It’s funny how, when Black people leave toxic church spaces we are the ones called “divisive.” We always have to bear the weight of judgment and have to explain ourselves.

When you see Black people leaving a predominantly white church space en masse, you should be asking...

Why are so many people walking away? Why are their stories all similar or exactly the same? Why is this not being addressed by leadership? Why does it feel like it’s being swept under the rug? Why is Black folks’ departure deemed as their issue or fault?
Why does the leadership of my church or organization only take the slightest of responsibility (if any at all)? Why do the sermons end teaching in my church seem to change for a season directly after departures? Why are the Black folks who remain given promotions or visibility?
I have observed a pattern of behavior around Black folks leaving white Christian institutions.

There’s a lot of folks who leave who won’t make public (or private) comment about their departure. Often it’s out of fear of what opportunities that it could cost them.
This allows the institution to shape the narrative around the departure and make it seem more amicable than it actually was. I’ve seen this pattern multiple times.
Another pattern of behavior that I’ve observed is when people are vocal about their departure, they are cast as being bitter or not willing to “play ball” in the institution’s effort. They are cast as being a problem and seen as being destructive.
The institution is able to blame shift and make it about the person’s tone and to cast them as angry and unwilling to cooperate and appreciate all that the institution is “done.”
Occasionally and institution might do a soft mea culpa. They might talk about all the work that they “have to do,” but still continue to lay the blame squarely on Black people for leaving the toxic place.

More from Society

This is a piece I've been thinking about for a long time. One of the most dominant policy ideas in Washington is that policy should, always and everywhere, move parents into paid labor. But what if that's wrong?

My reporting here convinced me that there's no large effect in either direction on labor force participation from child allowances. Canada has a bigger one than either Romney or Biden are considering, and more labor force participation among women.

But what if that wasn't true?

Forcing parents into low-wage, often exploitative, jobs by threatening them and their children with poverty may be counted as a success by some policymakers, but it’s a sign of a society that doesn’t value the most essential forms of labor.

The problem is in the very language we use. If I left my job as a New York Times columnist to care for my 2-year-old son, I’d be described as leaving the labor force. But as much as I adore him, there is no doubt I’d be working harder. I wouldn't have stopped working!

I tried to render conservative objections here fairly. I appreciate that @swinshi talked with me, and I'm sorry I couldn't include everything he said. I'll say I believe I used his strongest arguments, not more speculative ones, in the piece.
Like most movements, I have learned that the definition of feminism has expanded to include simply treating women like human beings.

(A thread for whoever feels like reading)


I have observed feminists on Twitter advocating for rape victims to be heard, rapists to be held accountable, for people to address the misogyny that is deeply rooted in our culture, and for women to be treated with respect.

To me, very easy things to get behind.

And the amount of pushback they receive for those very basic requests is appalling. I see men trip over themselves to defend rape and rapists and misogyny every chance they get. Some accounts are completely dedicated to harassing women on this site. It’s unhealthy.

Furthermore, I have observed how dedicated these misogynists are by how they treat other men that do not immediately side with them. There is an entire lexicon they have created for men who do not openly treat women with disrespect.

Ex: simp, cuck, white knight, beta

All examples of terms they use to demean a man who respects women.

To paraphrase what a wise man on this app said:

Some men hate women so much, they hate men who don’t hate women

You May Also Like

1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.