What do you think?
Rate this book
Calling In: How to Start Making Change with Those You'd Rather Cancel
From a pioneering Black feminist and MacArthur “Genius” Fellow, this urgent and exhilarating memoir-manifesto-handbook provides bold, practical new ways to transform conflicts into connections, even with those we’re tempted to walk away from.
In 1979, Loretta Ross was a single mother in Washington who’d had to drop out of Howard University. She was working at the DC Rape Crisis Center when the organization got a letter from a man in prison saying he wanted to learn how to not be a rapist anymore. At first, she was furious. As a survivor of sexual violence, she wanted to write back pouring out her rage. Instead, she made a different choice, a choice to reject the response her trauma was pushing her towards. This choice would set her on the path towards developing a framework that would come to guide her whole Rather than calling people out, try to call even your unlikeliest allies in. Hold them accountable—but with love.
Calling In is at once a handbook, a manifesto, and a memoir—because the power of Loretta Ross’s message comes from who she is and what she’s lived through. She’s a Black woman who’s deprogrammed white supremacists, and a survivor who’s taught convicted rapists the principles of feminism. With stories from her five remarkable decades in activism, she vividly illustrates why calling people in—inviting them into conversation instead of conflict and focusing on your shared values over a desire for punishment—is the more strategic choice if you want to make real change. And she shows you how to do so, whether in the workplace, on a college campus, or in your living room.
Courageous, awe-inspiring, and blisteringly authentic, Calling In is a “masterclass in constructive confrontation” (Adam Grant) and a practical new solution from one of our country’s most extraordinary change-makers—one anyone can learn to use to transform frustrating and divisive conflicts that stand in the way of real connection with the people in your life.
In 1979, Loretta Ross was a single mother in Washington who’d had to drop out of Howard University. She was working at the DC Rape Crisis Center when the organization got a letter from a man in prison saying he wanted to learn how to not be a rapist anymore. At first, she was furious. As a survivor of sexual violence, she wanted to write back pouring out her rage. Instead, she made a different choice, a choice to reject the response her trauma was pushing her towards. This choice would set her on the path towards developing a framework that would come to guide her whole Rather than calling people out, try to call even your unlikeliest allies in. Hold them accountable—but with love.
Calling In is at once a handbook, a manifesto, and a memoir—because the power of Loretta Ross’s message comes from who she is and what she’s lived through. She’s a Black woman who’s deprogrammed white supremacists, and a survivor who’s taught convicted rapists the principles of feminism. With stories from her five remarkable decades in activism, she vividly illustrates why calling people in—inviting them into conversation instead of conflict and focusing on your shared values over a desire for punishment—is the more strategic choice if you want to make real change. And she shows you how to do so, whether in the workplace, on a college campus, or in your living room.
Courageous, awe-inspiring, and blisteringly authentic, Calling In is a “masterclass in constructive confrontation” (Adam Grant) and a practical new solution from one of our country’s most extraordinary change-makers—one anyone can learn to use to transform frustrating and divisive conflicts that stand in the way of real connection with the people in your life.
278 pages, Kindle Edition
Published February 4, 2025
222 people are currently reading
2795 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 140 reviews
November 13, 2024
I read about poetry because I don’t understand poetry. I read Scott Adams’ Win Bigly because I don’t understand how someone can believe what he believes, and Hillbilly Elegy because I don’t understand how 2016 happened and two people told me it would help (it didn’t and spoiler alert: it makes less sense in 2024). So when I saw this on Edelweiss, I requested it so that I could learn about something else I have yet to understand - I can be civil and cordial with someone diametrically opposed to my core values (truly, because I have relatives and some acquaintances on the far wrong end of my continuum and we coexist…when we have to), but I need to know how to call in instead of out (I actually mostly do the calling out in my head). I need to know if it is something that can work for me. And, not the point of this book, I need to know if I actually need to do it. In the dark days coming, I don’t know it that is possible.
In addition to sharing her story, discoveries, lessons, and techniques for what she proposes, Ms. Ross includes references in her notes for us to drill deeper, though in my review copy they had yet to be finalized*.
This is very personal. She is candid with her trauma - a victim of abuse and rape - and when she went through: “By keeping my son, I became a teen mother, a statistic, predicted for failure in a judgmental society that always seemed to blame the girls, never our abusers.” (I would submit, not “society that seemed to blame”, rather just “society that blamed”. There is no seem and this hasn’t changed since 1969. With the proliferation of “social” media, the anti-social shaming might well be worse, if only more publicly wide-spread.)
With her anger: “For much of my life, I had no real trust or patience for others. I reacted with fear or domination, caring only about protecting myself. I would call out others at the drop of a hat-whether it was for a real insult or an honest mistake. I was a loaded shotgun looking for an excuse to pull the trigger.”
With how she came by both and how she learned to tame the anger. “And I had to learn to be different—to approach others with less anger and a little more love. That’s the simple definition: a call in is a call out done with love.” (What if me “calling out” is not done in anger? Simple pointing out a fact can provoke anger for sure, but is the mere calling out defined as anger? If so, I’ll respectfully disagree - not with her definition … that’s hers to make … but with the conjoining the action with an emotion that may not be present.)
She is candid with her failings and humble with her successes. She gives personal examples of what she teaches. And she acknowledges that some situations cannot be resolved by “calling in”. She says,
“I’ve created what I call the “5Cs”—a spectrum of accountability measures to help us figure out how to respond depending on the situation, whether by calling out (yes, I think call outs do have their uses, as I’ll discuss in chapter 2), canceling, calling in, calling on (asking people to do better, but without investing your time and energy in helping them to change), or calling it off.”
I admit a little confusion on some fronts. When she says “I picture “Calling In” as a practice of pulling folks back in who have strayed from us”, I think “strayed from us” implies some kind of relationship. If I call out someone(s) I do not know, and only “met” in the course of some pseudo-anonymous internet exchange responding to (what I rightly or wrongly deem as a) trolling… they have not strayed from me; they exist in their own world independent from me. And she says, “Calling in is not a better way to tell someone they are wrong. Its purpose is to create the conditions for differences of opinion to be heard, to allow facts to be ascertained, and to avoid ideological rigidity and political bullying.” I had training once to be a certified mediator (I never did go down that path, but it was included as part a year long management program) so this makes sense to me - but… mediation is a third party role and calling in seems to be a two party exercise.
“Some people may be skeptical about calling in. They may think it’s passive niceness, a lesson in turning the other cheek, when it’s really an organizing practice and a way of life.” I’m skeptical because of the toxicity that might prompt a calling in is a mountain to overcome, and the work to get past it has to be worth the effort.
She points her microscope at me and I’ll own it: “Sometimes our stubbornness about being right fulfills a psychological need and lowers our anxiety. We like poking holes in others’ thinking, resulting in a competition of who can criticize more.” Though for me, I do think it is more about poking holes; not necessarily criticism, rather critical thinking. (And unfortunately, when some of the holes are poked, the recipients too often resort to ad hominems and there is usually no coming back from that.) But I am stubborn and I continue to work on myself.
Tools to help: “If someone is shouting insults and rushing toward me, I’m not going to stick around to find out what else is going on in their life. I’m checking out of there! When imminent harm is on the table, that’s when our fight-or-flight mode is warranted. But if the situation is calmer—if everyone is keeping their hands to themselves, even if voices are raised—then we can assess harm and intent more deliberately. I’ll ask myself three questions to gauge what’s going on: (1) Have I or someone else been wronged in this situation? (2) Have I been wronged intentionally? (3) And am I certain that it was intentional and not a result of ignorance, stupidity, or miscommunication?
If I answer yes to all three questions, then I’m in a situation where a call out is warranted. But if my answer to any of them is no, then I will steer toward a call in, especially if I think there’s more than malice in play. That means there’s likely to be more below the surface, which might offer a path to understanding.”
This resonates in the wake of November 2024: “Anyone who asserts that the primary problem in our democracy is illiberalism on the left—anyone who considers us “illiberal liberals”—seems not to have noticed that the bullets of political violence in our society nearly always travel from the right to the left.”
Bottom line, I have much to consider and as always, more to learn.
* Page numbers had yet to be assigned. And the reference notes are of the form that are not cited in the body text, a form I do not like because the reader doesn't know to look for the references until the end (or guess that there might be a reference and go check, interrupting the reading flow) and then has to go back and find/reread the section to get the context. I know authors/publishers do this sometimes so as to not interrupt that flow, but a superscript is innocuous and it is an inconvenience and to me an annoyance to not be able to check a citation at the moment (and I have yet to find the term for the form. Anybody?)
Other curated notes (I have so many more and not enough room):
“We didn’t realize that being united was more important than being right. Our infighting took our eyes off our opponents. Instead of retreating, they regrouped.”
Every. Damn. Time. Dems are bad about that.
“But one of the most common criticisms of call outs—that they’re loud and disruptive—is a red herring. Courtesy isn’t a luxury valued by those who most need the power and protection of call outs. We rightfully resist demands that we be polite to our oppressors when voicing our outrage and apologize in the “right” tone. F that! We won’t calmly forgive them for wounds that won’t heal because the injuries have not stopped. There may be other grounds to object to call outs—but politeness ain’t it.”
And, this is also true: “To be clear, progressives are neither saints nor victims in the cancel wars.”
She observes “online cruelty can produce offline outcomes because the internet is real and so are the people harmed by it.” So true.
[on fighting allies who differ in approach, instead of enemies]
“When we attack problematic or unproven allies, we’re aiding the oppressors. If we want to win, we need to look beyond the fleeting power of the call out and understand how to call in.”
Dems eat their own. Repubs embrace all evils.
[movement vs cult]
“When many people have different ideas but move in the same direction, that’s a movement. When many people have the same idea and move in the same direction, that’s a cult. We are not building the human rights cult but the human rights movement. This requires learning not to pressure people into agreeing with us but learning how to persuade others into being with us.”
[an important distinction]
“This is the sense of possibility that calling in allows for but that calling out writes off. You should want to be surprised; and you should open the door to surprise—even from people you disagree with. That doesn’t mean being reckless; I got the hell off that mountaintop before sundown.”
Love it! I think I might add that last sentence to my glossary
“If you start a call in trying too hard to change someone else, most people can sniff that out a mile away. And no one wants to be lectured at—even in a patient tone. We can only consider changing and growing if we’re approached as equals. It’s important, then, to see calling in conversations as exchanges of perspectives. If a call in is going to be effective, we shouldn’t be heading in dead-set that we’re 100 percent correct and they’re 100 percent wrong.”
[the toxicity dividing families] “After Trump’s 2016 victory, one Reuters/Ipsos poll found that “16 percent of respondents said they had stopped communicating with a friend or family member because of the election,” as Joe Pinsker reported for the Atlantic. “Four years later, many such relationships are still in disrepair,” he wrote.”
It will be worse by an order of magnitude this time.
“Affirm students’ right to challenge authority; it reinforces their critical thinking skills. Children raised in strict doctrinal households have their critical thinking skills suppressed at an early age. They are discouraged from seeking facts that may challenge their beliefs. Growing up under these restrictions means that the brain structures that support critical thinking and logical reasoning don’t fully mature.”
“What wrongs should we be held to account for? Which do we seek to punish? Which do we forgive? How long do we hold on to grievances, and how early in life do we begin to hold people responsible? The answers are not and never will be set in stone. They change over time, as should be obvious in a country that was built on a tradition of liberty boarded over a tradition of genocide and slavery. We are constantly negotiating which wrongs are wrong.”
That last sentence.
“I've never been that terribly invested in hating white supremacists or misogynists or opponents of reproductive justice or other folks who piss me off. Fighting them was a mission, but I didn't emotionally invest in actively hating folks I didn't even know.”
I don’t invest much time in the hates I have. They aren’t worth it. But neither do I forget why I have those hates. Contrary to popular science and psycho-stuff, hating isn’t hurting me, it doesn’t consume me, I don’t need to forgive for me to feel better. They aren’t worth the time. But they serve as the cautionary tale in my life story that helps me place my trust where it should be placed (most common) and my distrust where it needs to be (far less common than you might surmise).
In addition to sharing her story, discoveries, lessons, and techniques for what she proposes, Ms. Ross includes references in her notes for us to drill deeper, though in my review copy they had yet to be finalized*.
This is very personal. She is candid with her trauma - a victim of abuse and rape - and when she went through: “By keeping my son, I became a teen mother, a statistic, predicted for failure in a judgmental society that always seemed to blame the girls, never our abusers.” (I would submit, not “society that seemed to blame”, rather just “society that blamed”. There is no seem and this hasn’t changed since 1969. With the proliferation of “social” media, the anti-social shaming might well be worse, if only more publicly wide-spread.)
With her anger: “For much of my life, I had no real trust or patience for others. I reacted with fear or domination, caring only about protecting myself. I would call out others at the drop of a hat-whether it was for a real insult or an honest mistake. I was a loaded shotgun looking for an excuse to pull the trigger.”
With how she came by both and how she learned to tame the anger. “And I had to learn to be different—to approach others with less anger and a little more love. That’s the simple definition: a call in is a call out done with love.” (What if me “calling out” is not done in anger? Simple pointing out a fact can provoke anger for sure, but is the mere calling out defined as anger? If so, I’ll respectfully disagree - not with her definition … that’s hers to make … but with the conjoining the action with an emotion that may not be present.)
She is candid with her failings and humble with her successes. She gives personal examples of what she teaches. And she acknowledges that some situations cannot be resolved by “calling in”. She says,
“I’ve created what I call the “5Cs”—a spectrum of accountability measures to help us figure out how to respond depending on the situation, whether by calling out (yes, I think call outs do have their uses, as I’ll discuss in chapter 2), canceling, calling in, calling on (asking people to do better, but without investing your time and energy in helping them to change), or calling it off.”
I admit a little confusion on some fronts. When she says “I picture “Calling In” as a practice of pulling folks back in who have strayed from us”, I think “strayed from us” implies some kind of relationship. If I call out someone(s) I do not know, and only “met” in the course of some pseudo-anonymous internet exchange responding to (what I rightly or wrongly deem as a) trolling… they have not strayed from me; they exist in their own world independent from me. And she says, “Calling in is not a better way to tell someone they are wrong. Its purpose is to create the conditions for differences of opinion to be heard, to allow facts to be ascertained, and to avoid ideological rigidity and political bullying.” I had training once to be a certified mediator (I never did go down that path, but it was included as part a year long management program) so this makes sense to me - but… mediation is a third party role and calling in seems to be a two party exercise.
“Some people may be skeptical about calling in. They may think it’s passive niceness, a lesson in turning the other cheek, when it’s really an organizing practice and a way of life.” I’m skeptical because of the toxicity that might prompt a calling in is a mountain to overcome, and the work to get past it has to be worth the effort.
She points her microscope at me and I’ll own it: “Sometimes our stubbornness about being right fulfills a psychological need and lowers our anxiety. We like poking holes in others’ thinking, resulting in a competition of who can criticize more.” Though for me, I do think it is more about poking holes; not necessarily criticism, rather critical thinking. (And unfortunately, when some of the holes are poked, the recipients too often resort to ad hominems and there is usually no coming back from that.) But I am stubborn and I continue to work on myself.
Tools to help: “If someone is shouting insults and rushing toward me, I’m not going to stick around to find out what else is going on in their life. I’m checking out of there! When imminent harm is on the table, that’s when our fight-or-flight mode is warranted. But if the situation is calmer—if everyone is keeping their hands to themselves, even if voices are raised—then we can assess harm and intent more deliberately. I’ll ask myself three questions to gauge what’s going on: (1) Have I or someone else been wronged in this situation? (2) Have I been wronged intentionally? (3) And am I certain that it was intentional and not a result of ignorance, stupidity, or miscommunication?
If I answer yes to all three questions, then I’m in a situation where a call out is warranted. But if my answer to any of them is no, then I will steer toward a call in, especially if I think there’s more than malice in play. That means there’s likely to be more below the surface, which might offer a path to understanding.”
This resonates in the wake of November 2024: “Anyone who asserts that the primary problem in our democracy is illiberalism on the left—anyone who considers us “illiberal liberals”—seems not to have noticed that the bullets of political violence in our society nearly always travel from the right to the left.”
Bottom line, I have much to consider and as always, more to learn.
* Page numbers had yet to be assigned. And the reference notes are of the form that are not cited in the body text, a form I do not like because the reader doesn't know to look for the references until the end (or guess that there might be a reference and go check, interrupting the reading flow) and then has to go back and find/reread the section to get the context. I know authors/publishers do this sometimes so as to not interrupt that flow, but a superscript is innocuous and it is an inconvenience and to me an annoyance to not be able to check a citation at the moment (and I have yet to find the term for the form. Anybody?)
Other curated notes (I have so many more and not enough room):
“We didn’t realize that being united was more important than being right. Our infighting took our eyes off our opponents. Instead of retreating, they regrouped.”
Every. Damn. Time. Dems are bad about that.
“But one of the most common criticisms of call outs—that they’re loud and disruptive—is a red herring. Courtesy isn’t a luxury valued by those who most need the power and protection of call outs. We rightfully resist demands that we be polite to our oppressors when voicing our outrage and apologize in the “right” tone. F that! We won’t calmly forgive them for wounds that won’t heal because the injuries have not stopped. There may be other grounds to object to call outs—but politeness ain’t it.”
And, this is also true: “To be clear, progressives are neither saints nor victims in the cancel wars.”
She observes “online cruelty can produce offline outcomes because the internet is real and so are the people harmed by it.” So true.
[on fighting allies who differ in approach, instead of enemies]
“When we attack problematic or unproven allies, we’re aiding the oppressors. If we want to win, we need to look beyond the fleeting power of the call out and understand how to call in.”
Dems eat their own. Repubs embrace all evils.
[movement vs cult]
“When many people have different ideas but move in the same direction, that’s a movement. When many people have the same idea and move in the same direction, that’s a cult. We are not building the human rights cult but the human rights movement. This requires learning not to pressure people into agreeing with us but learning how to persuade others into being with us.”
[an important distinction]
“This is the sense of possibility that calling in allows for but that calling out writes off. You should want to be surprised; and you should open the door to surprise—even from people you disagree with. That doesn’t mean being reckless; I got the hell off that mountaintop before sundown.”
Love it! I think I might add that last sentence to my glossary
“If you start a call in trying too hard to change someone else, most people can sniff that out a mile away. And no one wants to be lectured at—even in a patient tone. We can only consider changing and growing if we’re approached as equals. It’s important, then, to see calling in conversations as exchanges of perspectives. If a call in is going to be effective, we shouldn’t be heading in dead-set that we’re 100 percent correct and they’re 100 percent wrong.”
[the toxicity dividing families] “After Trump’s 2016 victory, one Reuters/Ipsos poll found that “16 percent of respondents said they had stopped communicating with a friend or family member because of the election,” as Joe Pinsker reported for the Atlantic. “Four years later, many such relationships are still in disrepair,” he wrote.”
It will be worse by an order of magnitude this time.
“Affirm students’ right to challenge authority; it reinforces their critical thinking skills. Children raised in strict doctrinal households have their critical thinking skills suppressed at an early age. They are discouraged from seeking facts that may challenge their beliefs. Growing up under these restrictions means that the brain structures that support critical thinking and logical reasoning don’t fully mature.”
“What wrongs should we be held to account for? Which do we seek to punish? Which do we forgive? How long do we hold on to grievances, and how early in life do we begin to hold people responsible? The answers are not and never will be set in stone. They change over time, as should be obvious in a country that was built on a tradition of liberty boarded over a tradition of genocide and slavery. We are constantly negotiating which wrongs are wrong.”
That last sentence.
“I've never been that terribly invested in hating white supremacists or misogynists or opponents of reproductive justice or other folks who piss me off. Fighting them was a mission, but I didn't emotionally invest in actively hating folks I didn't even know.”
I don’t invest much time in the hates I have. They aren’t worth it. But neither do I forget why I have those hates. Contrary to popular science and psycho-stuff, hating isn’t hurting me, it doesn’t consume me, I don’t need to forgive for me to feel better. They aren’t worth the time. But they serve as the cautionary tale in my life story that helps me place my trust where it should be placed (most common) and my distrust where it needs to be (far less common than you might surmise).
February 18, 2025
Thank you to Simon & Schuster and NetGalley for the free e-ARC in exchange for an honest review
Do you want to make the world a better place, but feel like it’s impossible to do so? Do you want to have productive and eye-opening conversations with people at the other end of the political spectrum to show them why they’re supporting a system that ultimately harms them too, yet always find such attempts ending in shouting, accusations, thought-terminating clichés, or broken relationships?
If so, then add CALLING IN to your TBR. Ross has decades of experience dialoguing with white supremacists, racists, and more to build bridges with them and help them change. Written simply, practically, and empathetically, CALLING IN is an incredible resource that follows the steps of great thinkers like Paulo Freire and bell hooks, who believe that change is predicated upon having a great love for humanity.
To make her argument, Ross first lays out clearly why call-out culture is doomed to fail to reform the world. Call-out culture, she writes, may satisfy our instinctive psychological need to be right, but does not really create a safe space in which discomfort and differences of thought, which are necessary to grapple with on the path to change, are allowed. “Tribalism is still tribalism, whether Left or Right,” she says; essentialism is still essentialism.
This is not to say that all call-outs are bad. In fact, calling out is an important strategy to check those with power who are betraying those to whom they should have a responsibility of care. However, most of the time, call-outs are used on people who are much closer to ourselves in terms of thinking and social influence. Potential allies, if you will. As Ross writes:
It is “born of an ‘under-reaction to abuse and overreaction to conflict’”. Instead of teaching love and forgiveness, call-out culture promotes unforgiveability, fear (of our past, of our flaws, etc), and mental/intellectual domination.
Ross invites us to look past black-and-white thinking and reflect on the extent to which a person can be an ally. She writes, “There is no one perfect way to be an ally, so we need to approach people with the generosity of radical love instead of scorn.” The battle we are in isn’t against others who are also oppressed under the yoke of hypercapitalism racist patriarchy. Think about it in the way that we would like to be treated for our mistakes. For we are human, and we will inevitably make mistakes. Wouldn’t we all rather be in a community that helps us see where we went wrong yet also gives us the grace and trust to learn?
Learning how to use call-ins is strategic. Ross describes the act of applying a call-in as requesting a “transitional demand” from a potential ally, one of the steps to your “optimal demand” (which is revolution, the dismantling of patriarchy/capitalism, etc). Fortunately, she gives us step-by-step instructions for how to do a call-in:
1. Start with the self.
2. Calibrate the conflict.
3. Approach with love.
4. Accept the reaction.
5. Reach a resolution.
Seems a little nebulous when I write it just like that, but for each step Ross goes into detail about what she means, what questions you can ask yourself/your audience, and all of the options you can have at each step.
Is learning how to call in instead of call out, and creating a call-in culture, easy? Definitely not. Even with Ross’ patience and clear explanations, I know that I will have to reread her book several times to absorb her lessons. It won’t be easy because our society rewards call-outs: think of social media, and the short and savage Tweets/Threads that go viral in hours, rather than relationships that take months, if not years, to develop, change, or heal. And yet I know that calling in is something I want to learn how to do, because it’s more aligned with my vision of a radical and loving future.
There are so many good quotes from the book, but I will leave you with these:
Read CALLING IN.
[17 Jan 2025]
So compassionately and practically written. Should be a must-read for anyone who wishes to do activist work or reform the world. Full review to come.
Do you want to make the world a better place, but feel like it’s impossible to do so? Do you want to have productive and eye-opening conversations with people at the other end of the political spectrum to show them why they’re supporting a system that ultimately harms them too, yet always find such attempts ending in shouting, accusations, thought-terminating clichés, or broken relationships?
If so, then add CALLING IN to your TBR. Ross has decades of experience dialoguing with white supremacists, racists, and more to build bridges with them and help them change. Written simply, practically, and empathetically, CALLING IN is an incredible resource that follows the steps of great thinkers like Paulo Freire and bell hooks, who believe that change is predicated upon having a great love for humanity.
To make her argument, Ross first lays out clearly why call-out culture is doomed to fail to reform the world. Call-out culture, she writes, may satisfy our instinctive psychological need to be right, but does not really create a safe space in which discomfort and differences of thought, which are necessary to grapple with on the path to change, are allowed. “Tribalism is still tribalism, whether Left or Right,” she says; essentialism is still essentialism.
This is not to say that all call-outs are bad. In fact, calling out is an important strategy to check those with power who are betraying those to whom they should have a responsibility of care. However, most of the time, call-outs are used on people who are much closer to ourselves in terms of thinking and social influence. Potential allies, if you will. As Ross writes:
“Call out culture treats people as competitors for justice rather than partners capable of uniting for a common goal.”
It is “born of an ‘under-reaction to abuse and overreaction to conflict’”. Instead of teaching love and forgiveness, call-out culture promotes unforgiveability, fear (of our past, of our flaws, etc), and mental/intellectual domination.
Ross invites us to look past black-and-white thinking and reflect on the extent to which a person can be an ally. She writes, “There is no one perfect way to be an ally, so we need to approach people with the generosity of radical love instead of scorn.” The battle we are in isn’t against others who are also oppressed under the yoke of hypercapitalism racist patriarchy. Think about it in the way that we would like to be treated for our mistakes. For we are human, and we will inevitably make mistakes. Wouldn’t we all rather be in a community that helps us see where we went wrong yet also gives us the grace and trust to learn?
Learning how to use call-ins is strategic. Ross describes the act of applying a call-in as requesting a “transitional demand” from a potential ally, one of the steps to your “optimal demand” (which is revolution, the dismantling of patriarchy/capitalism, etc). Fortunately, she gives us step-by-step instructions for how to do a call-in:
1. Start with the self.
2. Calibrate the conflict.
3. Approach with love.
4. Accept the reaction.
5. Reach a resolution.
Seems a little nebulous when I write it just like that, but for each step Ross goes into detail about what she means, what questions you can ask yourself/your audience, and all of the options you can have at each step.
Is learning how to call in instead of call out, and creating a call-in culture, easy? Definitely not. Even with Ross’ patience and clear explanations, I know that I will have to reread her book several times to absorb her lessons. It won’t be easy because our society rewards call-outs: think of social media, and the short and savage Tweets/Threads that go viral in hours, rather than relationships that take months, if not years, to develop, change, or heal. And yet I know that calling in is something I want to learn how to do, because it’s more aligned with my vision of a radical and loving future.
There are so many good quotes from the book, but I will leave you with these:
“No one can change without room to grow.”
“This is what calling in seeks to achieve. We seek to replace shame and fear with a sense of joy and purpose.”
Read CALLING IN.
[17 Jan 2025]
So compassionately and practically written. Should be a must-read for anyone who wishes to do activist work or reform the world. Full review to come.
April 20, 2025
Progressive movement spaces can be joyful and wonderful, but also equally often, a fucking nightmare. People can be total assholes to one another and defame, destroy, or trash, as Jo Freeman referred to it in her 1976 essay for Ms. Magazine, “Trashing: The Dark Side of Sisterhood.”
If I’m being honest about it, I would be devastated if my daughter and her friends leaped into many of the spaces where I have done my activism and worked with their hearts and ideals on their sleeves. Because I know they, sweet souls, would be torn to shreds.
Call-out culture is out of control. It is at this point what I would consider to be a threat to democracy, for if those who claim they are most in favor of human rights at a time when a dictator is trying to take hold are more generally obsessed with slinging insults at one another for not being morally pure enough, then who will fight autocracy? And who will build a movement to fight autocracy with real people outside of the mud fight?
Loretta J. Ross is probably the only person in the world who could have written this book, this way, and with such devastating precision.
I read it in two days. Also, I would like 20 years of my life back. If only we had all embraced freedom of speech, diversity of thought, the messy journey toward building effective coalitions, where might we be now? But this is not a punitive feeling as I write this, it is actually an open and measured one. I am committed to encouraging my fellow progressives to grow thicker skins and discard the politics of perfection. Discomfort is not violence. Discomfort is where the real work happens.
The progressive movements owe Loretta J. Ross a debt of gratitude for doing this unpopular work of embracing imperfection and challenging the groupthink of what and who is problematic and conflated with violence (hint: everyone, if you look hard enough). This book and its brilliant ideas have the power to be referenced in a better, kinder, and more effective pursuit of justice for decades to come.
If I’m being honest about it, I would be devastated if my daughter and her friends leaped into many of the spaces where I have done my activism and worked with their hearts and ideals on their sleeves. Because I know they, sweet souls, would be torn to shreds.
Call-out culture is out of control. It is at this point what I would consider to be a threat to democracy, for if those who claim they are most in favor of human rights at a time when a dictator is trying to take hold are more generally obsessed with slinging insults at one another for not being morally pure enough, then who will fight autocracy? And who will build a movement to fight autocracy with real people outside of the mud fight?
Loretta J. Ross is probably the only person in the world who could have written this book, this way, and with such devastating precision.
I read it in two days. Also, I would like 20 years of my life back. If only we had all embraced freedom of speech, diversity of thought, the messy journey toward building effective coalitions, where might we be now? But this is not a punitive feeling as I write this, it is actually an open and measured one. I am committed to encouraging my fellow progressives to grow thicker skins and discard the politics of perfection. Discomfort is not violence. Discomfort is where the real work happens.
The progressive movements owe Loretta J. Ross a debt of gratitude for doing this unpopular work of embracing imperfection and challenging the groupthink of what and who is problematic and conflated with violence (hint: everyone, if you look hard enough). This book and its brilliant ideas have the power to be referenced in a better, kinder, and more effective pursuit of justice for decades to come.
July 2, 2025
I'm calling it. Calling In is one of my top reads of 2025!
This is a must for anyone struggling with the horseshoe effect: watching leftists go so far left they end up right. Because when you are building a movement, you require people but nobody wants to be made to feel ashamed or scared to make a mistake. Calling In is written for those who have participated in call out culture, whether that was on the internet or in real life, and are tired of the moral superiority and intellectual posturing. I really needed to read this: What calling in may look like.
This is part memoir, part great tips on self-awareness on assessing annoyance from harm, what strategies to employ, and what to do if you're the one being called in.
I can be picky with non-fictional books that oversell but this is exactly as promised. Each personal story goes well with each chapter's argument. It's clean writing. Engaging. Nothing sentimental or fluff. As I was reading this book, I would talk about it to people around me because some of the stories- whoa. From working with rapists in prison, feminists ignorant of intersectional issues in the workplace to high-ranking nazis... all of her examples made me really stop and think.
I also loved her stories and anecdotes in working with other women in the political space. From deciding to educate her boss on reproductive justice beyond abortion but forced sterilization instead of calling her out for not knowing about this issue, to witnessing a young woman criticize a body of white feminists about to give a huge grant to them only to "close ranks" on her and decline the grant...
Calling in is not about letting people disrespect you but assessing if it is worth a call out. We can be so quick to judge someone's mistake, whether intentional or unintentional, as an indictment of who they are at the core. Not knowing the correct language, is that worth calling someone out when you are trying to build coalitions?
Calling in works when you can do the inner work of understanding what's in the room, because it can be so easy for a lot of what Loretta Ross advocates for to be manipulated to suggest we shouldn't be so sensitive. It's not about being a nice girl to get along with everyone. It's not saying sacrifice your feelings for the greater good.
What Ross is saying is just discern. Don't immediately react because you feel powerful when you call someone out. Is it truly a harm or is it annoying? Will it be worth it to score a point? Is it worth the energy of fall-out and bickering? Are you forgetting your overall purpose? If you share 50-75% of the same values in how you want to see the world, is it worth flipping out over the details with them like they are your mortal enemy? If it's not a call out, how can it be addressed as a call in?
This is a must for anyone struggling with the horseshoe effect: watching leftists go so far left they end up right. Because when you are building a movement, you require people but nobody wants to be made to feel ashamed or scared to make a mistake. Calling In is written for those who have participated in call out culture, whether that was on the internet or in real life, and are tired of the moral superiority and intellectual posturing. I really needed to read this: What calling in may look like.
This is part memoir, part great tips on self-awareness on assessing annoyance from harm, what strategies to employ, and what to do if you're the one being called in.
I can be picky with non-fictional books that oversell but this is exactly as promised. Each personal story goes well with each chapter's argument. It's clean writing. Engaging. Nothing sentimental or fluff. As I was reading this book, I would talk about it to people around me because some of the stories- whoa. From working with rapists in prison, feminists ignorant of intersectional issues in the workplace to high-ranking nazis... all of her examples made me really stop and think.
I also loved her stories and anecdotes in working with other women in the political space. From deciding to educate her boss on reproductive justice beyond abortion but forced sterilization instead of calling her out for not knowing about this issue, to witnessing a young woman criticize a body of white feminists about to give a huge grant to them only to "close ranks" on her and decline the grant...
Calling in is not about letting people disrespect you but assessing if it is worth a call out. We can be so quick to judge someone's mistake, whether intentional or unintentional, as an indictment of who they are at the core. Not knowing the correct language, is that worth calling someone out when you are trying to build coalitions?
Calling in works when you can do the inner work of understanding what's in the room, because it can be so easy for a lot of what Loretta Ross advocates for to be manipulated to suggest we shouldn't be so sensitive. It's not about being a nice girl to get along with everyone. It's not saying sacrifice your feelings for the greater good.
What Ross is saying is just discern. Don't immediately react because you feel powerful when you call someone out. Is it truly a harm or is it annoying? Will it be worth it to score a point? Is it worth the energy of fall-out and bickering? Are you forgetting your overall purpose? If you share 50-75% of the same values in how you want to see the world, is it worth flipping out over the details with them like they are your mortal enemy? If it's not a call out, how can it be addressed as a call in?
November 12, 2025
The wisest, sanest, most instructive book imaginable for navigating social and political disagreement in this era. Ross shares vulnerable and highly relevant examples from her life to demonstrate how to build, learn, and grow progressive ideas in a world that wants to slam doors and wallow in hate. I left this book admiring the hell out of her, wanting to do better in my own thoughts and actions toward people I disagree with, and sharing this book with many people I know.
January 22, 2025
I can’t tell if this works better as a memoir than it does as a how-to book or if I’m just autistic.
I loved the first four chapters of this book. The subtitle, “How to Start Making Change with Those You’d Rather Cancel,” immediately raised my hackles as someone who’s been a leftist on the internet, but Ross expected that. She’s upfront about how some callouts/cancellations are justified, and she’s not trying to sneak in any centrist propaganda about how “we can disagree on fundamental moral principles and still be friends”.
She’s just also spent enough time in offline leftist spaces to be exhausted by how we are constantly wasting our energy on people who agree with us about 90% of what matters.
I’d propose “How to Build a Coalition with People who Annoy You” or “How to Leave the Door Open for People to Surprise You, Maybe” as more accurate subtitles.
The theme of letting people surprise you is especially strong in the first four chapters of this book, which are the chapters in which Ross shares how she’s come to understand the practice of calling in and some examples of when calling in changed her life. She doesn’t propose that we leave the door open for bad actors to continue to harm us or suggest that mastering calling in will allow us to salvage every relationship. She just says that sometimes, when people say they want to do better, they actually follow through.
For Ross, this included Prisoners Against Rape, a group of men who had been convicted of rape and wanted to do better; a man fleeing the white supremacist group he’d helped build; members of her immediate family; and most importantly, herself.
The last four chapters are where Ross describes how to call someone in, and those are the chapters where she loses me a bit.
Chapter five says to start with yourself because it’s hard to have productive conversations if you’re tangled up in your own triggers. For this, she recommends talking to your support system, using your coping skills, and getting therapy. I think the IDEA of starting with yourself is a good one, but I do not think this chapter actually offers any helpful advice.
Chapter six is the actual “how to call someone in” chapter, which outlines the 5 steps (start with the self, calibrate the conflict, approach with love, accept the reaction, reach a resolution) and describes how Ross might use them to call in an attendee at a workshop she’s giving. I would have loved additional examples, especially examples that are more likely to actually apply to the average reader. A few worksheet pages with prompts to let readers write out their own version of a call-in would be especially helpful here.
Chapter seven fully disappeared from my memory overnight, but looking back, it basically just reaffirms that calling people in isn’t always the right option. Sometimes it’s better to say nothing; sometimes it’s better to call the person out. This chapter also has some information directed at managers and leaders about how to “create a culture of calling in” at work or in groups.
Chapter eight is the best of the second half. It describes what to do when you’re called in and what making amends actually looks like. Again, it would have really benefitted from more diverse examples and a few practice prompts.
Overall, I’m glad I read this book, but I don’t know that I learned anything about calling in from it. I did learn a lot about Ross, who I admire immensely.
I loved the first four chapters of this book. The subtitle, “How to Start Making Change with Those You’d Rather Cancel,” immediately raised my hackles as someone who’s been a leftist on the internet, but Ross expected that. She’s upfront about how some callouts/cancellations are justified, and she’s not trying to sneak in any centrist propaganda about how “we can disagree on fundamental moral principles and still be friends”.
She’s just also spent enough time in offline leftist spaces to be exhausted by how we are constantly wasting our energy on people who agree with us about 90% of what matters.
I’d propose “How to Build a Coalition with People who Annoy You” or “How to Leave the Door Open for People to Surprise You, Maybe” as more accurate subtitles.
The theme of letting people surprise you is especially strong in the first four chapters of this book, which are the chapters in which Ross shares how she’s come to understand the practice of calling in and some examples of when calling in changed her life. She doesn’t propose that we leave the door open for bad actors to continue to harm us or suggest that mastering calling in will allow us to salvage every relationship. She just says that sometimes, when people say they want to do better, they actually follow through.
For Ross, this included Prisoners Against Rape, a group of men who had been convicted of rape and wanted to do better; a man fleeing the white supremacist group he’d helped build; members of her immediate family; and most importantly, herself.
The last four chapters are where Ross describes how to call someone in, and those are the chapters where she loses me a bit.
Chapter five says to start with yourself because it’s hard to have productive conversations if you’re tangled up in your own triggers. For this, she recommends talking to your support system, using your coping skills, and getting therapy. I think the IDEA of starting with yourself is a good one, but I do not think this chapter actually offers any helpful advice.
Chapter six is the actual “how to call someone in” chapter, which outlines the 5 steps (start with the self, calibrate the conflict, approach with love, accept the reaction, reach a resolution) and describes how Ross might use them to call in an attendee at a workshop she’s giving. I would have loved additional examples, especially examples that are more likely to actually apply to the average reader. A few worksheet pages with prompts to let readers write out their own version of a call-in would be especially helpful here.
Chapter seven fully disappeared from my memory overnight, but looking back, it basically just reaffirms that calling people in isn’t always the right option. Sometimes it’s better to say nothing; sometimes it’s better to call the person out. This chapter also has some information directed at managers and leaders about how to “create a culture of calling in” at work or in groups.
Chapter eight is the best of the second half. It describes what to do when you’re called in and what making amends actually looks like. Again, it would have really benefitted from more diverse examples and a few practice prompts.
Overall, I’m glad I read this book, but I don’t know that I learned anything about calling in from it. I did learn a lot about Ross, who I admire immensely.
January 5, 2026
Similar thoughts to most self-help books. Give me the cliff notes version & I’d learn just as much. It’s a good concept but very little content about the subject of calling in and you have to wait until the 50% mark. Be prepared for lots of biography about the author.
February 6, 2025
I think I was less than a quarter into this book when I first texted someone about this book telling them that they needed to read it, a process that was repeated multiple times throughout my reading experience. This was excellent and is something I'd consider required reading for all of us who are interested in making change and building bridges.
I actually had the privilege of listening to Loretta Ross as a guest lecturer my first year in college, where she now is a professor. Ross is a powerful public speaker, and I think this book illustrates why - because she not only talks the talk, she walks the walk. Part of this book is a memoir, and Ross has lived a colorful and often complicated and challenging life. She doesn't shy away from moments of ugliness or from sharing her own moments of shame. She doesn't just ask the reader to be vulnerable, she models it herself - and that's at the heart of the practice of calling in.
Calling out is easy, and it's satisfying as hell - but as Ross explains, it isn't a very effective mechanism for actually enacting change most of the time. When people feel attacked, they're not going to change their minds. Calling in is harder, and longer, and requires emotional vulnerability and bravery, but it's also a way to actually build bridges. One of the most interesting concepts I took away from this book was the idea of the 90%, 75%, 50%, 25%, and 0% circle. Ross explains that it's not reasonable or effective to expect people to agree 100% with you. However, there might be many people with whom you agree with on 90% of issues - start there. Find the ways that you are similar with someone, not the ways that you aren't. Don't start with people you have absolutely nothing in common with - you're not going to be productive there. Find your areas of overlap and build off of shared values.
One of the things that I most appreciate about this book is that it's not just theory but also provides real, practical frameworks and solutions. I walked away with multiple new ideas about how to have hard conversations. And I think that's something that so many of us need. The internet loves a witch hunt, and I'm just as guilty of enjoying the drama from the sidelines as the next person. But a witch hunt isn't what's going to save us. If we want to survive together, we NEED each other.
Timely, powerful, practical. I can't recommend this enough.
Thank you to the publisher and NetGalley for the eARC in exchange for my honest opinion.
I actually had the privilege of listening to Loretta Ross as a guest lecturer my first year in college, where she now is a professor. Ross is a powerful public speaker, and I think this book illustrates why - because she not only talks the talk, she walks the walk. Part of this book is a memoir, and Ross has lived a colorful and often complicated and challenging life. She doesn't shy away from moments of ugliness or from sharing her own moments of shame. She doesn't just ask the reader to be vulnerable, she models it herself - and that's at the heart of the practice of calling in.
Calling out is easy, and it's satisfying as hell - but as Ross explains, it isn't a very effective mechanism for actually enacting change most of the time. When people feel attacked, they're not going to change their minds. Calling in is harder, and longer, and requires emotional vulnerability and bravery, but it's also a way to actually build bridges. One of the most interesting concepts I took away from this book was the idea of the 90%, 75%, 50%, 25%, and 0% circle. Ross explains that it's not reasonable or effective to expect people to agree 100% with you. However, there might be many people with whom you agree with on 90% of issues - start there. Find the ways that you are similar with someone, not the ways that you aren't. Don't start with people you have absolutely nothing in common with - you're not going to be productive there. Find your areas of overlap and build off of shared values.
One of the things that I most appreciate about this book is that it's not just theory but also provides real, practical frameworks and solutions. I walked away with multiple new ideas about how to have hard conversations. And I think that's something that so many of us need. The internet loves a witch hunt, and I'm just as guilty of enjoying the drama from the sidelines as the next person. But a witch hunt isn't what's going to save us. If we want to survive together, we NEED each other.
Timely, powerful, practical. I can't recommend this enough.
Thank you to the publisher and NetGalley for the eARC in exchange for my honest opinion.
October 29, 2025
How, in times when dialogue seems impossible, public discourse is reduced to name calling and cancel culture, and nations, communities, institutions, and families are hopelessly polarised, might we find our way back to tolerance, civility, and co-operation? As crucially, how are we to transcend our many divides to build the movements needed to build the world that we know is possible? Is it futile to even ask those questions anymore?
Two weeks ago, I encountered Loretta Ross, Associate Professor of the study of women and gender at Smith College, and lifelong advocate for reproductive justice, gender equality and human rights. Her keynote address at the opening plenary of the Resource Alliance International Fundraising Congress in the Netherlands, was, for me, and the thousands listening in person and online, mind opening. She introduced us to the concept of Calling In as an alternative to the pervasive culture of Calling Out.
Her book, Calling In: How to Start Making Change with Those You��d Rather Cancel, delves further into the concept. Politics, society and civil society today are all too often framed as being divided between those who are for and those who are against us. In civil society, especially, we seek ideological purity and lockstep consensus with little if any room for dissent, disagreement or even learning. Within our movements one misjudged or misinformed phrase is all that it takes to be cancelled, demonised and forever dismissed.
Loretta invites us to frame the world as being composed of proven, problematic, and potential allies, and to seek to engage wherever the possibility of enlisting support for our cause exists, rather than excluding anyone who is not in 100% agreement 100% of the time. She builds on Ngoc Loan Trân’s original framing of calling in as “a practice of pulling folks back in who have strayed from us… a practice of loving each other enough to allow each other to make mistakes, a practice of loving ourselves enough to know that what we’re trying to do here is a radical unlearning of everything we have configured to believe is normal.” She reminds us of Alicia Garza’s words that “movement building isn’t about finding your tribe — it’s about growing your tribe across difference to focus on a common set of goals.”
We’re all familiar with the practice on the progressive end of the ideological spectrum of finding myriad ways to find fault with each other rather than focusing on our shared goals. We often envy, albeit tinged with some disdain, the relative unity and singleminded focus of our counterparts on the right. We can split hairs with fellow anti-facists with greater ferocity than we confront the fascists. Appeals to unite across our many divides – race, class, caste, gender, faith, nationality, and cause — sound naïvely utopian. Why is Loretta’s call any different?
In part her credibility stems from her lived experience of abuse, exclusion, discrimination and worse. As a survivor of rape and its rippling consequences, she has battled demons, inner and outer, to lead multiple successful movements for reproductive justice, racial equity, and human rights, working alongside feminist and civil liberties legends. She has more reason than most to resort to anger, bitterness, and hate. She chooses, not serenity, acceptance or to simply turn the other cheek, but to “be precise with her anger,” quoting Aristotle, “Anybody can become angry — that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way — that is not within everybody’s power and is not easy.” Hers is not a demand that we suppress righteous anger or that we ignore the harm we experience. It is to deploy anger strategically, without meanness or disrespect. To seek accountability rather than unforgiving condemnation. She is most definitely not advocating for civility at the expense of justice. Or that we accommodate people with privilege and perpetrators of injustice by presenting ourselves inauthentically. Her invitation is to use our differences strategically rather than to burn ourselves out in a quest for perfect ideological unity. There are situations when calling out, even calling off, are warranted. Call outs, she says, are most effective when they target powerful people beyond our reach and when public scrutiny is a strategic weapon we deploy against the unreachable powerful. This “democratisation of justice” can help people facing structural inequalities overcome their sense of powerlessness. Equally, when serious harm has been done, when further harm can be prevented, when other means of recourse have failed or are inaccessible, and when trust and good faith have been exhausted, calling out is justified.
Particularly compelling is Loretta’s account of her work with a Ku Klux Klan leader seeking redemption. Her initial revulsion, and gradual understanding of what it takes to bridge the seemingly insurmountable divide, also highlights a key gap in approaches to changing hearts and minds. What pathways do we provide for those seeking to relinquish hate, bigotry and division? She recounts the advice of C T Vivian, whom Martin Luther King Jr. described as the greatest preacher to ever live, “When you ask someone to give up hate, you need to be there for them when they do.”
The book’s detailed guide on how and when to call in family members, colleagues, comrades, potential allies and when and how not to, is accompanied by stories from Loretta’s life — within her family, her victories and failings at the DC Rape Crisis Center she led, at the National Organisation of Women, in academic institutions and civil society organisations, as well as the contestations involved in convening large national coalitions for policy change. University administrators, in particular, could benefit a great deal from this book.
Her own struggles to overcome the urge, even compulsion, to resort to clever comeback, penetrating barb, spirited defence or retribution in the face of injury —perceived or real — resonate strongly and lend her advice compelling authenticity.
Her most powerful argument: “People opposed to human rights — opposed to ending poverty, addressing racism, or accepting women’s rights to control their bodies — think they’re fighting the human rights movement but I believe they’re wrong. They’re fighting truth, history, and evidence. Most importantly, they’re fighting time. These existential forces are beyond their power to command. With truth, history, evidence, and time on our side, we hold the winning hand despite our fears of powerlessness and failure. Our opponents are simply pimples on the ass of time. But my biggest fear is that despite our winning hand, we’ll be defeated — at least in our lifetimes — because we can’t stop calling each other out.”
Two weeks ago, I encountered Loretta Ross, Associate Professor of the study of women and gender at Smith College, and lifelong advocate for reproductive justice, gender equality and human rights. Her keynote address at the opening plenary of the Resource Alliance International Fundraising Congress in the Netherlands, was, for me, and the thousands listening in person and online, mind opening. She introduced us to the concept of Calling In as an alternative to the pervasive culture of Calling Out.
Her book, Calling In: How to Start Making Change with Those You��d Rather Cancel, delves further into the concept. Politics, society and civil society today are all too often framed as being divided between those who are for and those who are against us. In civil society, especially, we seek ideological purity and lockstep consensus with little if any room for dissent, disagreement or even learning. Within our movements one misjudged or misinformed phrase is all that it takes to be cancelled, demonised and forever dismissed.
Loretta invites us to frame the world as being composed of proven, problematic, and potential allies, and to seek to engage wherever the possibility of enlisting support for our cause exists, rather than excluding anyone who is not in 100% agreement 100% of the time. She builds on Ngoc Loan Trân’s original framing of calling in as “a practice of pulling folks back in who have strayed from us… a practice of loving each other enough to allow each other to make mistakes, a practice of loving ourselves enough to know that what we’re trying to do here is a radical unlearning of everything we have configured to believe is normal.” She reminds us of Alicia Garza’s words that “movement building isn’t about finding your tribe — it’s about growing your tribe across difference to focus on a common set of goals.”
We’re all familiar with the practice on the progressive end of the ideological spectrum of finding myriad ways to find fault with each other rather than focusing on our shared goals. We often envy, albeit tinged with some disdain, the relative unity and singleminded focus of our counterparts on the right. We can split hairs with fellow anti-facists with greater ferocity than we confront the fascists. Appeals to unite across our many divides – race, class, caste, gender, faith, nationality, and cause — sound naïvely utopian. Why is Loretta’s call any different?
In part her credibility stems from her lived experience of abuse, exclusion, discrimination and worse. As a survivor of rape and its rippling consequences, she has battled demons, inner and outer, to lead multiple successful movements for reproductive justice, racial equity, and human rights, working alongside feminist and civil liberties legends. She has more reason than most to resort to anger, bitterness, and hate. She chooses, not serenity, acceptance or to simply turn the other cheek, but to “be precise with her anger,” quoting Aristotle, “Anybody can become angry — that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way — that is not within everybody’s power and is not easy.” Hers is not a demand that we suppress righteous anger or that we ignore the harm we experience. It is to deploy anger strategically, without meanness or disrespect. To seek accountability rather than unforgiving condemnation. She is most definitely not advocating for civility at the expense of justice. Or that we accommodate people with privilege and perpetrators of injustice by presenting ourselves inauthentically. Her invitation is to use our differences strategically rather than to burn ourselves out in a quest for perfect ideological unity. There are situations when calling out, even calling off, are warranted. Call outs, she says, are most effective when they target powerful people beyond our reach and when public scrutiny is a strategic weapon we deploy against the unreachable powerful. This “democratisation of justice” can help people facing structural inequalities overcome their sense of powerlessness. Equally, when serious harm has been done, when further harm can be prevented, when other means of recourse have failed or are inaccessible, and when trust and good faith have been exhausted, calling out is justified.
Particularly compelling is Loretta’s account of her work with a Ku Klux Klan leader seeking redemption. Her initial revulsion, and gradual understanding of what it takes to bridge the seemingly insurmountable divide, also highlights a key gap in approaches to changing hearts and minds. What pathways do we provide for those seeking to relinquish hate, bigotry and division? She recounts the advice of C T Vivian, whom Martin Luther King Jr. described as the greatest preacher to ever live, “When you ask someone to give up hate, you need to be there for them when they do.”
The book’s detailed guide on how and when to call in family members, colleagues, comrades, potential allies and when and how not to, is accompanied by stories from Loretta’s life — within her family, her victories and failings at the DC Rape Crisis Center she led, at the National Organisation of Women, in academic institutions and civil society organisations, as well as the contestations involved in convening large national coalitions for policy change. University administrators, in particular, could benefit a great deal from this book.
Her own struggles to overcome the urge, even compulsion, to resort to clever comeback, penetrating barb, spirited defence or retribution in the face of injury —perceived or real — resonate strongly and lend her advice compelling authenticity.
Her most powerful argument: “People opposed to human rights — opposed to ending poverty, addressing racism, or accepting women’s rights to control their bodies — think they’re fighting the human rights movement but I believe they’re wrong. They’re fighting truth, history, and evidence. Most importantly, they’re fighting time. These existential forces are beyond their power to command. With truth, history, evidence, and time on our side, we hold the winning hand despite our fears of powerlessness and failure. Our opponents are simply pimples on the ass of time. But my biggest fear is that despite our winning hand, we’ll be defeated — at least in our lifetimes — because we can’t stop calling each other out.”
July 3, 2025
“When we live up to our own values, we show other people what beautiful lives can be possible.”
Some REALLY important thinking here and well-articulated practical application. If you’ve been on the left for any amount of time, you know one of if not the biggest threat to left politics is the Left’s desperate urge to autocannibalize any part of itself in its sight line. The Left doesn’t have the monopoly on internal divisionist politics but it sure owns a lot of real estate over there.
Ross is giving a real antidote to conflict navigation and coming at it from the place of a person who has had to face genuine accountability for genuine acts of harm (embezzling, being a canceller, etc.), so she understands intimately what draws people closer and what pushes them away. As a rape survivor, she has worked with incarcerated rapists looking to amend and reroute their lives; as a black woman, she has worked with defecting/ed Klu Klux Klan members and white supremacists. She genuinely knows what she’s talking about.
I can tell from some of her narrative that she’s probably fallen a bit deeper into the Woke Trap than one ideally ought to go, but it hasn’t atrophied her compassion or critical thinking skills, so I can recommend especially this work here in good faith.
Some REALLY important thinking here and well-articulated practical application. If you’ve been on the left for any amount of time, you know one of if not the biggest threat to left politics is the Left’s desperate urge to autocannibalize any part of itself in its sight line. The Left doesn’t have the monopoly on internal divisionist politics but it sure owns a lot of real estate over there.
Ross is giving a real antidote to conflict navigation and coming at it from the place of a person who has had to face genuine accountability for genuine acts of harm (embezzling, being a canceller, etc.), so she understands intimately what draws people closer and what pushes them away. As a rape survivor, she has worked with incarcerated rapists looking to amend and reroute their lives; as a black woman, she has worked with defecting/ed Klu Klux Klan members and white supremacists. She genuinely knows what she’s talking about.
I can tell from some of her narrative that she’s probably fallen a bit deeper into the Woke Trap than one ideally ought to go, but it hasn’t atrophied her compassion or critical thinking skills, so I can recommend especially this work here in good faith.
November 21, 2025
This woman is brilliant and inspiring. I wish I had read this book 20 years ago, but I am gratified to have read it now. Highly recommended.
July 4, 2025
This book is so necessary at this time and filled with great examples of calling people in, instead of less effectively calling them out.
February 13, 2025
best nonfiction book i’ve read in a long time. loretta ross is a wealth of information and experience working in activism, reform, and transformative justice of so many different social issues.
i had to stop multiple times and just sit and process some of the ideas and how i can apply them in real life. i think we as a society would be better if we all read this.
while reading this, i was able to shift my bias and have a productive conversation with a zionist, and recognize how much more we have in common than not, as they are progressive in every other way. and instead of writing them off because of that, i was able to focus on the other 90% of things we align on and work towards a place of understanding rather than division and harm. she even hugged me and said she felt so heard and respected during the conversation, and i would NOT have had the energy to have that conversation without having tips from this book. highly highly recommend
i had to stop multiple times and just sit and process some of the ideas and how i can apply them in real life. i think we as a society would be better if we all read this.
while reading this, i was able to shift my bias and have a productive conversation with a zionist, and recognize how much more we have in common than not, as they are progressive in every other way. and instead of writing them off because of that, i was able to focus on the other 90% of things we align on and work towards a place of understanding rather than division and harm. she even hugged me and said she felt so heard and respected during the conversation, and i would NOT have had the energy to have that conversation without having tips from this book. highly highly recommend
March 15, 2025
Calling In is part memoir part self help book focusing on how to approach difficult conversations with compassion. This was a very compelling and accessible read that I wish I could give to everyone before they get on social media (or any group setting to be honest).
I really appreciated how raw and honest the author got about her personal life. This book doesn't shy away from hard topics and forces you to sit in some uncomfortable truths and self reflect. I like the way this book is set up with first learning a little bit of the author's experiences with calling out vs. calling in and then stepping into actual tips on how to call someone in. Calling someone out can be a emotional reflex which isn't always going to be the way to build a viable community. "Calling in depends on the rigorous practice of self reflection and critical thinking."
I really appreciated this book and how much it taught me. This book will stick with you for the rest of your life.
I really appreciated how raw and honest the author got about her personal life. This book doesn't shy away from hard topics and forces you to sit in some uncomfortable truths and self reflect. I like the way this book is set up with first learning a little bit of the author's experiences with calling out vs. calling in and then stepping into actual tips on how to call someone in. Calling someone out can be a emotional reflex which isn't always going to be the way to build a viable community. "Calling in depends on the rigorous practice of self reflection and critical thinking."
I really appreciated this book and how much it taught me. This book will stick with you for the rest of your life.
February 24, 2025
Wow this book includes so much wisdom. I listened to the audio but will absolutely be buying, annotating, and regularly referencing, a physical copy of it. Queen Loretta is a mother of the movement for good reason and this book shows exactly why - she has built a beautiful practice of calling in that she applies to herself first and foremost.
Within this book, you will learn the nuance of calling in while holding space for the messiness of humanity and always remaining steadfastly rooted in core values of love, compassion, and justice. It provides actual step by step guides on HOW to build and grow your own calling in practice including how to determine when calling in may not be the right choice.
Within this book, you will learn the nuance of calling in while holding space for the messiness of humanity and always remaining steadfastly rooted in core values of love, compassion, and justice. It provides actual step by step guides on HOW to build and grow your own calling in practice including how to determine when calling in may not be the right choice.
August 4, 2025
Loretta Ross, you are an icon. Thank you for sharing this wise, honest, and necessary book with the world. We need it!
So many impactful examples and experiences from Ross's own life and emotionally intelligent insights. This is written in a very straightforward and readable tone, and while I found it an engaging read, I took my time with it because it's so thought-provoking. I was physically nodding my head while reading. I loved the balance of personal with practical, the balance of what, why, and how to call in. I can't wait until this comes out in paperback so I can buy and annotate tf out of it!
So many impactful examples and experiences from Ross's own life and emotionally intelligent insights. This is written in a very straightforward and readable tone, and while I found it an engaging read, I took my time with it because it's so thought-provoking. I was physically nodding my head while reading. I loved the balance of personal with practical, the balance of what, why, and how to call in. I can't wait until this comes out in paperback so I can buy and annotate tf out of it!
April 10, 2025
I am averaging my rating to 4 🌟because I could give it 5 stars due to having people I would absolutely recommend this book to. I found it so helpful that I ordered a hard copy after finishing the audio book. However, I could also give it 3 stars since I would not recommend this to be the initial foray into someone's social justice learning. That is not a fault of the book, just an observation it is not a 101 level read. I am very glad to have picked this one up.
September 29, 2025
1000/5 stars. What an amazing book and women. Loretta Ross has truly dedicated her life to change, going as far as to engage with perpetrators of sexual violence, believers of right wing ideology and more in an attempt to understand people and work towards social justice by “calling in” rather than “calling out.” This book truly changed me and made me question myself in many ways. I was taking NOTES. Everyone who is interested in social and political change should read this book.
December 15, 2025
This book made me think. I appreciate the clear, lucid style and the interweaving of personal experience with practical advice. While "calling in" may seem ever more difficult, it also seems ever more important. It's an important skill for anyone -- and if more of us learned to lead with love and curiosity instead of letting our emotions and defensiveness get the better of us, the world would be in a better place and people, not only activists, would be able to get more done and have more satisfying relationships.
August 9, 2025
I think this is a great book for today’s times, and I appreciate how Ross not only lays out the value of calling people in, but also achievable and actionable steps in order for people to start doing this right away.
abandoned
March 17, 2025Abandoned this book, based on situation. I realized that I need to cancel the person I’m struggling with right now, not call them in.
November 14, 2025
This was an excellent book about forgiveness, learning to hold your tongue, and making real change by not immediately calling someone out. I would recommend this to everyone.
November 26, 2025
Such a necessary spiritual and political framework for these times
December 31, 2025
The world would be better if everyone read this book.
February 21, 2025
A dive into how we navigate conflict and be more mindful of how we call folks in. While this read like a memoir in many ways, it was also a playbook to think about how we approach difficult conversations and situations. I appreciate how there are tools for the workplace, family, and academia. Reading this feels like taking a deep breath.
January 7, 2025
Where was this book before the 2024 election?! It’s a must-read for anyone who wants to navigate difficult conversations with empathy and clarity. Instead of rushing to cancel individuals who post problematic things online, we should strive to foster understanding and encourage positive change. Many harmful or ignorant remarks stem from a lack of knowledge rather than malice, and this book provides a thoughtful approach to bridging those gaps.
I particularly loved the author’s three-question method for assessing conflict and intention:
1. **Have I or someone else been wronged in this situation?**
2. **Was I wronged intentionally?**
3. **Am I certain it was intentional and not a result of ignorance, stupidity, or miscommunication?**
These questions are simple yet profound, guiding readers to pause and reflect before reacting, which is a skill we desperately need in our polarized world.
During the 2024 election, abortion rights were on the ballot in my state, and I found myself locked in heated online debates. I was fighting for my life—pouring energy into convincing people to protect these fundamental rights. But what I eventually realized was that many of these individuals weren’t intentionally dismissing others’ rights; they were living in silos, disconnected from perspectives outside their own. This book would have been invaluable to help reframe my approach and recognize the deeper barriers to understanding.
The personal story woven throughout the book, especially Loretta’s journey, adds so much depth and relatability. Her life was both fascinating and heartbreaking. No teenager should endure the trials she faced, but those experiences forged her into the remarkable activist she became. Her resilience and commitment to creating change are incredibly inspiring and serve as a reminder that even the most difficult experiences can fuel meaningful advocacy.
This book is not just a guide; it’s a call to action for compassion, education, and deliberate communication in the face of divisive issues.
I particularly loved the author’s three-question method for assessing conflict and intention:
1. **Have I or someone else been wronged in this situation?**
2. **Was I wronged intentionally?**
3. **Am I certain it was intentional and not a result of ignorance, stupidity, or miscommunication?**
These questions are simple yet profound, guiding readers to pause and reflect before reacting, which is a skill we desperately need in our polarized world.
During the 2024 election, abortion rights were on the ballot in my state, and I found myself locked in heated online debates. I was fighting for my life—pouring energy into convincing people to protect these fundamental rights. But what I eventually realized was that many of these individuals weren’t intentionally dismissing others’ rights; they were living in silos, disconnected from perspectives outside their own. This book would have been invaluable to help reframe my approach and recognize the deeper barriers to understanding.
The personal story woven throughout the book, especially Loretta’s journey, adds so much depth and relatability. Her life was both fascinating and heartbreaking. No teenager should endure the trials she faced, but those experiences forged her into the remarkable activist she became. Her resilience and commitment to creating change are incredibly inspiring and serve as a reminder that even the most difficult experiences can fuel meaningful advocacy.
This book is not just a guide; it’s a call to action for compassion, education, and deliberate communication in the face of divisive issues.
March 8, 2025
Book #13 of 2025. "Calling In" by Loretta Ross. 4/5 rating. 239 p.
This book offers the concept of "calling in" people, as opposed to calling them out.
"This requires learning not to pressure people into agreeing with us but learning how to persuade others into being with us, keeping a seat at the table, and agreeing not to walk away when we disagree. As Audre Lorde said, 'It is not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognize, accept, and celebrate those differences.'"
I really felt Loretta's statement:
"But my biggest fear is that despite our winning hand, we'll be defeated - at least in our lifetimes - because we can't stop calling one another out."
Social media has created a culture where it is easy to perform shock, awe, and upset, as opposed to working with people who make us feel this way. As Loretta asks, "Do I want to act today out of anger and shame, or with love and grace?"
"We can hold people accountable using love, forgiveness, and respect, giving people room to grow - because they may be capable of changing. We can say what we mean and mean what we say but we don't have to say it mean. That's a choice."
"'Think about that,' C.T. said. 'When you ask someone to give up hate, you need to be there for them when they do.'"
How do you "call in" people?
1) Start with the self - ensure you are ready to have a potentially tough conversation and that you can approach the person with curiosity, grace (and maybe even love)
2) Calibrate the conflict - determine if the person you are interacting with has some points of commonality. Is the disagreement a mistake or misunderstanding or is it intentional and not likely to be a fruitful conversation?
3) Lead with Love - ask questions to get a grasp of their views, but in ways that show you disagree with some of their premise: "I know you, and I know you're a kind person. So I was surprised when you said _____. Can we talk about what you meant there?" But here, you must keep in mind "We can only consider changing and growing if we're approached as equals." You have to genuinely seek to understand.
4) Accept the reaction - no matter how well you approach the discussion, know it might not go well the first time. It also might send you off into topics or talks of ideas you didn't expect.
5) Reach a Resolution - what is the next step? What growth can be had by that person, us, and possibly the whole community? What can be learned?
The end goal is only "to persuade people to be with us, not agree with us." They don't have to become exact supporters of our ideologies, we just want an ally in some key realms.
Additional Quotes:
"But cancel culture can also be weaponized, by the Right of the Left. Offenses - someone's not woke enough, someone's not patriotic enough - can get treated as five-alarm fires, until we've reached a point where it becomes difficult to critique cancel culture without risking being canceled ourselves."
"I've seen how a moment of opportunity can slip away while we're caught up in morality plays or power fights."
"But my biggest fear is that despite our winning hand, we'll be defeated - at least in our lifetimes - because we can't stop calling one another out."
"They came because they wanted to change, and I felt that. They ached to reclaim their humanity. Incarcerated people are rarely listened to. Society does not want to hear what happened to them, only what they've done to others."
"If a coworker says something inappropriate, we can respond with scorn. Or we can approach them with patience and empathy, asking about the feelings or thoughts that led them to use hurtul language or to be so judgmental."
"But in choosing to call in, our response is contoured by love instead of anger. Asking the coworker to tell you more begins to develop your relationship."
"Do I want to act today out of anger and shame, or with love and grace?"
"As the Greek philosopher Aristotle said, 'Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way - that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.' I want to be precise with my anger."
"None of this internecine fighting won over a single opponent;"
"Calling out can be an interesting way to expend a whole lot of anguish to achieve very little."
"Call outs are most effective when they target powerful people beyond our reach and when public scrutiny is a strategic weapon we deploy against the unreachably powerful."
"It's easier to build an outrage posse with a 280-character attention span than to construct a healing society of people who care about each other too much to be cruel."
"Choosing to listen to another viewpoint does not signal automatic agreement; it indicates that listening to others matters as much as being heard. It takes courage to engage in conversation with someone who thinks differently than you."
"I like to say that a call in is a call out done with love. But it's also something else. It's a strategic choice. If I had unloaded my every jumbled thought on Ellie Smeal in that hallway, it would have been a hell of a scene. I would've invented whole new categories of insults, and I would've come out feeling like the victor. I would've shown her just how smart, courageous, and powerful I was. But I would've walked out that door alone."
"More information doesn't make people change their behavior if they don't think the source of that information has their best interests at heart."
"I had to figure out the right language to use to reach an audience that would be turned off by the jargon I sometimes throw around. I wanted to talk +to+ them, not +down to+ them."
"To find this common ground, we'll need to understand the value of transitional demands instead of all-or-nothing policies. A 'transitional demand' is a partial realization of what you're really aiming for: your optimal demand. It's transitional because it moves the needle toward radical goals to achieve the fundamental changes required for true transformation. For example, if your optimal demand is to end all mass incarceration, a transitional demand may be increased DNA testing to release more innocent people from prison."
"This is the risk that a poorly timed call out poses - pushing people away and deepening discord."
"[I]f you want to accomplish anything of import, you need a positive vision."
"Only the promise of growth could get people out. So, we needed to be there for them - even the worst of the worst - when they finally decided to give up hate."
"And I could choose not to be offended."
"I like to say that our larger goal when calling in is to persuade people to +be+ with us, not to +agree+ with us."
"+When approaching conflict+:
- Assume the best intentions.
- Grant each other permission to be imperfect.
- Bring a spirit of curiosity.
- Offer each other grace.
- Call each other in as often as possible.
- Build power +with+, not power +over+."
"One trick to make having difficult conversations easier is to stop defining them as difficult. Instead, make them welcome, joyful, and enlightening."
"Don't let success go to your head, and don't let failure go to your heart."
This book offers the concept of "calling in" people, as opposed to calling them out.
"This requires learning not to pressure people into agreeing with us but learning how to persuade others into being with us, keeping a seat at the table, and agreeing not to walk away when we disagree. As Audre Lorde said, 'It is not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognize, accept, and celebrate those differences.'"
I really felt Loretta's statement:
"But my biggest fear is that despite our winning hand, we'll be defeated - at least in our lifetimes - because we can't stop calling one another out."
Social media has created a culture where it is easy to perform shock, awe, and upset, as opposed to working with people who make us feel this way. As Loretta asks, "Do I want to act today out of anger and shame, or with love and grace?"
"We can hold people accountable using love, forgiveness, and respect, giving people room to grow - because they may be capable of changing. We can say what we mean and mean what we say but we don't have to say it mean. That's a choice."
"'Think about that,' C.T. said. 'When you ask someone to give up hate, you need to be there for them when they do.'"
How do you "call in" people?
1) Start with the self - ensure you are ready to have a potentially tough conversation and that you can approach the person with curiosity, grace (and maybe even love)
2) Calibrate the conflict - determine if the person you are interacting with has some points of commonality. Is the disagreement a mistake or misunderstanding or is it intentional and not likely to be a fruitful conversation?
3) Lead with Love - ask questions to get a grasp of their views, but in ways that show you disagree with some of their premise: "I know you, and I know you're a kind person. So I was surprised when you said _____. Can we talk about what you meant there?" But here, you must keep in mind "We can only consider changing and growing if we're approached as equals." You have to genuinely seek to understand.
4) Accept the reaction - no matter how well you approach the discussion, know it might not go well the first time. It also might send you off into topics or talks of ideas you didn't expect.
5) Reach a Resolution - what is the next step? What growth can be had by that person, us, and possibly the whole community? What can be learned?
The end goal is only "to persuade people to be with us, not agree with us." They don't have to become exact supporters of our ideologies, we just want an ally in some key realms.
Additional Quotes:
"But cancel culture can also be weaponized, by the Right of the Left. Offenses - someone's not woke enough, someone's not patriotic enough - can get treated as five-alarm fires, until we've reached a point where it becomes difficult to critique cancel culture without risking being canceled ourselves."
"I've seen how a moment of opportunity can slip away while we're caught up in morality plays or power fights."
"But my biggest fear is that despite our winning hand, we'll be defeated - at least in our lifetimes - because we can't stop calling one another out."
"They came because they wanted to change, and I felt that. They ached to reclaim their humanity. Incarcerated people are rarely listened to. Society does not want to hear what happened to them, only what they've done to others."
"If a coworker says something inappropriate, we can respond with scorn. Or we can approach them with patience and empathy, asking about the feelings or thoughts that led them to use hurtul language or to be so judgmental."
"But in choosing to call in, our response is contoured by love instead of anger. Asking the coworker to tell you more begins to develop your relationship."
"Do I want to act today out of anger and shame, or with love and grace?"
"As the Greek philosopher Aristotle said, 'Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way - that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.' I want to be precise with my anger."
"None of this internecine fighting won over a single opponent;"
"Calling out can be an interesting way to expend a whole lot of anguish to achieve very little."
"Call outs are most effective when they target powerful people beyond our reach and when public scrutiny is a strategic weapon we deploy against the unreachably powerful."
"It's easier to build an outrage posse with a 280-character attention span than to construct a healing society of people who care about each other too much to be cruel."
"Choosing to listen to another viewpoint does not signal automatic agreement; it indicates that listening to others matters as much as being heard. It takes courage to engage in conversation with someone who thinks differently than you."
"I like to say that a call in is a call out done with love. But it's also something else. It's a strategic choice. If I had unloaded my every jumbled thought on Ellie Smeal in that hallway, it would have been a hell of a scene. I would've invented whole new categories of insults, and I would've come out feeling like the victor. I would've shown her just how smart, courageous, and powerful I was. But I would've walked out that door alone."
"More information doesn't make people change their behavior if they don't think the source of that information has their best interests at heart."
"I had to figure out the right language to use to reach an audience that would be turned off by the jargon I sometimes throw around. I wanted to talk +to+ them, not +down to+ them."
"To find this common ground, we'll need to understand the value of transitional demands instead of all-or-nothing policies. A 'transitional demand' is a partial realization of what you're really aiming for: your optimal demand. It's transitional because it moves the needle toward radical goals to achieve the fundamental changes required for true transformation. For example, if your optimal demand is to end all mass incarceration, a transitional demand may be increased DNA testing to release more innocent people from prison."
"This is the risk that a poorly timed call out poses - pushing people away and deepening discord."
"[I]f you want to accomplish anything of import, you need a positive vision."
"Only the promise of growth could get people out. So, we needed to be there for them - even the worst of the worst - when they finally decided to give up hate."
"And I could choose not to be offended."
"I like to say that our larger goal when calling in is to persuade people to +be+ with us, not to +agree+ with us."
"+When approaching conflict+:
- Assume the best intentions.
- Grant each other permission to be imperfect.
- Bring a spirit of curiosity.
- Offer each other grace.
- Call each other in as often as possible.
- Build power +with+, not power +over+."
"One trick to make having difficult conversations easier is to stop defining them as difficult. Instead, make them welcome, joyful, and enlightening."
"Don't let success go to your head, and don't let failure go to your heart."
October 15, 2025
This book is one that I will revisit time and time again. Loretta shared so much wisdom from her lived experiences and social justice work. I will apply what I learn in both professional and personal areas of my life. I think everyone would benefit from reading this book!
January 2, 2025
hopeful informative inspiring reflective fast-paced
Required reading 🩷🙏🏽
Required reading 🩷🙏🏽
September 17, 2024
Longer review to come, but this book has a lot of great food for thought and is especially relevant to online bookish communities.
Highly recommend!
Highly recommend!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 140 reviews