Anyone who believes that the U.S. is in a post-feminist era should take a quick and dirty tour of Bro culture with Thomas Keith as guide. Keith teaches philosophy at California State University at Long Beach and California Polytechnic University. His expertise in American Studies, popular culture, and masculinity theory are on display in this film, which he wrote, produced, directed, and narrated. The film also features bits of interviews Keith conducted with Michael Kimmel, Shira Tarrant, Robert Jensen, J.W. Wiley, Douglas Rushkoff, Eric Anderson, and Neal King. The interviews are interesting in themselves, but they also serve to provide breaks from the otherwise constant onslaught of misogynistic clips and quotes, and they make it difficult for resistant viewers to sustain a claim that Keith is an extremist with no sense of humor.

The central thesis of the film is that popular culture, especially cultural products aimed at young men, teaches men to be womanizers. Womanizing is more than a ludic, or game-playing, approach to relationships. It is based on power, privilege, and entitlement, including the idea that women’s purpose is to be used by men, in any way that men like. Viewers are shown images from television (especially sitcoms, reality TV such as Jersey Shore and Spring Break, and music videos), pornography, and lad magazines (e.g., Maxim) to support the thesis. In these images, women are often shown colluding in their own objectification, a message that shows men that it is okay to use and abuse women (as a way of demonstrating the men’s power and status) because women expect and accept that treatment. Keith and his interviewees provide interesting and thought-provoking points as they discuss behavioral science research that shows the power of media messages to shape thought and spark imitation. For example, they note that both men and women seem to accept misogynistic portrayals of women – in the media and in life. On Jersey Shore and other reality TV shows, which are especially popular with adolescent viewers, women compete to be the “hottest and naughtiest.” College students’ parties with themes such as “Golf Pros and Tennis Hos” and “CEOs and Office Hos” suggest that women must come to the party looking as hot as possible. Keith suggests that young women may come to believe that it is impossible to find a respectful man or to teach their boyfriends to become more sensitive, so they give up and become “raunchy” themselves. In fact, Bro culture tells men that, if they do respect women, they are not real men; hegemonic masculinity (based on beer, sports, and womanizing) is the only way to be manly.

The ubiquity of pornography on the internet is an important point in the film, and porn itself is a major contributor to Bro culture. Many boys begin consuming internet porn in early adolescence, and most girls have seen it by mid-adolescence, which means that it is an important source of their sex education. That is especially troubling given pornography’s promulgation of rape myths, positioning of women as sex objects, and mixture of sex and abuse. The film introduced some of us to the term “gonzo porn,” which was described as a sexual version of the Jackass movies. In these films women are often drugged and raped, and abusive treatment frequently follows even consensual sex (e.g., forcing her head into a toilet and flushing it). Although pornographers like to claim that their work “liberates” sexuality, Keith’s interviewees suggest that, instead, it constrains sexuality by presenting the same scripts again and again. Given the national problem with sexual assault on campus (and off), it is disturbing to learn that gonzo porn is the most commonly downloaded type of pornography and that many male college students think nothing of admitting that they enjoy it.

Pornography is not the only type of popular culture that legitimizes rape. The film shows that jokes about sexual assault and harassment are frequent in stand-up comedy, as well as in sitcoms such as Family Guy that are commonly watched by young people. Remarks about assault that are followed by laughter (whether real or recorded) normalize abusive behaviors, suggest that assault and harassment are “no big deal,” and make light of the suffering of victims. Sitcom laugh tracks tell the audience what is funny, and often people laugh along without thinking about what they are doing. Repeated exposure to jokes of this type desensitizes viewers to the seriousness of violence against women, and, for those already immersed in Bro culture, further legitimizes the degradation of women.

The Bro code is enforced by the “masculinity cops,” people who accept its rules and behavioral scripts, including the parents, brothers, teachers, coaches, male friends, and even female friends of boys and young men. These “cops” encourage the display of hegemonic masculinity by endorsing womanizing, homophobia, and raw displays of power and status, and they also endorse harassment of gay men, or any men, who do not follow the hegemonic “rules.” As the film ends, Keith urges viewers to recognize that there are many ways to be a man, and manliness does not require cruel or disrespectful treatment of women. He urges men to stand up and speak out against the limiting cultural portrayals of men as either “tough bad asses” or “fumbling idiot/perpetual adolescents.” Although we certainly agree with his take-home message, after spending nearly an hour watching and listening to the misogynistic media soup in which today’s young American men swim everyday, it is difficult to imagine how individual men could manage to resist the Bro code. Collective action will be necessary, but perhaps this film, if viewed widely, could help to spark it.

We found the most effective scenes to be in the pornography section and the section on misogyny on college campuses. Some of us were shocked by what we saw in the clips from gonzo porn (the film does announce “viewer discretion advised”), and men’s excuses for not taking pornographic images seriously (“the actresses chose to participate”) were also striking. Keith and his interviewees countered those excuses effectively, for example, by comparing porn acting to other unpleasant jobs that people take because they need the money and more pleasant or better paying work is not available. In real life, women do not choose to be raped or to have their heads held down in a flushing toilet. The scenes about college life were too close for comfort for some of us. Although we do not have fraternities or a football team, swaggering bros are not unknown on our campus, and there certainly have been parties with bro and ho themes; the annual Halloween dance is a time when the demand that women dress in hot or raunchy outfits is especially high. A video clip of members of a Yale fraternity repeatedly shouting, “No means yes; yes means anal,” was particularly chilling.

Each of us rated the film on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is the most effective. Our ratings ranged from 3 to 5; the mean was 4.3. Thus, we found its argument quite effective, even though the production values leave something to be desired (e.g., the narrator does not look directly into the camera). The Bro Code is particularly effective in the way that it contextualizes the behavior of the bros by showing how their behavior and attitudes were shaped by popular culture, peers, and authority figures. The context helps viewers to understand how behavior that we see as ranging from boorish and insensitive to degrading and abusive can seem “normal” to young men.

The film could be used effectively in classrooms and other venues with high school and college students, in a wide variety of courses in social and behavioral science, including psychology, sociology, human development, communication studies, and gender/women’s studies. It would be especially useful in generating discussion in courses on masculinity, popular culture, or social justice. Some of us think that high school is already too late to show this film; middle school boys and girls would make better targets for prevention efforts. However, it would be a rare middle school that would be willing to show their students some of the disturbing images in this film, and there is plenty of offensive language as well. On the other hand, early adolescent boys who are already viewing internet porn (and watching South Park and the Jackass movies) might be less shocked by this film than some of us were.

The Bro Code is also effective in generating discussion, both in the classroom and outside. Each of us talked about it to our friends after we viewed it in class; in fact, immediately after it was over, one of us put a comment on facebook to encourage others to watch the film. Both men and women need to hear the messages that Keith and his interviewees communicate in this film, and we encourage readers of Sex Roles to spread the word.