Progressivism's and the UU Church’s Misandry Problem

All caste systems are toxic

The Unitarian Universalist (UU) Church, like many progressive institutions, proudly proclaims its commitment to radical inclusion and compassion. It upholds ideals such as “the inherent worth and dignity of every person” and declares, “All Are Welcome Here.” However, in practice, many men, particularly heterosexual white men, have experienced the environment as anything but welcoming.

I had coffee with a member at the UU congregation I attend, a white woman very involved in the congregation, who wanted to be more educated on my critical views of the congregation and the larger UU church.

I told her that I value diversity-- of all kinds: racial, ethnic, gender, viewpoint, beliefs--, something that the church and congregation sorely lack. I said that I hate echo chambers and groupthink, and, at one point, said, "The congregation is designed to be a church for white progressives. Or, if I were to state it more provocatively, a church for white progressive women."

What we’re seeing is not merely a change in tone, but a shift in principle. A tradition that once stood for universal human dignity has increasingly adopted a rigid moral hierarchy, where people are pre-judged based on identity categories rather than treated as individuals.

Identity Politics and the Rise of a New Moral Hierarchy

Driving much of this transformation is the growing influence of progressive identity politics within UU institutions. This framework sorts people into fixed moral roles, based on immutable traits such as race, ethnicity, sex, and sexuality. The Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) has explicitly embraced the goal of “centering” marginalized voices and “decentering” those of whites, men, and heterosexuals.

In practice, this has created a climate in which white men, especially if they are heterosexual, are told, often explicitly, that their voices don’t matter unless they parrot the dominant ideological script.

Mark Perloe, who quit his UU congregation in Atlanta, described the shift this way:

“As a secular Jew, for many years I felt comfortable in a UU congregation where our ethnic and religious diversity was celebrated. The new UU leadership is more focused on celebrating only the historically marginalized. Rather than creating a more inclusive community, UU has demonstrated hostility—communicating that Jews and cis white males are no longer welcome . . . I was told that I could be part of the congregation, but cis white men needed to shut the fuck up.”

When Progressive Identity Politics Reinforces Racist and Sexist Thinking

Writers such as Bari Weiss and John McWhorter have warned against this trend. McWhorter, a black academic, said that Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility, published by an imprint of the UUA, not only infantilizes black people by portraying them as helpless victims, but is “How to be racist in a new way.” Weiss, an Ashkenazi Jew and author of How to Fight Antisemitism, put it this way:

“I just fundamentally believe that we should be fighting for a world in which there are no caste systems, in which people are judged based on their individual merit and character, in which we move from the historical construct of race, rather than reifying it. I just don't think you look at history and believe making people fixated on their immutable characteristics and saying those immutable characteristics have immutable power leads to anywhere good.”

If we truly believe in the worth and dignity of every person, we must reject all systems, old and new, that assign virtue and blame based on birth. The challenge is to build communities that honor real inclusion, not ideological litmus tests or identity-based gatekeeping.

Retired UU minister Rev. Kathleen Korb said about the growing demeaning of men in the church: “Though stereotyping may be a useful survival instinct, it is a hindrance to bringing about a just and peaceful world.”

A Feminized Culture of Niceness and Avoidance

Layered on top of this ideological rigidity is a cultural dynamic. Many UU congregations are dominated by upper-middle-class university-educated white women. Their leadership shapes not only the institution’s policies but its emotional atmosphere and conversational norms.

This culture prioritizes harmony, niceness, therapeutic language, emotional safety, and conflict avoidance. While well-intentioned, these values discourage honesty and directness, particularly from those who speak more assertively and openly. Discussions shift from substance to “tone.” Disagreement is often pathologized as disruption or “harm.” In the name of “safety” and “covenant,” open debate quietly disappears.

Ironically, this suppresses the very voices the church claims to uplift, including many racial and ethnic minorities. Unitarian Universalism remains one of the whitest churches in the country, and according to the UUA, the percentage of racial minority members has declined even further in recent years. I told the congregant I had coffee with that the progressive politics attract mostly white leftists, not racial and ethnic minorities. Of the congregation’s new members in the past five years, 95 percent have been white, and more than 80 percent have been white women.

Independent Women Who Refuse to Conform

A growing number of outspoken, independent-thinking women within the Unitarian Universalist church and congregations, including feminists and lesbians, have grown disillusioned with the emerging culture of emotional safetyism and expectations of ideological conformity.

Challenging this orthodoxy and stifling culture increasingly comes at a cost. Dr. Kate Rohde, a pioneering feminist and the first female UU minister in the South in the early 1980s, was disfellowshipped for openly criticizing the direction of the UUA. Rev. Dr. Thandeka, a black lesbian UU minister and theologian, said she was attacked and ostracized by church leaders and kicked off committees for speaking up in dissent against the UUA’s new approach. Nancy Haldeman, a longtime lesbian feminist, was punished by her congregation for expressing gender-critical views and voicing concerns about denominational leadership.

My late mother, who quit UU, was one of these principled dissenters.

A Sephardic Jew, a longtime feminist activist, and a Title IX pioneer with the League of Women Voters, she spent her life confronting patriarchal systems, fighting sexist laws, and expanding opportunities for women. Her worldview was always rooted in equality for all, not in replacing one hierarchy with another.

She grew disillusioned with Unitarian Universalism as the national UU church moved from spiritual and intellectual inquiry to political and ideological dogmatism, and from aspiring to treat everyone equally to overt racial prejudice and sexism. At a congregational discussion, she leaned to me and said, shaking her head, “I never thought I’d be standing up for white men.”

She rejected any framework that judged people by their sex or skin color rather than by their ideas, values, and actions. Like many women of conscience, she had no interest in purity tests. What she sought was open dialogue and critical thinking, not ideological gatekeeping, and certainly not the silencing and even punishing of dissent that was going on in the church.

The legacy of these independent-thinking, equality-promoting women, and others like them, reminds us that real progress is not about tribal loyalty or ideological obedience. It is about standing up for fairness and equality for everyone, even when it’s not in fashion.

Men Struggle Too

One of the most damaging aspects of this identity-based morality is how it dismisses real challenges faced by men in today’s world. Male suicide rates are tragically high. Boys are falling behind in school. Many men feel lost in a culture that offers no positive vision of masculinity.

Yet in progressive spaces, raising these concerns is often dismissed as “misogyny,” “privilege,” or “whataboutism.” A man who points out that boys are struggling is too often treated not as someone seeking justice, but as a threat to it.

A Broader Leftist Blind Spot

This isn’t just a UU problem. It reflects a larger issue within today’s progressivism, including the Democratic Party, which often fails to recognize or address the struggles of men.

As Richard Reeves has observed, progressives “have a massive blind spot when it comes to male issues.” He said that men are often not seen as having problems, but as being the problem. Reshma Saujani, founder of Girls Who Code, said, “No one wants to be part of a movement that ignores or even denigrates them.”

Democratic strategist James Carville has voiced concern:

“If you listen to Democratic elites, the whole talk is about how women, and women of color, are going to decide this election. I’m like: ‘Well, 48 percent of the people that vote are males. Do you mind if they have some consideration?’”

The Democratic National Committee’s official “Who We Serve” list names sixteen constituencies. Men, half the country, is not one of them.

If You Keep Demeaning People, Don’t Be Surprised When They Leave

If you continuously belittle, guilt, and dismiss an entire group based on their immutable characteristics, don’t be surprised when they walk away and don’t return.

Justice isn’t about flipping the script and creating new out-groups. It’s about throwing away the script entirely. Real inclusion must mean everyone. It’s not about replacing one caste system with another, but moving away from caste systems altogether.

References

Reeves, R. V. (2023 ). Obama on the male malaise: Why he thinks it is time to focus more on boys and men

Edsal T. (2025). Democrats Have ‘a Massive Blind Spot When It Comes to Male Issues’. The New York Times