Daniel Sullivan | Tuesday, November 8, 2011
I am writing in response to the Nov. 8 article entitled “The Bro Code” by Dr. G. David Moss. I believe Dr. Moss has used his opinion to shape the facts, rather than the other way around. He has assumed that the code of the younger generation is immoral simply because it is not his own. With all due respect, Dr. Moss condemns that which he clearly does not understand.
Dr. Moss would have us believe that the Bro Code is simply the latest in a series of misogynistic college traditions, elaborating that it centers around meaningless and promiscuous sex. He further states that the Bro Code allows for the formation of a “circle of coolness” that is ultimately exclusive, creating a destructive environment of cliques and social stagnation. These arguments are all supported by a list of rules that Dr. Moss, without evidence or support, has determined are fundamental to any Bro Code.
I must insist that Dr. Moss does not understand the Bro Code and has confused correlation and causation. The Bro Code does not cause or contribute to promiscuity or social exclusion on campus, it limits them. To support this, I would like to demonstrate the most important rule from the New York Times Bestseller “The Bro Code,” a rule which Dr. Moss incorrectly identified as an unimportant corollary: “Bros before hoes.”
On the surface this statement appears misogynistic, but at its core it establishes principles the GRC should embrace wholeheartedly. Namely, that long-term friendships are far more valuable than one-night stands. This is the heart of the Bro Code: brotherhood. The Bro Code says nothing about putting people down or excluding the un-cool. It says instead that one should dedicate himself to helping out his bros, because one knows they would do the same for him.
I would like to bring one final aspect of the Bro Code to Dr. Moss’s attention, namely: “There is no law that prohibits a woman from being a Bro.” Dr. Moss can condemn if he’d like. Me? I’ll stick with my bros.
St. Edward’s Hall