Josh Hawley builds his account on masculinity and manhood on the idea that men are created in God’s image and, as such, are his representatives on earth. But what is Hawley’s God like? What kind of God does Hawley worship? Who is this God that is the pattern for human manhood? In this episode, Dan argues that Hawley’s God’s insecurity drives him to exercise his power to dominate others. Check out the episode to hear why.
Subscribe for $5.99 a month to get bonus content most Mondays, bonus episodes every month, ad-free listening, access to the entire 850-episode archive, Discord access, and more: https://axismundi.supercast.com/
Linktree: https://linktr.ee/StraightWhiteJC
Order Brad's book: https://bookshop.org/a/95982/9781506482163
Subscribe to Teología Sin Vergüenza
Subscribe to American Exceptionalism
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Hello and welcome to It's in the Code, a podcast series that is part of Straight White American Jesus.
Pleased to be with you as always.
My name is Dan Miller, professor of religion and social thought at Landmark College.
Probably know that if you've been a listener for any period of time, but if you haven't, welcome.
As always, this is a series that is driven by you, the listener.
So please keep the ideas coming.
I'd love to hear from you.
Daniel Miller Swag, Daniel Miller, S-W-A-J at gmail.com.
Always love to hear your insights, thoughts, ideas for new and upcoming episodes.
Had the opportunity to meet with some listeners and some colleagues recently at the American Academy of Religion and what we call a happy hour for listeners afterward.
Got some great feedback and insights and thoughts.
So if you were there, thank you.
Thank you for listening.
Thank you for supporting us.
But always, if you've got ideas, thoughts about this episode, other episodes, series, things that I should be talking about, please let me know.
Daniel MillerSwage, Daniel Miller, S-W-A-J at gmail.com.
If you're a subscriber, you can also post things in the Discord chat, which I would love to hear about.
And I know I'm not there often or visible often, but I do lurk about looking for thoughts that people have.
Want to dive in this week.
And what we're looking at is still this discourse of masculinity and manhood as it sort of pervades the religious slash cultural slash Christian right in contemporary society.
And we've been doing this by looking at Josh Hawley's book, Manhood, The Masculine Virtues America Needs.
Diving in, and again, I'm reading this book in a sense, so you don't have to.
I am talking about it as I go.
We're just a couple chapters in, and we're in the chapter where he is talking about man's battle, man's battle against evil.
Introduced this in the last episode.
And we're going to continue.
And just as a reminder, we're reading Holly, not because he's unique, not because he's going to say things that nobody else is going to say, but because he gives a window into what are increasingly mainstream and pretty basic ideas about manhood and masculinity within our contemporary society.
And I want to start by picking up on a theme where we kind of ended the last episode, and it was the idea of order.
And if you want more about that idea of order and the relation of order and disorder and good and evil and the way that the concept of order is morally inflected for Holly, I invite you to go back, take a listen to that episode.
But what I want to really look at here is thinking again, we've got this kind of moral coding that Holly gives to the idea of order.
And we looked last time at this idea that for him, disorder or chaos is always evil.
And we saw how he looks at this by looking at the Genesis creation myth of God creating everything that is out of the disordered chaos of what is often translated as the faceless deep or the formless deep.
And so he codes order with good and chaos or disorder with evil.
And I offered a different reading of that and proposed the idea that maybe chaos or disorder could be viewed as productive, as the emergent site of order and of novelty, not simply its opposite.
So if you want to take a longer listen to that, go back, check out that episode.
What I want to pick up within this episode is I want to tie this theme, a theme that I think is really problematic and which I fully expect will occupy more of our time as we go through this book.
I think these first few chapters, what Holly is doing is more or less putting down his kind of theoretical or theological basis for the rest of what he's going to say in the book when we get into sort of concrete issues and so forth.
So I think we're going to run back about, run back into this.
But I want to look at a couple of other things Holly says to try and get at a key issue, and that's this.
What kind of God does Holly worship?
In other words, if he talks about order and the God of order, what God is that?
What God does he worship?
I often pose this question or think about this.
We talk about Christian nationalism or related movements.
What is their God like?
Who is it?
What is it that they're worshiping?
And so what is God for Holly?
And it comes through in this chapter.
And I think it's an important question because Holly has placed so much emphasis on the idea that man and specifically men, not just mankind, not humankind, but men in particular, are God's representatives.
He refers to us as his icon on earth.
So the way that he envisions God is really important because that vision of God is going to license a particular vision of man.
It's going to tell us what is the purpose of men, what is their mission, what is their battle, all of that is going to come down to what is the notion of God?
Because again, men are the representatives of God.
That's how he reads this notion of human beings, but men specifically being created in the image of God.
I got to say, I am so uncomfortable with all of this gendered language, so uncomfortable with this like man, man, man stuff.
It's interesting that women have not really appeared in this text at all.
And the converse of defining men and manhood is, I think, women and femininity.
And I'm curious if Holly is ever going to get around to talking about women or if they're just going to kind of remain absent in this text.
It's really weird.
It's disconcerting.
I am not comfortable talking about God creating men in a particular way instead of like human beings or whatever, but I'll just throw that out there.
So if you hear me stumble on that, that's why.
What's the point?
The point is this.
If we want to decode man, as Holly understands the term, we need to decode what he envisions as God.
And Holly's God is a thoroughly masculinist God.
Now, I don't just say masculine.
He would say God is masculine, I think.
Maybe he wouldn't.
Maybe he would say God doesn't have gender, but his God's very masculine, but more specifically masculinist.
In other words, it's very much an image of God that puts forward a normative vision of masculinity and couches everything that is, literally in this case, everything that exists within the purview of masculinity because it's a very masculine God that Holly worships.
Okay.
And what I describe, so when I describe his God as masculinist, that's what I mean.
I mean that his God embodies some of the attributes that I most associate with the vision of masculinity affirmed by today's right.
His God is a projection of masculinity, so-called as the contemporary right understands it.
And specifically, he is defined by power on the one hand.
I think he is also defined, God is for Holly, by insecurity.
And I think insecurity is absolutely fundamental to understanding how the right thinks about masculinity at present.
Okay.
And this is a terrible mix.
When you combine a vision of absolute unfettered power with insecurity, that's a terrible mix.
And again, I think it's a mix that we're going to see throughout the rest of Holly's book.
We'll see as we go.
Okay.
So I want to start with a theme from the book of Genesis, the creation myth and the story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden and all that.
It's a story that Holly spends a fair amount of time talking about, and that is the idea of the snake.
Okay.
So in case you're not familiar with it, here's the story of the snake in the book of Genesis.
God puts the man in the garden.
Again, Genesis has two creation accounts.
This is in the second account.
And in this account, there isn't a woman yet.
There is no female who's been created yet.
So God creates a man, sticks him in the Garden of Eden, and he tells him that he can eat from any of the trees in the garden except for one.
Okay, so it tells you, you've got all these trees and the fruit of the trees.
You can eat from all of them except for one.
The exception is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
So God says, if they do eat from that tree, they will die in that day.
I'm reading from the Revised Standard Version.
We're going to actually read the Bible today.
Sorry if that's a little weird, but that's what we're going to do.
It says, if you eat from the tree, you will die in that day.
And then he creates the woman as a companion for the man.
So the man's in the garden.
Hey, you can eat anything in the garden, but don't eat from this tree because you'll die if you do.
And then God creates the woman and so enter the snake who approaches the woman.
So I'm reading from Genesis 3.
If you are curious or don't remember where this is, it's in the book of Genesis chapter 3.
It's the first seven verses.
I'm just going to read these.
Okay.
It says, now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the Lord God had made.
He said to the woman, did God say you shall not eat from any tree in the garden?
The woman said to the serpent, we may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, you shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.
But the serpent said to the woman, you will not die.
For God knows that when you eat of it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.
So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was a delight to the eyes and that the tree was to be desired, excuse me, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate.
And she also gave some to her husband who was with her and he ate.
Then the eyes of both were opened and they knew that they were naked and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.
Okay, first seven verses, that's the story of the snake.
Now, the traditional Christian interpretation of this is pretty well known.
If you're listening to this and you've ever been a part of churches that preach this and so forth, you know it.
It's a pop culture reference.
You'll often see an image of a snake talking to a woman, you know, who's whose knotty bits are covered and, you know, sort of talking to her about various things and so forth.
This is the reference.
Okay.
So the traditional Christian tradition has interpreted it this way.
The serpent is interpreted as the devil and the disobedience of the first pair, which Paul and most Christians ever since have blamed on the woman, but the disobedience of the first pair of humans was what's called the fall.
And it sort of marks the entrance of sin into the world.
This is the entrance of sin into the world.
And as I said in the last episode, this captures the idea that evil is something that befalls human beings, as it were, sort of, from the outside.
It's a result of temptation of an external agent in the snake.
And this is why human beings are defined by sinfulness and fallenness and so forth because of this event in the primeval garden.
And of course, the story goes on to talk about how God punishes and curses human beings as a result.
And this includes their expulsion from the garden, marking an end to this idyllic initial state.
They're cast out of the Garden of Eden and so forth.
Okay, that's the traditional story.
That's how Holly reads it.
He reads it as, you know, turning evil loose in the world and so forth.
But there are some problems with this.
And that's why I actually wanted to read the passage.
Okay, first, as anybody will note if they pay any attention to this, there's no mention of sin in the text anywhere, nor is the snake identified with Satan or the devil.
I harp on this all the time, why it is that I say that conservative biblicists are not actually literalists and so forth.
You ask any of them, what was the snake, and they will tell you it's the devil, even though the Bible doesn't say it.
Just don't tell me that they're literalists.
Okay.
There's no mention of that.
Instead, it says that the snake is more crafty than any other wild animal that the Lord God had made.
The snake is part of the creation.
The snake is part of the creation that was determined to be good.
It's another one of the animals that God made and placed in the garden.
Okay?
Holly denies this.
He says the snake like comes into the garden from outside, that Adam has failed to preserve the boundaries of the garden and so forth.
But again, there's no hint of that anywhere.
It's just one of the animals.
It's presented as one of the animals that God made, part of the very good creation.
So first of all, all the stuff about the snake that Christians harp to, it's just not in the Bible.
Further, the snake within ancient Near Eastern culture is a common figure representing wisdom, fertility, and immortality.
It's a common figure.
It's a stock image and not necessarily a stock image of evil.
Okay.
The concept here, it's more complicated than good and evil.
Here's the second part of it.
Okay.
The snake is right.
The snake tells the truth.
I want to read verses four and five again.
So here's what they say.
Let me find it.
Here's what the serpent says.
The serpent said to the woman, you will not die.
For God knows that when you eat of it, your eyes will be open and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.
First, the humans don't die.
It's a problem with the story.
God says, if you touch the tree or eat it, you'll die.
In that day, you'll die.
You'll be struck dead.
That's what it sounds like.
They don't die.
And Christian and Jewish interpreters for over two millennia have sought ways to interpret this and reinterpret it and make it so that it doesn't mean that God literally said that they would die, not literalists.
They usually make this into a sort of spiritualized notion.
So oftentimes the Christians come along for their part and they say, well, it was spiritual death.
Human beings are now sinful and fallen and condemned to, you know, perdition because they'll die in a sinful state and so forth.
But it doesn't say that.
God said they would die and they didn't.
And the serpent says, hey, guess what?
You're not going to die and they don't.
Okay.
And the second point, the more significant point for me is that the humans do become like God.
Verse seven says, and we read it again, then the eyes of both were opened and they knew that they were naked.
This is this notion that suddenly their eyes are open.
Their innocence is gone.
They see good and evil so that they become modest.
They recognize that they're naked.
This is why they create clothing, all the whole kind of thing.
It's the idea that their innocence was lost and they gained knowledge and awareness that they had not had before.
And the Hebrew has this complex play on language, the word for snake and the word for innocence, like their kind of innocence or naivety kind of rhyme.
So the wisdom of the snake is contrasted with their naivety and innocence.
So they do in fact gain knowledge.
It's a loss of innocence by recognizing more about the world.
So it's a kind of awakening of human knowledge on the part of the humans.
So what does that mean?
Well, here's what we find in the text.
So God places a tree in the center of the garden.
There's that whole thing setting the humans up to fail.
Let me put the one tree you're not allowed to eat from.
I'm going to not only put it in the garden, I'm going to put it in the center and I'm going to highlight it.
I'm going to tell you not to eat from it.
We know all of that.
Like you're just guaranteeing that this is going to happen.
But why did he do it?
According to the snake, it's because he wants to maintain his position of authority over the humans.
The snake's like, yeah, he said not to eat it because he knows you'll be like him.
You'll become like God.
You'll know good and evil.
The thing that separates you from God will be taken away.
When I was six, I got my first new bike.
I was so excited.
Christmas Day, something I'll never forget.
I wanted it to last forever, but nothing does.
About a year later, something broke.
And even though my dad tried to fix it, nothing would work.
Unlike my bike, Policy Genius can help give your family a gift that could last a lifetime.
Security.
Policy Genius makes securing your future easier and more affordable than you might think.
Policy Genius has thousands of five-star reviews on Google and TrustPilot from customers who found the best policy fit for their needs.
Secure your future before the new year begins.
Lock in your life insurance today.
The licensed team at Policy Genius will help you get what you need fast so you can get on with your life.
Policy Genius helps you find your most affordable policy that meets your needs.
With Policy Genius, real users have gotten 20-year, 2 million policies for just $53 a month.
Don't wait until next year.
Give your family the gift of security today.
Head to policygenius.com to compare life insurance quotes from top companies and see how much you could save.
That's policygenius.com.
And if they become like him, if the humans do, by eating of the fruit, God's authority will be threatened.
His uniqueness and his authority will be challenged.
So what happens?
First, God lies about what will happen to the humans if they eat from the tree.
They'll die.
They didn't.
And then when they do eat from the tree, which threatens his authority and power, it threatens the boundary between God and humans.
So how does God respond?
He throws a tantrum.
He curses the snake.
He curses the humans.
He casts them out of the garden.
In the Christian tradition, he condemns human beings to eternal torment as a result.
How disproportionate and dysregulated a response is that?
You threaten the boundary between God and humans?
Yep, all right.
All of eternity, you need to suffer now.
That's the Christian teaching.
So what do we find?
We find a vision of God whose authority is based only in power and specifically the power to punish those below him, to put them back in their place, to make sure that they don't gain what he has.
And we find a God who will go to extreme lengths to maintain that power and authority.
That's what I'm defining as insecurity.
A God who is afraid of human beings becoming too much like God.
So he exercises his power to put them in their place.
That's the first story that Holly highlights in this text that tells us about who and what his God is.
Here's the second one.
He brings up another story, also from the book of Genesis, that illustrates the same themes.
If you haven't figured this out yet for Holly, all of this is grounded in these first two chapters of Genesis.
This is the sort of Ur text, the start text for him.
And what is the other story he tells?
It's the story of the so-called Tower of Babel.
So you might be less familiar with this story.
Again, if you grew up in church, you might remember it.
Here's his point.
This is what he says.
He says, the first human society Genesis describes at any length, Babel, is irredeemably wicked.
Babel is a figure of Babylon.
The text is produced during the Babylonian period in Jewish history.
That's what it's referring to.
So he says, it's irredeemably wicked.
And this is presented as evidence of the evil introduced in the world through the actions of the first human couple.
So what is Holly's point?
Adam disobeys God, lets the snake in, eats of the fruit.
Sin comes into the world, and then the first human society that we find is irredeemably wicked, has to be punished by God.
Irredeemably wicked.
Man, that must be really bad.
Babel must be a dark place if it's irredeemably wicked.
Well, let's take a look.
So I'm going to read some more from the Bible.
I feel like Holly would approve.
It says chapter 11, Genesis chapter 11, verses 1 through 9.
Bear with me.
This is what it says, okay?
It says, now the whole earth had one language and the same words.
And as they migrated from the east, they came upon a plain in the land of, excuse me, in the land of Shinnar and settled there.
And they said to one another, come, let us make bricks and burn them thoroughly.
And they had brick for stone and bitumen for mortar.
Then they said, come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens.
And let us make a name for ourselves, otherwise we shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
The Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which mortals had built.
And the Lord said, look, they are one people and they have all one language.
And this is only the beginning of what they will do.
Nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them.
Come, let us go down and confuse their language there so that they will not understand one another's speech.
So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of the earth and they left off building the city.
Therefore, it was called Babel because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth.
And from there, the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.
That's the story.
No reference to wickedness.
Read the story and point to the part where it's irredeemably wicked.
Doesn't seem to specify a lot.
You got to read between the lines to find out what's there.
There's certainly no reference to anything that I think most of us would conventionally describe as evil.
Again, to call it irredeemably wicked, it doesn't feel like we're reading the text literally, Holly.
What do we find here?
What is going on in this text?
Here's what we find.
The same God who feels threatened by human beings maintains his power over them by inflicting a kind of punishment upon them again.
Okay?
So just like the fruit of the tree of the knowledge and good and evil, it gives human beings knowledge that threatens God's unique status.
Here, human beings existing in a unified population, putting their heads together, building a great city and so forth, it's viewed as a threat to God.
God says nothing that they propose to do will be impossible for them.
They will become too godlike.
Humans will be capable of too much greatness.
They will ascend to the status of God.
So God decides to punish them.
We're going to confuse their language, introduce different languages, scatter them across the face of the earth, and so forth.
This is obviously like an origin story of how it is that we come to have different languages and cultures and people all over the world and so forth.
It's a mythic account.
But the point is that God does it because they will be too much like him if he doesn't.
Once again, a God who is so insecure, so afraid that human beings, his creation, could challenge his unique status, even though it says they're created in God's image, they might look a little too much like God.
He's so insecure that he has to lash out, exercise his power to punish them and make sure that he remains unique and that he stands apart from human beings.
Think about this image of God.
What do we find?
What God does Holly worship?
What God does this view of masculinity come from?
We find a God who is powerful but colossally insecure.
And because of that insecurity, how does God use that power?
He uses it to punish human beings, essentially to ensure that he can maintain his position above them.
That's what defines God.
If that doesn't make sense, or maybe to help it make more sense, imagine this.
Maybe you're somebody who's, if you've ever had one of those friends who's like, you know, out of the two of you, they're always the one on top.
It's one of those friends, you know, they encourage you and they wish the best for you and all of that.
They're always pulling for you.
As long as your best doesn't eclipse theirs, right?
It's the kind of friend that if you gain too much, if you get too good at something, I don't know, maybe you're on the sports team and they've always been the king athlete, but I don't know.
You hit that growth spurt and all of a sudden your personal best is better than theirs.
They're the person that will sabotage you or undermine you to ensure that you just stay second, that you're always a little bit below them.
That's the God that we get here.
The God that the Christians tell us loves us and cares for us and created his image and we have infinite value to him and so forth.
But he's going to do everything he can to make sure that we can't attain his heights or his status.
That's the God we have here.
So why does it matter?
Why spend all this time reading Genesis?
I can set this aside.
We're done with Genesis.
Now, why spend all this time reading Genesis?
Why spend this time trawling through ancient myths and so forth?
Why does it matter?
It matters because it matters for Holly.
He's the one lingering on these passages.
He's the one who believes that they give us a normative theological understanding of who and what God is.
And specifically, here's why it really matters.
If you're sitting here saying, I don't care what Holly thinks about God, we can think different things about God.
Christians have been finding different gods in the Bible for two millennia.
Yes, they have.
But specifically, he believes that these images provide us with a model of manhood.
And remember that men are God's representatives on earth.
God for Holly, God is the model man.
So what we see with this all-powerful but incredibly insecure being who lashes out in anger and out of his insecurity to punish anybody who would challenge him, that's Holly's model man.
Men, precisely as God's representatives, what Holly calls his icons, men are called to embody the masculinity modeled by the God who created them in his image.
That's why this matters.
Because this terrifying God of power who's justified in using it to punish others and maintain his dominion, that's the model of masculinity.
And remember this.
Holly's argument in this chapter is that what he calls man's battle is against evil.
But in neither of the examples that he gives do we find God taking on evil because it's evil.
It never says here's what evil is and God is taking it on.
Instead, what I would argue we find in those chapters, those verses, is that anything that challenges God's authority is defined as evil.
In other words, God doesn't oppose it because it's evil.
It's defined as evil because God opposes it.
And what that does is it elevates power over goodness.
Power becomes the ultimate good.
Power becomes good because it's power.
And it's a variation on a theme we discussed in the last episode, where the notion that anything that challenges order is evil.
Here, anything that challenges power is inherently evil.
And Holly essentially says this.
He says, this is on page 36.
He says, the Bible does not shy away from powerful men.
Holly likes powerful men.
Holly wants to be a powerful man, excuse me, a powerful man.
Holly wants America to have more powerful men.
Men for Holly are defined by power.
Now, he goes on to say this.
He says that that is no authorization to dominate or destroy.
But if we look at those passages, the passages that he cites, the passages that for him give us the model of man, that's all we see.
God's power is domination.
Any challenge to that domination is defined as evil by readers like Holly, and it justifies the exercise of power to punish and to destroy.
So despite what Holly says, his model of masculinity, his model of divinely sanctioned masculinity is all about power and domination.
And we'll see how this plays out through the rest of the book.
Again, I'm reading as we go.
I don't think this theme is going to disappear.
And I want you to hold on to that.
I want us to hold on to these themes of power and domination and the essentially the move to baptize or to sanctify the concept of power as an ultimate good.
And I think that's what we're going to see.
We're going to see over and over the notion of power as dominating and destructive, but a way to try to sanctify that and justify it as something good.
We'll see.
Maybe I'll be wrong, but I don't think so.
So where are we?
I think Holly's view of masculinity is coming into clearer view.
And it's a vision we see everywhere within the contemporary culture of the manosphere or whatever else you want to call it, wherever else you want to identify it.
Masculinity is about power.
And the punitive exercise of that power is justified anytime it's challenged.
That's what happens when power is defined as inherently good or as the highest good.
Anybody who questions or challenges power or authority becomes evil.
And the exercise of that power or authority to punish or to dominate is justified.
That's what we find in Holly's vision.
And what he's doing is he is writing that vision into the heart of masculinity as such.
So what he's doing is highlighting the way in which this cultural vision of masculinity can be sanctified through theological justifications.
Now, I have no doubt that this is a vision he's going to try to temper as we move through the book by saying that it's benevolent.
Men are called to exercise power, but it'll be the power to protect.
It will be the power to defend.
It will be the power to attack enemies and so forth.
He's going to try to show that it's benevolent.
He might even say that it's collaborative.
I don't know.
Again, I don't know if women are ever going to show up.
I don't know what the role is going to be between men and women, if they're going to collaborate.
I don't know if there's going to be a cooperative vision of the use of power.
But these are ways that people usually try to mitigate this vision of power.
It's all powerful, but it's good.
It's benevolent.
It protects.
But here's the key, okay?
Just like God creates men in his image, but only to a point.
Men are the image of God as long as they make sure to remember not to attain too much, not to become too much like God.
We're going to see that men may be benevolent or collaborative, but never at the cost of their power, which is why we're going to find a patriarchal society at the heart of Holly's vision.
We'll see where it goes.
Maybe I'll be surprised.
Maybe Holly will change his tone, but I don't think so.
Need to wrap this up.
Thank you for listening.
If you're not a subscriber, you like what we do, I'd invite you to consider subscribing.
I realize that times are tough and prices are up and everything's expensive.
And if you're like me, you've already got subscriptions to all different kinds of things.
And if you can't do that, I get it.
If you'd consider making a donation, it helps us keep doing what we're doing.
Otherwise, just keep listening.
Keep liking us.
Keep giving us the thumbs up.
Tell people about us.
We do a lot of content.
We're over a thousand episodes in.
We feel like what we're doing matters to folks.
We feel like it's important.
We are trying to do something that in our own small way can have an impact in our world.
You help us do that.
We can't do it without you.
So thank you so much.
Again, always open to new ideas, feedback on episodes, ideas for new series, new episodes, deeper dives that we can go into on these episodes.
If you're a subscriber, you can listen to our live streams.
And these are places where often we take that deeper dive into issues or topics that people raise.
Please let me know.
Daniel Miller Swadge, Daniel Miller, S-W-A-J at gmail.com.
Again, I also hover around in the Discord.
We're going to pick up next week and continue thinking about Holly and masculinity and continue seeing how this vision of power, masculinity as power plays out.
But until then, please be well until we get a chance to talk again.
