Lots going on today, but I have one more bit of analysis on the Falwell scandals. Last night reports emerged that JF Jr. had sent pictures of Liberty students exposing themselves at his farm. https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/viral/becki-falwells-pool-boy-lover-says-jerry-falwell-is-a-predator/vp-BB18p3ya

So, Falwell has gone from a man who showed his underwear in an IG post and whose wife cheated on him, to a guy who likes to watch his partner have sex with others and who may have taken photos of nude Liberty students.

As I laid out in my thread yesterday, following the incredible scholarship of @lesliedorroughs, there are American male leaders whose sex scandals can be forgiven because the virility and aggression of the nation’s leader is a stand-in for the nation itself.

The hypermasculine, aggressive, even violent president is seen as a conquering force who represents the nations potential for domination and colonization. As @kkdumez argues persuasively in Jesus and John Wayne.

In some ways I think this is why many on the Right have no problem with Melania’s past as a nude model. She has never apologized for it. She doesn’t seem to regret it (nor should she). So why the crickets from the family values folks?

Because Trump is the virile masculine dominator. Melania is his prize—the uber-attractive, younger woman who bore his child is proof that Trump is a real man.

Political scientists have longed noticed how nations, particularly the USA, view their leaders as both father and spouse. They see the leader as the powerful masculine protector and the nation as the female daughter/wife who needs protecting.

Again, think of Trump’s creepy advances on Ivanka—he is father/wannabe spouse to his daughter/wannabe partner.

As @lesliedorroughs says:

Now, it seems weird that the American people would think of their leader as father and husband. But it makes sense given the framing of it as a Christian nation by so many Christian Nationalists.

The work of @socofthesacred, @ndrewwhitehead and @kathsstewart makes this clear.

What does this mean? If you are a hypermasculine white hetero male, then you are expected to be an aggressive physical and sexual force. It’s your nature as national father/husband. Sexually dominant. Physically violent. Rhetorically unapologetic.

If you do not fit this category, then you are a) not going to be forgiven when we find out about your sex scandal b) going to have a hard time becoming a national leader, much less president to start with.

As I said yesterday, for J Falwell Jr. the label of voyeur (and now pornographer) is puts him outside the bounds of the virile male protector category. He is what the Religious Right and many other conservatives consider the deviant category—not a real man, not a real leader.

But, and this is where I need you to hang with me for a second, this whole Jerry Falwell Jr. scandal throws light on another phenomenon in the Trump era: awkward male fealty on the part of Trump’s former adversaries.

Eilberg-Schwarz, in his book God’s Phallus, explains that ancient Israelite men faced a “homoerotic dilemma” in their relation to their God. The dilemma arose from the fact that Yahweh was viewed as male. The nation of Israel was viewed as female. They were husband and wife.

Don't believe me? Read Hosea 1-3, Ezekiel, and traditional interpretations of the Song of Solomon.

If God is the ultimate male—the virile protector who controls the sex and reproduction of all Israelites (brands the sex organ of all males through a covenant and controls the fertility of females). If God is the Most Masculine of all the men. If God is unrivaled in his manliness

How do you relate to him if you are a man? Well, you have to consider yourself submissive, passive, and protected—like a woman!

*(a woman conceived according to patriarchal and heteronormative regimes)

What do you do if you are supposed to represent God to other people—like Moses? Well, with them you emanate manliness and then in relation to God, you switch and become feminine. See Rhiannon Graybill's amazing book on this:

If we combine Eilberg-Schwarz and @lesliedorroughs, we can see why so many of Trump’s adversaries are now submissive sycophants. From Ted Cruz (remember the way Trump spoke about Heid Cruz), Marco Rubio (Lil Marco), Lyndsey Graham (rumors abound about his sexuality), and so on.

If you operate according to a system where the leader is the MOST MASCULINE MALE whose violence, aggression, and sexual voraciousness are the virtues that make him the nation’s protector and guide, then how does any other man relate to him?

They have to take on the roles prescribed (horrifically and harmfully) to women: passive, humiliated, weak, overcome.

What does all this mean?

1. Falwell’s redemption is going to be trickier than other male leaders because it was not the sin of the Most Masculine Man but of a deviant voyeur/pornographer.
2. This is further evidence as to why patriarchal white Christians love Trump and his vision for the USA.

Tagging folks working in this area: @praxishabitus @JohnWCompton2 @JohnWHawthorne @laureneoneal @brchastain @lizkineke @dianabutlerbass @DJSugi @RobinGVeldman @life_she_wrote @anelsona @RSokamoto @crddouglas