sanitizer

As a lifelong student of the deadly scourge known as “conservatism,” I read with great interest a recent piece by Ezra Klein in Vox entitled Standing near hand sanitizer makes Americans more conservative. So what will Ebola do?. Klein reports on a growing mass of evidence that human social and political cultures are emergent properties of our responses to infectious disease threats—or “pathogen stress,” as the fancy lib’rul eeleet perfessers like to call it. The gist of the theory is this: through all of human history, infectious diseases have been the single greatest threat to human populations—killing more people than wars, natural disasters and noninfectious diseases combined—such that humans (like other animals) have evolved behavioral responses to avoid them. Just as our biological immune system is triggered by the presence of diseases, so too is our “behavioral immune system” activated by (perceived) disease threats in our environment. Klein gives the examples of our fear and aversion upon encountering a rat, and feeling disgusted when you get a whiff of rotten meat. It works at a surprisingly granular level, too: humans react with disgust to yellowish liquids that resemble pus, yet we remain unfazed by blueish substances of the same texture.

 

It turns out that the reaction of disgust in particular has profound moral and political implications, not just for individuals but for culture writ large. There is a well-demonstrated link between moral notions of “purity” and social conservatism, and conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals. Where this gets very, very interesting is the finding that even subtle reminders of cleanliness (or its opposite, impurity) can trigger more conservative attitudes—in anyone. In a clever set of experiments, Cornell University psychologists Erik Helzer and David Pizarro approached every ninth college student entering a campus hallway and asked them to take a quick survey about their demographics and political beliefs. Half the students were asked to “step over to the hand-sanitizer dispenser to complete the questionnaire,” and the other half were asked to “step over to the wall to complete the questionnaire” where the hand sanitizer had been removed. The researchers reported:

Participants who reported their political attitudes in the presence of the hand-sanitizer dispenser reported a less liberal political orientation than did participants in the control condition. Despite the noisy nature of the public hallway in which we collected the data, it appears as if a simple reminder of physical purity was able to shift participants’ responses toward the conservative end of the political spectrum.

The conservative effect held for fiscal, social and moral positions. Helzer and Pizarro then ran a second experiment in the lab, where half the participants were offered a hand sanitizer wipe before using the lab computers to answer a questionnaire about their moral values. Again, the researchers found that those exposed to the cleanliness cue reported significantly more conservative political attitudes than subjects who were not.

 

In other words we are pretty much meat robots, subconsciously programmed by cues in our environments. Even our most cherished and fiercely held moral and political beliefs can be profoundly affected by the circumstances in which we find ourselves. It is worth remembering that we are talking about tendencies here; these are modern manifestations of ancient survival mechanisms in a much more complex world. It’s probably a safe bet that it would require a whole lot more hand sanitizer to get some of us to vote for some berserker theocrat than it would our fellow citizens who are already well on their way to Hitlerville. Still, as research in the field has been expanding, the ramifications of the behavioral immune system are turning up everywhere. Mark Schaller  & Co. found that subjects primed to think about disease were much more prejudiced and fearful toward immigrants; in light of this, it is hardly surprising to discover that wherever there is a higher risk of infectious disease, societies tend to be more xenophobic. And it gets weirder. Randy Thornhill and Corey Fincher have found not only that societies in which pathogen-avoidant behaviors flourish are likely to coalesce into repressive and autocratic government systems, but that pathogen stress is positively correlated with "high levels of civil and ethnic warfare, increased rates of homicide and child maltreatment, patriarchal family structures, and social restrictions regarding women’s sexual behavior." [Emphasis added.]

 

That's right: patriarchy flourishes with the perceived threat of contagious diseases.

 

WHAT.

 

Naturally, this really got my beanie a-spinning. I wondered whether, in much the same way that the biological immune system can be tricked into positive action by vaccines, perhaps the behavioral immune system can be recruited to virtually eradicate the conservative pestilence infecting our nation (<—see what I did there? Hahaha.). And then it came to me in a flash: clearly what is needed here is a massive operation to get all of the hand sanitizer out of the halls of Congress and state houses across the country! After that, we can go after the hand sanitizer in the homes and offices of MRAs, Baptist clergy and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

 

Who's with me?

 

[A version of this post appeared at perry street palace.]

Major Mike responds to the “Conflict in the Secular Movement” Survey

Worst Survey Ever

Worst Survey Ever. Why so many choices?

There, that's Better

There. That's better.


I’m a big fan of the “Conflict in the Secular Movement Survey” that’s been going around.

It’s about time that somebody found a forum for us to express how we feel about conflict within the secular community. At long last we can find out the question that’s on everybody’s minds: are feminists causing all this trouble, or is there no trouble at all?

As is fitting for such an important topic, the survey has been meticulously designed by research professionals. Nice they could scare up enough scientists in the atheist community. That must have been tough. Way to go, boys — and gals!

I wanted to share my answers with y’all. If you haven’t taken it yet — no cheating!

1. If you had to choose one, what is the cause of conflict in the secular movement?

A) Divisive figures who purposefully cause conflict

B) Differences in ideologies

C) Miscommunication

My only complaint rests with the first question. Why do I have to choose just one? Look at Rebecca Watson. She's an A) divisive figure who caused conflict about her B) differing feminism ideology by C) miscommunicating her statement, "Guys, don't do that."

That's how #Elevatorgamergate started.

2. Do you believe feminists in the secular movement create conflict because of their emphasis on feminism?

A) Yes

B) No

What? No “of course” button?

Ok, I’m being nitpicky. Better to make people take a stand: are feminists causing the problem or not? Answer — Take it, Steve Carell: 

3. Do you believe that the secular movement is welcoming to all people?

A) Yes

B) No

YES. I have always felt welcome in the secular movement.

Again, I’m glad they didn’t waste time with any of the usual questionnaire pseudoscience, making people waste their time to provide more “nuanced” (or wishy-washy) responses like:

Very Welcoming 

Somewhat Welcoming

Neither Welcoming or Not Welcoming

Somewhat Not Welcoming 

Not at all Welcoming

I mean really, is it welcoming or not? Make up your mind!

4. Do you believe the secular movement needs to be diversified?

A) Yes

B) No

NO. I’d really hate for Christians to be welcomed in our movement. Can’t we all just be atheists?

Again, thanks guys (and gals) for making us stick to yes-or-no choices.

5. If you do not think diversity is a problem, do you believe the secular community is working hard to outreach minorities?

A) Yes, the secular community is working hard in minority outreach

B) No, the secular community needs to work harder to outreach minorities

C) I do not think diversity is a problem in the secular movement

I've often said I don't think diversity is a problem, so (C). Logic for the win!

Although they should have made it the first option, rescuing me from having to read the other two choices.

6. Do you believe that most conflict orginates in the internet?

A) Yes

B) No

YES. Little known fact: the Israel / Palestine conflict originated on the Internet.

7. Do you believe conflict can be reduced if there was less use of social media?

A) Yes

B) No

Simple: YES. First thing the secular movement needs to do is to find out a way to keep people from using social media. This will fix everything.

8. Do you believe there should be more emphasis on social justice issues?

A) Yes

B) There is enough emphasis on social justice issues

C) The secular movement should not involve itself with social justice issues

C, of course!

We need to focus on issues like prayer in public school, the right for kids to avoid saying the Pledge of Allegiance, and the rights of atheists in the workplace.

None of these have anything to do with social justice.

9. In your opinion, is there unnecessary name calling during arguments online?

A) Yes

B) No

Anybody who thinks there isn’t unnecessary name calling online is a fucking goober nimrod.

10. In your opinion, do you believe that the responses over an argument are generally appropriate or antagonistic?

A) Antagonistic

B) Appropriate

Both! I think I can be appropriately antagonistic.

CONCLUSION

This survey managed to capture all of the nuances of the current debate — and in only 10 questions!

I’m sure the responses will give us some answers about how we can all move forward.

If this is not sacrificing your daughter on “the alter of men,” then nothing is.

Once again, it has come to my attention that people who write misogynist shit are not universally mocked for dehumanizing women and girls. No, I’m not talking about Richard fucking Dawkins—although no one would be surprised at anything embarrassingly ill-informed and sexist emanating from him. Today I’m talking about Christian clergy who opine thusly:

2 Reasons Why My Daughter Will Not Go to College
by Pastor Karl Heitman

Meet Annalise. She is my only little princess…She’s five years old and, like every loving father, I’ll be forced to give her away one day. Until then, my wife and I have the immense opportunity to train her and prepare her to be a woman of God. More specifically, we have the mandate to prepare her to be a wife and mother. To be honest, I have a deep concern for her because of the feministic culture we live in. Let’s face it; feminism has so influenced American culture that it has infiltrated the Christian culture just as much in more subtle ways. The average Christian woman is not trained from the home, nor encouraged, to find a husband as an alternative to going to college and starting a career.

Wait, feminists cannot be wives and mothers? That’s news to me—and my mom, my sister and many friends. And probably to Angelina Jolie.

Of course college is not for every woman, nor is ambitious careerism—the same goes for men. But neither is marriage and/or having children for everyone. In any case, none of these things are mutually exclusive. But please—go on, pastor:

When I even suggest the possibility of not sending my daughter to college, I almost always get the stink eye.

Good. She’s five fucking years old, and presumably does not yet know—as my remarkable sister did at that age—how she wants to live her life. (<—Emphasis on her life.)

This grieves me because we have allowed the culture to sear our conscience to the point where the plain reading of Scripture is scoffed at by professing Christians.

And thank the fuckin’ Lard “the plain reading of scripture is scoffed at by professing Christians”! Otherwise they’d be stoning disobedient children to death (and gay men, rape victims and people who do yard work on Sundays). And banning the wearing of cotton-wool blends, eating pork or shellfish, and taking oaths (like the pledge of allegiance). So, you ignore all sorts of morally grotesque and bizarre biblical rules that you’ve conveniently decided should not apply to you. But all that misogynist shit? Well, all that definitely applies to the wimmenz:

This is why I have a drive to see our churches be more passionate about Titus 2 than conforming to the cultural expectation of women being independent of man. Thankfully this doesn’t pertain to all single truly converted ladies. I have met a few women from godly families who have been trained to be “managers of the home” (Titus 2:4-5).

Hey, why don’t we take a closer look at what this Titus-writin’ d00d had to say in his second chapter, shall we?

Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things (Titus 2:9).

Uh-oh. That’s right, slaves: obey your masters! And please them well in all things. This is only right and godly.

What a horror show. Okay, maybe that was just a helpful suggestion?

These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. (Titus 2:15).

I guess not. Well, I have to assume the good pastor is 100% on board with slavery. Most of Titus 2 is about men tightly controlling women’s lives—and he is certainly 100% on board with that.

I’m calling all Christians to stop, pause, and ask, “Have I bought into the cultural expectations imposed on our young women of the faith? Are we, in practice, setting up our young women to function in a role they weren’t designed to?” To put it another way, is it wise to expect young women to go to a university and pursue a career?

Why, that sounds like a hypothesis that can actually be tested by investigating the real world! Let’s see…what do you know, lookie here:

Companies With Female CEOs Beat The Stock Market.
Covert, B., Think Progress (Jul. 2014).

Female CEOs at the country’s biggest companies oversee financial results, on average, that beat the stock market, according to Fortune Magazine’s analysis of data from Factset Research Systems.

Fortune 1000 companies with a woman in the top role saw an average return of 103.4 percent over the women’s tenures, compared to an average 69.5 percent return for the S&P 500 stock index over the same periods.

The companies with female CEOs also seem to generate an outsized amount of revenue compared to others…

Other studies have found that companies run by women outperform others. Hedge funds run by women had a 6 percent return between 2007 and 2013, beating both a global hedge fund index at the stock market.

Numerous studies have also found that companies with women on their boards of directors perform better than male-only ones.

Gosh, pastor, are we, in practice, setting up our young men to function in a role they weren’t designed to? To put it another way, is it wise to expect young men to go to a university and pursue a career?

Pastor…? Hello…?

I have come up with two reasons why my daughter won’t go to college:

1. My daughter won’t go to college if…her motive is wrong. For starters, I’m NOT opposed to my daughter getting a higher Christian (emphasis on Christian) education given that her heart is right (i.e., she does not want to get a degree just so that she can be independent of a man; see 1 Cor 11:9).

Corinthians, huh? Then I am sure the pastor is equally dedicated to a similar crusade to ensure Christians never sue each other (see 1 Cor 6). Right?

Many remain untaught about the role of women from a biblical perspective.

Hahaha. I wish.

A woman was created to fill the role of a helper and a companion, specifically to a husband. That’s why God created Eve (Gen 2:18).

How convenient. For you.

Until that happens, nowhere in Scripture does it command fathers to release their daughter into the world and demand that she learn how to fend for herself.

Since you won’t “release” your hostage daughter, Annalise will have to plan and execute her escape all by herself.  🙁

Paul says twice in two different letters that a woman’s primary place of business is in the home (1 Tim 5:14; Tit 2:4). This role is precious and sacred, but the church has bought into the idea that to be a stay-at-home wife/mommy is second class and it’s despised…even in most churches.

WTF. That is an appalling view churches have toward women who choose (<—*ahem*) to dedicate themselves to their marriages, their homes and/or raising children. Even the evil feminists don’t do that. Perhaps—and I’m just thinkin’ out loud here—churches have bought into the idea that all women are second class citizens, because that’s what the fucking bible teaches.

Christian women are indeed pursuing the same things as unbelieving women: independence from a man.

Something is wrong with men who feel compelled to have women be utterly dependent upon them. Treating a grown woman like a helpless child is not just degrading and infantilizing, it raises more than one red flag for abuse.

Eve acted outside the authority and protection of Adam and, well, you know where that led to.

Indeed. If women are not kept at home and tightly monitored and controlled by men, THEY WILL TOTALLY RUIN EVERYTHING!!!11!!!

(Unlike men, who’ve been doing such a bangup job of things themselves.)

2. My daughter won’t go to college if…I can’t afford it.

Hopefully when Annalise finally escapes from you controlling assholes she moves to Germany. I will personally buy her a one-way ticket.

The blame for the church’s cultural compromises fall squarely on the shoulders of church leaders and fathers.

Well, better buckle down, men. Gotta keep women in line!

I pledged to myself that I will not sacrifice my daughter on the altar of men by sending her out of my home, care, and protection at age 18 just so that she can get a degree and achieve some worldly status…Now, I have a beautiful wife and precious little girl. It’s neither her burden nor her role to work outside the home in order to provide for me. The gifts God has given her are employed every single hour in her service to her husband, her children, and her church. Her job is 24 hours and I thank her often for it.

Thanks, honey, for your 24/7 unpaid labor as my servant.

The bottom line is this: the Bible does not command women to leave home at a young, vulnerable age, get a formal education, get a reputable job, and then have a family when she feels like it.

Only men should leave home at a young, vulnerable age, get a formal education, get a reputable job, and then have a family when they feel like it. See, it’s godly when they do it. What could possibly go wrong for Annalise?

One the other hand, the Bible reveals that it is God’s will for women to get married, raise godly children, and keep the home. It’s a high calling.

Yet strangely, this “high calling” pays nothing, discourages education, severely limits opportunities, encourages domination and abuse, and leaves women utterly dependent upon and subservient to a d00d.

If this is not sacrificing your daughter “on the alter of men,” then nothing is.

__________

Photo: background altar image by DAVID ILIFF, under license: CC-BY-SA 3.0.

[cross-posted at Perry Street Palace.]

Open Minded

My two sisters and my one brother are much older than me.  I often joke that I was an only child with five parents.  It’s very difficult for me, even though I will be 40 years old on my next birthday, to out-live the title of “baby of the family”.

 

Conversations with my neo-conservative sister (seven years older) often involve wading into a controversial subject that would end in her evaluating the interaction and giving me some motherly  sisterly advice.  Nearly every conversation would end with, “Don’t be so open minded that you’ll let anything in.”

 

If I disagreed with her about taxes: Don’t be so open minded that you’ll let anything in.

 

If I disagreed with her about political systems: Don’t be so open minded that you’ll let anything in.

 

If I disagreed with her about military intervention: Don’t be so open minded that you’ll let anything in.

 

If I disagree with her about religion: Don’t be so open minded that you’ll let anything in.

 

One particularly heated argument (by Scandinavian-American standards – which involves any discussion that could even be called ‘an argument’), a very long time ago, concerned marriage equality.  She insisted that “homosexual” was a willful action and not an identity referring to sexual orientation and various nonsense about “gay marriage” being ridiculous and supporting it being ungodly or whatever and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.  I responded to her “arguments” but she accused me of not listening to her and just waiting for her to get done talking so that I could hear myself speak.

 

I was a bit indignant – but I knew it was true.  There is nothing she could possibly say that would change my mind.  What?  She was going to convince me that my friends shouldn’t have the right to marry their partners?

 

It’s not happening.

 

It simply wasn’t up for debate – well not REAL debate.  A real debate is a negotiation where various stake-holders come to the table, make their cases and come to a conclusion.  I’d be happy to “debate” marriage equality as a means of convincing an audience, as some sort of spectacle, but there was no audience to convince.  The stake-holders were also not invited – so what sort of legitimate “debate” could there be on this issue between us? 

 

I absolutely was just waiting for her to get done talking so I could put in my two cents; so I could articulate my thoughts; so I could explain how she was wrong.

 

Then she said, “Don’t be so open minded that you’ll let anything in.”  Instead of, yet again, allowing my stance to be discredited as simply youthful contrarianism or whimsy – I finally told my sister:

 

“I’m not open minded.  I disagree with you.”

Richard Dawkins, hysterical dumbass.

[CONTENT NOTE: misogyny; harassment; rape; rape apologia.]

Richard Dawkins has been keeping himself very busy indeed during his stay as an involuntary organ donor in the Palace Abattoir. In response to a widely-read piece by Mark Oppenheimer about misogyny in the atheoskeptisphere, he has bravely taken to Twitter to defend his BFF Michael Shermer, the notorious subject of multiple accusations of predatory sexual behavior toward women. Shermer’s MO, as described in the Oppenheimer piece by TAM staffer Alison Smith, shares most of the typical hallmarks of an overwhelming number of rapists-at-large: boundary testing; planning assaults using sophisticated strategies to isolate victims; deploying psychological manipulation, e.g., power, control; and last but certainly not least, using alcohol deliberately in order to render targets more vulnerable if not outright unconscious. They calculate, quite correctly it turns out, that this particular modus operandi puts them at miniscule risk of ever being accused—let alone reported, investigated, arrested, prosecuted, convicted and jailed. Regardless of whether you believe Smith’s or other women’s accounts regarding Shermer, these are just facts, and this is how rape culture works in the real world.

But not in Dawkinsland, it doesn’t. Nope! Yesterday, in defense of Michael Shermer the Infallible King of Reason tweeted:

Officer, it’s not my fault I was drunk driving. You see, somebody got me drunk.” –Richard Dawkins

Astute readers will note that this is Richard Dawkins taking Smith’s allegations as true, knowing that by all accounts (including his own) Shermer was sober during the alleged incident, and then oh-so-very-cleverly sneering that she is responsible—by likening an alleged rape victim to a drunk driver.

Here’s Stephanie Zvan with a nice fisk:

He doesn’t appear to believe Shermer’s story, which is that Shermer had sex with Smith after she sobered up. Dawkins took Smith’s story as read, although he isolated it from Ashley’s story and Pamela’s.

Then he ignored the parts of that story that make Smith’s lack of consent and Shermer’s knowledge of it clear. He ignored that Shermer followed Smith away from the party. He ignored the promise to help Smith back to her room, only to end up in Shermer’s. Instead, he grasped the fact that Smith was drunk to the point of not remembering parts of the evening and used that to assign responsibility to her. He claimed Smith was responsible for the encounter despite the one fact that both parties agree on being that Shermer was sober.

He believed her story, not Shermer’s.

He believed she was intoxicated.

He knew Shermer was not, from all sources of information.

He believed Shermer deceived her in the process of getting her past the point of being able to consent.

Then he tweeted that she was responsible for the encounter.

Then he compared Shermer following Smith away from the party to Smith driving drunk.

Then he compared Shermer taking Smith to a different room than promised to Smith driving drunk.

Then he compared Shermer sexually assaulting Smith to Smith driving drunk.

I’ma say this once more for the cheap seats:

THE ONLY THING A RAPE VICTIM HAS DONE “WRONG” IS TO FIND HERSELF (OR HIMSELF) IN THE PRESENCE OF A RAPIST.

Fortunately, the vast majority of men do not rape. But those who do can always rely on victim-blaming shitweasels like Richard Dawkins to provide comfort and cover, so they can continue to operate unimpeded.

Then the Lord of All Logic tweeted this:

The REAL Rape Culture: “All occurrences of sexual intercourse are rape unless there is certified evidence to the contrary.” –Richard Dawkins

No, my precious little cupcake: All occurrences of sexual intercourse are rape unless there is consent. This is really not difficult for most people to grok. And I find it… telling interesting when people are so highly motivated not to grok it. Before he deleted this tweet (“claiming it was sarcastic. There’s no word on what part of it he didn’t mean, however…”), he responded to a follower concerned that he “might fall in trouble again with Feminists”:

With a certain kind of feminist, of course. Not with feminists who truly respect women instead of patronising them as victims –Richard Dawkins

This one sent PZ off on a righteous rant (which I highly recommend reading in its entirety):

Who are these mysterious patronizing feminists? They don’t actually exist. You are echoing a strategy of denial: you approve of feminists, but not the ones who actually point out sexist problems in our culture, or fight against discrimination, or point out that they’ve been raped, or abused, or cheated in the workplace, or any of the other realities of a sexist culture. This is what anti-feminists say: be quiet about the problems. If you mention the problems, you are perpetuating the sisterhood of oppression, you are playing the martyr, you are being a pathetic victim who must be treated with contempt.

But if no woman speaks out about the problems, how will we ever know to correct them? If we shame every victim for being a victim and daring to reveal her victimhood, it becomes very easy to pretend that there is no oppression.

Oh, silly PZ! You see, in Dawkinsville there are no “victims,” only irresponsible drunk drivers crashing themselves willy-nilly right into rapists’ penises!

But this morning’s tweet absolutely takes the cake:

Raping a drunk woman is appalling. So is jailing a man when the sole prosecution evidence is “I was too drunk to remember what happened.” –Richard Dawkins

Heh.

Hahaha.

HOLY SHIT HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! 

Now, Twitter is a unique medium with pros and cons like every other; suffice it to say it does not particularly lend itself to schooling pompous assholes on the many wonders of reality. But I did my best:

 

@RichardDawkins false reports: est. 2-8%. Rape hugely underreported. 3% of rapist[s] do jail time. Now go away and learn how to think. –Iris Vander Pluym

(Incidentally, citations for these statistics can be found all over the fucking internet here and here.)

@RichardDawkins As if men are prosecuted when “the sole prosecution evidence is ‘I was too drunk to remember what happened.'” #dumbass –Iris Vander Pluym

Jeezus. “I was too drunk to remember what happened” is exculpatory evidence: it creates reasonable doubt and nearly always benefits the accused. That is why prosecutors almost universally do not take such cases to trial: when they do, they lose, and this is true even when they present heaps of additional incriminating evidence to a jury. Seriously, this has got to be the stupidest thing His Intellectual Excellency has ever said—and that is saying something, my friends.

PZ’s plea to Dawkins closes:

And could you please stop supporting reactionary anti-feminists? Thanks.

No, he cannot. Because the World’s Greatest Rationalist is a reactionary anti-feminist, and thus there is no reasoning with him.

[for Tony.]

[cross-posted at Perry Street Palace.]

 

 

 

 

 

Announcing Secular Woman Salon

Secular Woman is incredibly pleased and excited to announce the start of a new project that will add to the growing number of incredible voices writing on issues of concern to secular women, and that project is the Secular Woman Salon! The Salon is a new outlet on our website for the latest in opinion, think pieces, and news for secular women, as well as anyone interested in advancing the cause of social justice with a secular lens.

Through this project we hope to, quite literally, advance our mission of amplifying the voices of secular women by establishing a dedicated space where the causes, issues, and thoughts of such women will be foregrounded. Here you can expect to find articles, opinions, and discussions with an intersectional, feminist sensibility that are nuanced, intelligent, and sometimes angry. In this space we’ll be working to ensure that the voices and issues of import to women and other marginalized groups are front and center.

To ensure this we have put together a salon that is comprised of a fantastic group of writers who are as excited to be participating in this new endeavor as we are to have them. They come from a wide array of backgrounds with many interests and areas of expertise, and we couldn’t be more pleased that they have chosen to join us!

Without further ado, please peruse their bios below, and check out our first articles that have been published!


Iris Vander PluymIris Vander Pluym is an artist, activist and writer based in New York City. Raised to believe Nice Girls™ never discuss religion, sex or politics, it turns out those are pretty much the only topics she ever wants to talk about. A self-described “unapologetic, godless, feminist lefty,” Ms. Vander Pluym blogs at Perry Street Palace; she is also a regular columnist at The Political Junkies for Progressive Democracy, a contributor to Worldwide Hippies/Citizen Journalists Exchange and an occasional guest poster at Pharyngula, The Greanville Post and elsewhere. Follow her on Facebook, or @irisvanderpluym.

Elizabeth Higgins E.A. Higgins is a freelance writer from Los Angeles, California. A published ethnographer and graduate student studying Geography, she researches religion across the globe and the impacts it has on people and the planet. She enjoys writing about issues relating to women, humanism, secularism, and in her free time enjoys traveling, painting, and spending time with her boyfriend and her dog. Follow her on twitter or instagram (Darthlyzzious).

Marina MartinezMarina Martinez lives in Portland, Oregon with her boyfriend, Ben, her dog, Pepper, and her cat, Medusa. She enjoys being fat, being loud, long walks on the beach, and general awesomeness. You can find her on Twitter @marinaisgo, on Facebook, or by email at marinarosemartinez (at) gmail (dot) com.

Autumn Reinhardt-SimpsonAutumn Reinhardt Simpson is a librarian, activist and writer originally from Kennewick, Washington.  She received her Master of Library and Information Science with a concentration in Archival Studies from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee in 2008.

She spends all of her hard earned peanuts on travel to the U.K. and unnecessary fabric purchases in pursuit of the perfect warrior-inspired fashion. Autumn is the founder and organizer of Richmond (VA) Clinic Defense and delights in being a secular thorn in the side of the local authorities. She is currently at work on both a memoir as well as a book of essays in addition to the odd article.

She appreciates sewing, knitting and all things involving needles (except heroin), Katha Pollitt, travel and female warriors. When not sewing, she can be found pumping iron at the local YMCA.

Sara LoneSara affectionately refers to herself as a “millennial on a mission.” This mission? Creating a safer world for everyone, particularly women and non-religious folks in all the vast corners of the earth. Sara truly believes that education and cultural awareness will pave the way for tolerance, a virtue desperately needed in these extremely difficult and tumultuous times. Currently earning her Master’s degree in public policy, Sara fights relentlessly for women’s rights and separation of church and state on a policy level by regularly speaking out and lobbying on behalf of these causes. She has written for and worked with several organizations; a monthly columnist for Sacramento Reason and a weekly writer for The Humanist, she hopes to reach an even wider audience through Secular Woman, telling stories, sharing knowledge, and contributing to the growth of the secular women’s movement.

JadehawkKarolina Lewis is a student of environmental sociology and social theory who writes about theory and practice of social issues such as feminism, environmental justice, mental health, and secularism/skepticism. She formerly blogged at Jadehawk’s Blog.

Major Mike MansplainerMuch to his dismay, Major Mike Mansplainer is a fictional character, dredged up from deep within the lizard brain of Michael X.  As for the pseudonymous Michael X, he is a middle-aged suburban dad who writes and co-hosts a podcast for Secular Nation Magazine.  Tweet @Dofang for Michael X, and @MajMansplainer for his evil twin.

Corrina AllenCorrina Allen has been an educator in Central New York for the last decade and is the founder and president of the CNY Humanist Association. She lives with her book reviewer husband and their two young daughters in a house overflowing with books. She loves to dabble in all things creative – from drawing, crocheting, and designing mosaics to dancing in a jazz ensemble. You can find her on Instagram or Twitter @corrinaaallen.

M. A. MelbyM. A. Melby was born on a farm in rural Minnesota.  She studied physics and music as an undergraduate and applied physics and computer music composition at the graduate level.  After teaching college level integrated science in Flint, Michigan for seven years, she accepted a position teaching physics within a health sciences program in Minnesota.

During her college years, she was highly involved in student government and served as the Minnesota State University Student Association Cultural Diversity Representative from her campus.  She currently blogs at sinmantyx.wordpress.com and is a contributor at Transadvocate. She is active on twitter and serves as a Block Bot admin; frequently documenting online abuse. She was the lead author of the change.org petition presented by Secular Woman, asking the Southern Poverty Law Center to list Gender Identity Watch as a hate group.

Elsa RobertsElsa is currently a graduate student, pursuing a M.S. in Rhetoric and Technical Communication, but her real calling is to perpetual activism and teaching. She is frequently distracted by planning actions, attending meetings, and fighting people who are wrong on the internet. Her passions are typically aroused by thoughtless city planning for pedestrians and cyclists, casual sexism, poorly constructed arguments, and being told to “chill” about inequality. She is the current Vice President of Secular Woman (and heading the Salon project) and can be found tweeting wildly about a variety of subjects @elsalroberts.