Two Family + Sex Therapists Talk Project 2025 and Family Values
Brad nterviews therapists The Sexvangelicals, Julia Postema and Jeremiah Gibson about Project 2025. They discuss the implications of 'family values' as proposed in the project, highlighting the potential negative impact on diverse family structures, marginalized communities, and contemporary family systems research. The conversation explores the rhetorical tactics used to promote a patriarchal, heteronormative, and monogamous view of family, standing against progressive ideologies related to family dynamics, gender, and sexuality.
Subscribe for $5.99 a month to get bonus content most Mondays, bonus episodes every month, ad-free listening, access to the entire 600-episode archive, Discord access, and more: https://axismundi.supercast.com/
https://www.sexvangelicals.com/about
Linktree: https://linktr.ee/StraightWhiteJC
Order Brad's book: https://bookshop.org/a/95982/9781506482163
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
I wouldn't have a family because of IVF and the things that we need to do reproductive.
My kids were born through that direct, you know, that way.
And also I make sure that I'm the guys and our folks are investing in prenatal care.
We're the ones that are there for universal pre-K.
We're the ones that are providing school meals at this.
I'm not going to back down one bit on this whole family values thing and it's us.
That construct that he's putting out there is absolutely untrue.
We're making it more affordable to have children by having paid family medical leave so that you can go home when your kids are sick and take care of them.
Or if you're a dad, I don't have to go right back to work five days later after my wife had a c-section because our insurance wouldn't pay for it.
We're boosting those things up.
There's nothing pro-family other than having women be incubators for their vision of this and I don't know, once again, it's weird.
I don't want J.D. Vance talking about my family.
I certainly don't want him talking about my daughter or my wife.
It's none of his damn business.
But I said, the one thing is we need to talk about how we've invested in family.
We have the most generous child tax credit, and it's what Vice President Harris is proposing for the country, that people are poor And when kids don't have the money on the front end, all of the things that a chain reaction of can't learn, can't go on.
So I'll challenge him on that.
Whereas J.D.
Vance's program, he's forcing people to have, you know, not be able to have medical care if they have a bad pregnancy or something.
We need to stand in front of that.
And again, you don't need me to give a sermon, but try and live one.
Try and be decent.
Try and help your neighbors.
Try and invest in those kids.
That's Governor Tim Walz, Vice Presidential Candidate for the Democratic Party, talking about family and family values.
These issues have come into the fore as of late, in light not only of the two conventions, but gesture-made by his son, Gus Walz, at the Democratic National Convention last week.
It sparked a debate about what family means, what family values are, and how they're reflected in the American right and other places in this country.
Today I talked to two therapists about the family values reflected in Project 2025 and how they go Straight against the values that many Americans hold and would in fact marginalize many communities and families across the country.
Julia Postema and Jeremiah Gibson are both sex and couples therapists who write and podcast under the moniker The Sex Evangelicals.
They both grew up in religious communities and they use their training and their experiences to reflect on family and sex more broadly.
They talk with me today about the scary dynamics of quote-unquote family values in Project 2025 and how they go directly against contemporary research on family systems and what's helpful for children and everyone in family relationships.
I'm Brad Onishi, and this is Straight White American Jesus.
Welcome to Straight White American Jesus.
My name is Brad Onishi, faculty of the University of San Francisco.
As I just introduced, I'm joined today by two amazing guests, collectively known as the Sex Evangelicals, but that's Jeremiah and Julia.
So, thanks for joining me.
Thank you.
Good to be on the podcast.
I'm very excited.
And coming to us from clear across the world and one of those amazing, we're somehow connecting, even though there's like 8,000 miles in between us.
We're going to talk about something that is, I think, on a lot of people's minds, something we've talked a lot about on this show, which is Project 2025.
And, you know, you all work in a space that is centered on therapy.
It's centered on relationships.
It's centered on questions about really flourishing families.
And Project 2025 caught your attention.
And I, you know, when I, when we connected over this, I thought, wow, what an undercover dimension of this really frightening thing.
So let me just start here.
What piqued your interest or piqued your kind of spider senses, spidey senses about Project 2025 when it comes to something like, quote unquote, family values?
Julia and I, as part of Six Evangelicals over The last couple of years have done a few episodes in which we read information, which we read books from Christian publishing houses, because I think it's really, really important for us to know what is being published, what is being produced by right-wing evangelical circles.
It's not good enough just to say those people are wackadoodle and not have any sort of a foundation for that.
I had the idea as part of our Substack Relationship 101.
Well, let me write a little bit about this.
And so I had the idea, I went online, it's a free PDF, and I'm like, huh.
So I read in the first sentence, or first in the introductory paragraph, this idea of we want to restore, and I'm reading from this here, we want to restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children.
Okay.
As you mentioned, Brad, as relational health therapists, as a family therapist, Julia and I, like, we want that too.
So I went to the Google search, or I went to the search feature in the document, and I typed in family.
And I'm like, okay, I want to read what they actually have to say about family.
And how much are they actually speaking to family development and creating processes and policies for families to succeed?
Or, like I'm suspecting, and as we found out in reading this, are they trying to speak about something different?
And Julie, if you want to jump in, what Tells you that the idea of family and or family values is a kind of code word or dog whistle in this document because that's something I've maintained for a long time that if we look at the idea of family values from the 1960s till now.
We have folks who are talking about a very specific vision of family.
And it's, they're trying to include some people and exclude others while using this very wonderful, benign, welcoming language of like, let's, you know, let's put family at the centerpiece of society.
Who would object to that?
But when you dig deeper, you're like, this is a, this is a dog whistle.
So anyway, tell me about that from your reading.
I grew up with focus on the family as a big centerpiece of my church and family community.
And what I learned that family was specifically a family rooted in these values was a married, heterosexual, monogamous couple.
And as we continue to read the entire document, you see that throughout the entirety of it.
And we can talk a little bit later as well about some of the racial implications as well, because they probably won't say white.
They will say yes, married, heterosexual, monogamous couple.
And they will have a whole lot to say about how gender plays a role in that.
They will have a whole lot to say around specific types of contraception.
They won't outrightly say, and our ideal family is white.
But as we can talk about while we continue to discuss the articles, there are some racial dog whistlings there as well.
I was thinking about this very thing about focus on the family, was thinking about the ways that when I hear family values now, it just decodes into, we want to impose a heteronormative ideal on everyone.
We want you to think that if you don't fit that ideal in a married heterosexual relationship with children or an attempt to have children, then you are deviant.
And you're not only not following God's plan, but you're not following The plan firm, you're not a real American.
You're not patriotic.
And I'm wondering if you see that, if there's places you see that in these documents, if there's places you see that in the ideology put forth in Project 2025.
Certainly.
So the ways that they describe family problems are quite different from the way that the field of family sciences talks about family problems.
So reading from this again, they start by talking about children born to unmarried mothers.
They don't cite their sources.
This is a common theme throughout their document, by the way.
There's very little source citation.
That should be a code to us as readers if they're not citing sources about really specific facts.
Why?
They talk about fatherlessness.
I actually, personally speaking, there's some interesting conversations about fathers and the role of fathers that I think is actually really helpful to be thinking about.
They write, they have never seen a thriving, healthy, free, and prosperous society where most children grow up without their married parents.
And that's very different from how we talk about children's health, family health, in the world of family studies.
It's about how do families work together?
Maybe there's some conflict that happens between the caregivers.
Maybe there aren't enough caregivers.
Maybe there's some challenges about that.
But to suggest that there's only one identity, that there's only one identity structure in which a child can succeed, the research doesn't back that at all.
I'm wondering real quick if we can just remind people and what this looks like from your perspective as in your practice, but also historically.
The idea of the nuclear family is maintained in this document and so many other family values documents and texts as perennial, unchanging.
Yeah.
Go ahead, ancient Mesopotamia, ancient Greece, go ahead, look at 5th century China, what are you going to find?
The nuclear family.
And that is just false.
And so I'm wondering if...
You know, you can speak to how imposing the idea of, like, two married partners who are heterosexual with children as the only form of functioning healthy family is not only ahistorical, but just unhealthy for how people might understand their relationships and their parent-child relationships.
Well, there's a sentence in here that really stood out to me that I thought was really honest.
It's, they write, every threat to family stability must be confronted.
And as family therapists, we are working with families to find a balance between family stability, homeostasis would be the word that we use, and the natural changes that happen.
The natural changes that happen with aging, the aging of children, the aging of parents, the moving out, the evolutions that naturally happen as we gain more information, as we learn more about the world.
That there's a consistent kind of push-pull in family therapy between homeostasis and the fancy word that we use in family therapy is morphogenesis.
So the capacity for a family to evolve and to adapt to those evolutions that happen.
And one of the things that this document suggests is families are successful when they maintain staticness.
And staticness in terms of, in terms of one's, and the way that they talk about this, one's understanding of gender, which is a fixed idea.
When, Julia, the work that you and I suggest is that gender is actually very fluid.
Sexuality, that sexuality, sexual orientation is a very fixed idea.
Same thing.
Sexuality is very fluid when we do quantitative research and qualitative research about the sexual habits.
In longitudinal studies, Both with women and men.
So the goals that they have to define stability and to suggest that every threat must be confronted, that's super unrealistic.
Yes.
That's living in a fantasy land that none of us, none of us who are doing this podcast or listening to this podcast live in.
Could I add a practical implication?
Sure.
Jeremiah, this is a personal example of our real lives.
So, Jeremiah and I are actually in the process of adoption, and we have found that multiple adoption agencies require marriage, which is fascinating.
Jeremiah and I are not married.
We are actually both divorced.
The part that is interesting and disturbing is that the qualifications of a parent being a good parent is, in part, measured by marital status.
Now, we could also talk about queer folks in partnerships who either legally have not been able to get married or have chosen not to get married for similar kinds of reasons.
What I found hopeful, among some other disturbing situations, was that the agency that we're hoping to work with right now specifically said, we are looking for committed partners, not defined by marriage, who show the ability to provide a positive environment for a child, not based on these arbitrary identifying factors.
This show is sponsored by BetterHelp.
I don't know about you, but my schedule is packed.
I got kids activities, trying to get them to school every day, big work projects, and much more.
It's easy to let my priorities slip, even when I know they make me happy.
In the past, I've benefited from therapy.
It's made me somebody who understands his past experiences with more clarity, and somebody who has coping skills to deal with my ongoing challenges every day.
If you're thinking of starting therapy, give BetterHelp a try.
It's entirely online, designed to be convenient, flexible, and suited to your schedule.
You just have to fill out a brief questionnaire to get matched with a licensed therapist, and you can switch therapists anytime for no charge.
Never skip therapy day with BetterHelp.
Visit BetterHelp.com slash RC to get 10% off your first month.
That's BetterHelp, H-E-L-P dot com slash RC.
Hi, my name is Peter, and I'm a prophet in the new novel, American Prophet.
I was the one who dreamed about the natural disaster just before it happened over the Oh, and the pandemic.
And that crazy election.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not bragging.
It's not like I asked for the job.
Actually, no one would ask for this job.
At least half the people will hate whatever I say and almost everyone thinks I'm a little crazy.
Getting a date is next to impossible.
I've got a radio host who is making up conspiracies about me, a dude actually shooting at me, and an unhinged president threatening me.
But the job isn't all that bad.
I've gotten to see the country, and meet some really interesting people, and hopefully do some good along the way.
You can find my story on Amazon, Audible, or iTunes.
Just look for American Prophet by Jeff Fulmer.
That's American Prophet by Jeff Fulmer.
So when I hear, first of all, thank you for sharing that very personal element of both of your lives.
And just, it really does bring home, I think, the ways that marriage is privileged in our society.
I mean, we could talk about taxes.
We could talk about the ways that if you're married, you get to visit people in the hospital, or you get their social security, or they can be on your insurance.
And I mean, there's so many ways in this country that if like, I want to If I said my sibling is my family member who's closest to me and I'm 40 years old, I can't put them on my insurance, but I can marry someone.
You know what I mean?
There's just so many ways here.
And I think the adoption element is really bringing that home.
When you said that, I came back to this word stability.
And so, you know, what both of you said is there's a vision of family and relationships as static.
That wants to say relationships have been this forever, they should stay this forever, and they will never change within a family, and the structure of family should never change either.
And then on the other hand, I heard we are human beings who have relationships that grow and develop.
We have family dynamics that adjust.
We have roles that adjust.
We have ways that families bring in new members.
And lose members and things shift and change and all kinds of things.
I'm wondering if you can speak to two things.
What happens from your perspective as therapists and counselors when we don't allow people to explore the ways that their relationships and families can change and can adjust?
What are they so threatened about?
I mean, I have my own answers.
Anyone who listens to this show knows I could talk for three hours about this, but I'm going to just shut up and ask you.
Why are they so threatened and needing to impose this ahistorical, eternal stability of the family on all the rest of us?
Go.
Well, you had mentioned fear and What stood out to me among many other things in reading the 2025 document was this intense sense of fear that the others, meaning non-heterosexual married monogamous folks, could somehow pervade our space.
Our space meaning a specific version of America.
So fear is clearly the driving factor here, and fear is not a particularly good motivator on either direction for change.
And what we know from Family Systems Theory 101 is that you can't prevent change.
That is actually not possible.
So we can talk about the growing statistics that I actually think you might have mentioned in one of your recent podcast episodes about how America is moving towards majority-minority, and that is going to have some drastic implications on a political level.
On a more micro level, when we think about doing family therapy, When people are changing, the family system often will work towards homeostasis at a larger political level, mimics what happens in family therapy.
And what we know from family therapy is that families can get stuck in a developmental stage.
If the family system does not have enough flexibility to grow, to evolve, and part of that is actually naming the fear and naming that out loud.
So if we were to use a totally different example, we might say to a parent of a 17-year-old, we'll talk about the fear of your child going to a university, Several thousand miles away versus very close.
What's the fear?
You have to be able to name the fear.
And what's interesting is that this document simultaneously names the fear and doesn't name it all at the same time.
So they will say things like on the first page, promise number one, Deleting terms of sexual orientation, gender, gender equality, gender awareness, abortion, reproductive health, and a whole host of other things will be a part of promise number one.
So clearly they are naming the fear of all of the things that I just mentioned, but they aren't actually naming the implications of the fear and what they are fearing if, for example, reproductive justice or health was a value in every single state.
Does that make sense?
It does.
It makes sense.
And to add to that, the next part of what you read is reproductive rights to deprive Americans of their First Amendment's right out of every federal rule.
The First Amendment is not about a relationship.
The First Amendment is about an individual having the ability to stand up and advocate for themselves in whatever ways that they can.
The other thing, Brad, that stands out for me is that Their idea of family is not a particularly relationship, is not a relational perspective.
There's actually very little about how this document is and how Project 2025 is going to create policies that help people learn how to communicate more effectively.
They learn how to help people, people learn how to negotiate, to listen better, to communicate their needs, ask curious questions.
These skills that we know are imperative for relationships to structure.
What they do instead, and this is from their chapter on the Department of Health and Human Services, The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services should proudly state that men and women are biological realities that are crucial to the advancement of life sciences and medical care.
And that married men and women are the ideal natural family structure because all children have a right to be raised by the men and women who conceive them.
That's about identity.
That's about the structure that a family either chooses to create or kind of falls into.
That's not about how we are going to encourage people to advocate for the rights of children.
How we're going to empower parents for the rights of their children.
We can talk about that actually when we get to the Department of Education.
Because that kind of delves into parental rights.
But that would be the other way I think about that, Brad.
Well, but both of you just brought up such great things.
And I think one thing I don't want to miss here is I think that First Amendment call up is really great, because what you're saying there is First Amendment is like this foundational phenomenon of American society and culture.
You are an individual.
You have the right to advocate for yourself.
And what you just read is the Department of Homeland Health and Human Services Secretary should declare as a government agent, as a mouthpiece of the American government, as somebody appointed by the President, that there are two sexes.
And that if you are somebody who identifies as non-binary, as trans, if you have a gender identity or a sexual identity, That doesn't fit into the two men, I'm sorry, the man and the woman married and reproducing, cis man and woman I should say, then the government is basically telling you you're out of line and you are not doing what you should as a human being, presumably as a Christian.
And presumably as an American citizen.
I mean, that's how I interpret that.
So I really appreciated that First Amendment comparison because you're basically saying, isn't the idea that we're individuals and we can choose life, liberty and happiness for ourselves?
Without the government interference.
I mean, I just really think that was really poignant and helpful.
Let me ask you real quick, because I want to stay on this Department of Health and Human Services, because there's something in there that is just really frightening to me.
It sounds like it's from 1984, and I want to get to it.
But Julia, let me ask you this.
Which part?
Well, yeah, you're right.
That's a fair touché.
You've got some options.
Julia, you said you grew up with a focus on the family.
We've been talking about this idea of a static family and a static nation versus a family and a nation that adjusts to change, that adjusts to new elements, that adjusts to new dynamics.
You talked about fear.
I'm wondering, who loses power if we allow the idea that the family and the nation might adapt to new elements?
Who loses control?
Right.
And that would be the ideal family unit that they have been describing throughout the entire article, which is the heterosexual, married, monogamous family system.
Who also subscribes to like the patriarchal white sorts of norms.
And we can break those down and describe them later if it's helpful, because what Jeremiah and I often find is that in liberal circles, people can throw that language out and not necessarily define it.
But for the sake of right now, yes, the nuclear family that they are describing will be the ones to lose power.
And they're naming all the fears, but the fear that they're not saying Is that we are going to lose power and we don't want to do, we don't want that.
And I, I, I'm wondering if you think coming from a life experience of focus on the family and the over patriarchy in that worldview, that there's a sense that the, the cis heterosexual family will lose its quote unquote prominence, but the patriarchal men who have largely dominated our society and those families will also lose a lot.
Absolutely, and we can talk as we go around women and the ways that language around gender, reproductive rights, and parenting are also all kinds of both explicit and implicit standards that continue to subjugate women.
One part that made me absolutely furious was taking out the male burden of contraception.
That's just one of Countless examples, and the article that, yes, is pointing to a patriarchal society in which women have less control, less fear, but that's not what they're going to say.
They're going to say that you are just as equal, just as valued.
However, your role is within this particular space.
Just want to stay on this point one more and then we'll go to DHS.
Sorry.
D-H-S.
Is that what it is?
Anyway.
All right.
Promise number one.
I'm reading from the doc now.
Restore the family as a centerpiece of American life and protect our children.
Okay, great.
We've been talking about how family is a code word for a lot of things, but here's one of the things I just cannot get away from.
Here's a sentence.
In many ways, the entire point of centralizing political power is to subvert the family.
Its purpose is to replace people's natural loves and loyalties with unnatural ones.
You see this in the popular left-wing aphorism.
Government is simply the name we give to things we choose to do together.
But in real life, most of the things people do together have nothing to do with government.
These are the mediating institutions that serve as the building blocks of any healthy society.
Marriage.
So, marriage.
You can't adopt unless you're married.
Family.
Family means you're cis man, cis woman, and you have two little kids, and you dress them up in matching pajamas, and you make, you know, really annoying Christmas cards.
Because that's who you are.
Sorry, if you do that out there, I'm going to have to edit that out now, but I apologize.
All right.
Church, church, so not synagogue, not temple, right?
Not mosque.
Yeah, not mosque.
Just church, school, and volunteering.
Now, here's just a big theory I have.
This whole document is to centralize power in the executive branch of the United States, is to make the president even more powerful.
That's the entire point.
Absolutely.
And what they're saying is, the leftists want to centralize political power, supposedly, I guess, in some sort of Marxist regime, in order to subvert the family.
So what you should do is give all the power to the Big Daddy President, who is the representative of the Big Daddy God, and then your family will be fine.
Just trust us.
Is that too reductive and snarky, or how did the two of you see that?
I don't think that's reductive and smarmy at all.
I also think that it opens a conversation for liberals and progressives to also have about what is family.
And what does family mean and what's required from us as individuals, what's required from relationships in order for families to thrive?
I actually think liberals and progressives in their efforts of kind of advocating for civil rights, I think that liberals and progressives have completely dropped the ball on that conversation.
And I think that we need to have more of those conversations about how to live relationally How to think systemically, as you were saying earlier.
So here's my thing with the remark on the DHHS, the Department of Health and Human Services, is you quoted earlier that this document says the secretary should stand up and say there's two sexes, there's men and women, biologically.
They also, if I'm not mistaken, call in this document, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Life.
What was your reaction to reading that?
Because mine was like, oh, okay, we really do live in a George Orwell novel because you're calling it the ministry.
I was like, oh, we now have a ministry of life in this country.
This is frightening.
And also the life agenda is what they say.
They write, there's an installation of a pro-life task force to ensure that all of the department's divisions seek to use their authority to profit the life and health of women and their unborn children.
So once again, this is a dog whistle that's not actually about the life and the thriving of all humans and of all families.
This is about pushing a pro-life and anti-abortion agenda.
Right, and this is not a new criticism whatsoever, but the rhetoric that so many people find infuriating about pro-life is that it focuses on the fetus or the baby until the baby is born.
And then what this document shows is that there are not support systems for what does it then mean to raise a child.
And raise a child in healthy relational systems and healthy relational processes, despite the fact that that's what the document proposes to do.
Just have to trust the Big Daddy God and the Big Daddy President to tell you what's right and what to do and all your family will be fine.
That's the idea from Focus on the Family and from this document.
I'm wondering, Julia, you mentioned earlier that you felt like there were dog whistles along racial lines in the ways that family is defined and approached in this document.
Would you want to help us understand how race is part of the ways that family and relationships are kind of presented in this vision of American society?
One was on the section entitled Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fathership Program.
And one of the first sentences says, Provide marriage and parenting guidance for low-income fathers.
This includes fatherhood and marriage training.
So once again, we are pointing towards marriage as the sign of success versus actually healthy relationship process.
But they only are advocating for parenting guidance for low income fathers.
And when we know about health care disparities and financial disparities among racial lines, I don't think that's something we can ignore.
And also, what about middle income fathers?
What about high-income fathers?
Right, right.
It really is actually also a demonization of low-income folks, which is a whole other problematic part of this, too.
And there's comments like that throughout this document.
And the very, very soon after is the elimination of the Head Start program.
Now what's really disturbing to me here is that Head Start programs, you know, can support all folks.
Often they do tend to support folks with less resources.
And so it's really Strange that they are talking about providing parenting guidance exclusively for low-income fathers and then quickly after that eliminating the Head Start program.
It's, I'm sorry, I'm just aghast here because I don't, I mean, I think everyone out there knows when you get a big raise at work, you become a better parent.
Like when I got a big raise at work, I just learned how to be a better dad.
No, that's, what?
I mean, so that's one.
Right.
You know, two, the last point you made is so, so important and so clear.
Hey, let's give quote unquote counseling to low income fathers.
Wink, wink, dog whistle.
But hey, those families out there that are working their best, dealing with inflation and income inequality, dealing with stagnant wages, they're working two jobs and they need, well Head Start would just be overwhelmingly helpful.
Let's take that away.
We don't need that, but we will give you a guidance program if you are a low-income parent.
Like, we're not going to actually see the government as assisting you in terms of, you know, resources where your kid would have a program to go to, would help you with education and childcare resources, just simply ways you can afford to be a working parent and a good parent.
We're just going to say, Sorry, we'll take that away.
My blood is boiling thinking about it.
Thanks for listening today, y'all.
I have about 20 more minutes with Julia and Jeremiah.
If you're not a premium subscriber, now is the time to sign up and get full access to this episode, the bonus content we do every Monday, bonus episodes every month, ad-free listening, an invite to our Discord server, and access to our entire Straight White American Jesus archive, which is over 650 episodes.
The link is in the show notes.
It costs less than that latte you bought on the way to work today.
What are the best ways people can link up with your work as you write, as you podcast and do everything you do?
You can find us online at www.sexevangelicals.com.
Our podcast, Sex Evangelicals, lives there.
Of course, find it wherever you listen to podcasts.
We also have a sub stack called Relationship 101, which you can find at sexevangelicals.substack.com.
And we also hang out on Instagram and threads at Sex Evangelicals.
We are very proud of our name, Straight White American Jesus, as a very snarky and sarcastic name.
And I feel like Sex Evangelicals is better, and I just want to say, how dare you?
So anyway.
When we were putting this podcast together, so it's funny, you and I are building a separate project.
And we were talking about how it's important sometimes to, like, do a little bit of the work, like, do an hour, two, three hours of wrestling with something, and then work backwards to come up with the title.
Like, I think we came up with the title for this podcast in five minutes.
Yeah, I love it.
I was like, oh, Sex of Angelic Flow is perfect.
I love it.
Not changing that one.
No, you, yeah.
And also, shout out to Blake Chastain, to others who have come before us, who have done a lot of important work promoting doing research on the process of exponential growth.
I appreciate that call out because there are folks who've worked countless hours on these things and they don't often get mentioned in popular books and other places.
Thanks for listening today, y'all.
I have about 20 more minutes with Julia and Jeremiah.
If you're not a premium subscriber, now is the time to sign up and get full access to this episode, the bonus content we do every Monday, bonus episodes every month, ad-free listening, an invite to our Discord server, and access to our entire Straight White American Jesus archive, which is over 650 episodes.
The link is in the show notes.
It costs less than that latte you bought on the way to work today.
