Hi Kirsten, thanks for engaging my recent series on the evangelical bro code.
First, a quick housekeeping note: Is there a way to show that the numerated points that describe the bro code are a direct quote from my Substack? You note that you're quoting from me, but without a block quote or quotation marks, it's not clear to the reader that the list is a direct quote.
Second, yes, of course, I agree there are plenty of reasons why a particular woman might find her experience inside an evangelical institution unpleasant besides misogyny, including the ones you note. Maybe she's not a good employee and so gets bad reviews. Maybe the work is just not suited to her skillset, or she has a bad boss (not a bad male boss per se), or maybe she's a pill! None of this need be gendered, and it's possible that some of the 170+ women I surveyed ended up attributing to sexism what could be more clearly (though more personally painfully) attributed to themselves. That said, the women I most immediately know who would say they experienced are pretty darn smart, accomplished, loyal to the institution, with good performance reviews. At some point, we're wise to look to some other explanation for their bad experience. Evangelical gender codes seem to me a reasonable place to start.
Third, and finally, I think my series has been summarized a bit sloppily: "Beaty’s concern- women are being oppressed, let’s take down the evangelical bro-code" -- not least because I never once use the word "oppressed" in the 7 essays that make up the series, but also because I explicitly state in the final article of the series that I don't have any ideas for *how* to "take down" the evangelical bro code. "Oppressed" and "take down" are phrases that belie this series has been categorized as a kind of Jesus-y feminist screed, and while I gladly affiliate with the Christian feminist movement, I think these phrases present my concern shallowly to your readers.
I don't think I disagree with anything here, and strongly agree with and resonate with much. I think the deference and gender-bonus (which are real) are simply the other side of the "bro code." Deference/affirmative action is the flip side of misogyny, so to speak. It's all part of the culture. I lived in it for decades and was able to thrive while challenging it, I think. Until I suddenly couldn't.
It seems common sense that some of the 170+ women may have misattributed the causes of their experience; we’re fallen and finite and prone to self-deception. At the same time, it seems dangerous to a) not allow people the benefit of the doubt with interpretations/explanations of their story, and b) re-interpret another’s story in light of one’s personal experience. I don’t doubt your experience at all, nor how you explain it. But I also know my wife got a glowing performance review by her senior pastor boss and then was fired 6 months later because she insisted he and the all-male elder board were wrong in covering up a case of sexual assault by one of their fellow elders (and if one is tempted to ask, “well, was she perhaps wrong to say they were wrong?”, the senior pastor later admitted that my wife was right in her criticism, said “sorry” for the cover up, but at the same time maintained that her termination was just). “Evangelical bro-code” is a fitting explanation for my wife’s story (at least in part). There’s always danger in generalizing from personal experience, but 170+ stories — while not a rigorous qualitative study — is nothing to sneeze at. If those women, who know the details of their stories, believe evangelical gender codes help explain their mistreatment, I believe them. The only justification for doing otherwise would require detailed personal knowledge of any given individual story.
Can’t we have both a bro code operating AND imperfect women of all kinds and with competence of varying degrees being impacted by it? Your piece presents a strange false dichotomy- that it’s either the bro code or it’s something wrong with the woman. I won’t speak for Katelyn or others but I would think most of us who resonated with what she wrote took it for granted (as I could imagine she did as well) that, yes, pointing to the bro code isn’t the default culprit in every issue. For most, I think this goes without saying. What we are trying to grapple with is a pattern of behavior that is happening widely to many. One of the aspects of the bro code consistent in every case is dishonesty- collectively and individually by men that perpetuates the bro code.
It seems that a similar pattern of at least an unwillingness for men to tell the truth and in some cases straight up dishonesty is also at the heart of your concerns about not getting honest feedback for your work. Instead of holding them accountable for that, you look to excuse it.
I would challenge this section as incredibly condescending TO MEN:
“If you want to squash constructive criticism, this sort of strategy is a great way to do it. Men will feel only increased pressure to be “good to women”, and any time a promotion is denied to a woman, misogyny is the answer closest at hand. Or a thesis that is sorta dumb is called “excellent”- this has happened to me more than once,”
So men, indwelt by the the Holy Spirit, professing to be committed to walking in truth and Light, can’t tell the TRUTH to a woman because why? Isn’t this a big part of sanctification and following Jesus- learning to be truthful and honest? Shouldn’t our leaders be the best at this so they can lead by example? We have to have higher expectations for Christian men regarding being honest and telling the truth. It makes me think about women beating themselves up for getting angry upon discovering their husband’s porn addiction because somehow their anger will prevent the husbands from telling them the truth. Very twisted logic when we can’t expect the leaders of our Christian organizations to be honest and we blame it on women.
I agree with Katelyn’s assessment … you presented her position rather sloppily here. The gist of your argument seems to be “these women probably ran into the limits of their talent and are blaming it on misogyny.” Maybe that’s true of some, but the phenomenon Katelyn outlined fits my story to a tee, and it was not a case of my being unqualified. I was serving in a church as a volunteer ministry leader and in many ways “outperforming” the male staff pastors. But when there was some conflict in the church the lead pastor targeted me and used a witch-hunt style process (anonymous charges, no opportunity for me to speak in my defense, etc) to push me out. It was abusive and absolutely a case of “bro code,” because his domineering and manipulative behavior was defended by the male elder team while I was scapegoated.
Anyway - I don’t disagree that you’re describing real issues you’ve observed, but Katelyn has absolutely identified a real and problematic tendency in evangelical culture.
1) Dr. Sanders has helpfully pointed out the limits of the Brocode analysis, by pointing to the way it is a tactic, but not a strategy. What I mean by that is that it functions locally, and in particular times, but cannot function as an overall explanatory thesis for every case or, it seems, for things beyond an evangelical subset. If it were universally operative, neither Dr. Sanders, nor Dr. Prior’s lives would be possible.
But differently, the journalism which Katelyn provides, and the analysis which Dr. Sanders provides can both be true, with the big caveat that over reliance on a Brocode, as an explanatory function, is to be cautioned against.
2) it seems to me that the series has been accurately summarized with respect to the major points from each issue. There is a section just below the five points that seems as if it is an extended quotes, but the formatting is messed up here.
It also seems that Dr. Sanders does not make use of any of the terms that Katelyn accuses her of, such as oppression or feminist screed. She seems to be fairly reserved in trying to get the series descriptively accurate.
I make these two observations just to say that sexism is true, and that making sexism the at hand response for all instances leads to the counterbalancing problems that she describes. It’s a lot of great food for thought.
This is an excellent post. It helpfully shows the dangers of relying on a single type of narrative for too many different situations. It's also not clear to me that the way the problems in evangelical institutions are being written about won't magnify the problems you are writing about here.
I can't really speak to how true either the bro code account or your account is (they're both probs true to some extent in different churches/ministries/organisations), because I'm not really in American evangelical spaces, and I do think the dynamics are often substantially different in my country, but what I will say is that, all other things being equal, it's not necessarily bad when someone is given a role in part because "we need a woman", because it is true that institutions and the like can benefit from a variety of views and perspectives and the like, and so if you're a church, for example, and you've got a mostly male leadership team, it would make sense to want some more women on board to be better able to represent women's experience's and to be able to represent the women in the church better. So I think that if you're leading an institution that has mostly male leaders, and you've got two applicants for a role who are otherwise entirely equally suitable for the role but one is a man and the other is a woman, then it makes sense to say "it would be good to have more woman on our team" and thus hire the woman. It only becomes a problem when their gender is the only reason they're hired, or their hired for a role which they are not suitable for in part because of their gender (beyond that of more suitable men). And that does happen in some institutions (probs in more secular institutions than Christian ones), but how common it is I don't know
Hi Kirsten, thanks for engaging my recent series on the evangelical bro code.
First, a quick housekeeping note: Is there a way to show that the numerated points that describe the bro code are a direct quote from my Substack? You note that you're quoting from me, but without a block quote or quotation marks, it's not clear to the reader that the list is a direct quote.
Second, yes, of course, I agree there are plenty of reasons why a particular woman might find her experience inside an evangelical institution unpleasant besides misogyny, including the ones you note. Maybe she's not a good employee and so gets bad reviews. Maybe the work is just not suited to her skillset, or she has a bad boss (not a bad male boss per se), or maybe she's a pill! None of this need be gendered, and it's possible that some of the 170+ women I surveyed ended up attributing to sexism what could be more clearly (though more personally painfully) attributed to themselves. That said, the women I most immediately know who would say they experienced are pretty darn smart, accomplished, loyal to the institution, with good performance reviews. At some point, we're wise to look to some other explanation for their bad experience. Evangelical gender codes seem to me a reasonable place to start.
Third, and finally, I think my series has been summarized a bit sloppily: "Beaty’s concern- women are being oppressed, let’s take down the evangelical bro-code" -- not least because I never once use the word "oppressed" in the 7 essays that make up the series, but also because I explicitly state in the final article of the series that I don't have any ideas for *how* to "take down" the evangelical bro code. "Oppressed" and "take down" are phrases that belie this series has been categorized as a kind of Jesus-y feminist screed, and while I gladly affiliate with the Christian feminist movement, I think these phrases present my concern shallowly to your readers.
Thanks again for engaging the series.
I don't think I disagree with anything here, and strongly agree with and resonate with much. I think the deference and gender-bonus (which are real) are simply the other side of the "bro code." Deference/affirmative action is the flip side of misogyny, so to speak. It's all part of the culture. I lived in it for decades and was able to thrive while challenging it, I think. Until I suddenly couldn't.
Okay, this is the response I didn't know I needed from you.
It seems common sense that some of the 170+ women may have misattributed the causes of their experience; we’re fallen and finite and prone to self-deception. At the same time, it seems dangerous to a) not allow people the benefit of the doubt with interpretations/explanations of their story, and b) re-interpret another’s story in light of one’s personal experience. I don’t doubt your experience at all, nor how you explain it. But I also know my wife got a glowing performance review by her senior pastor boss and then was fired 6 months later because she insisted he and the all-male elder board were wrong in covering up a case of sexual assault by one of their fellow elders (and if one is tempted to ask, “well, was she perhaps wrong to say they were wrong?”, the senior pastor later admitted that my wife was right in her criticism, said “sorry” for the cover up, but at the same time maintained that her termination was just). “Evangelical bro-code” is a fitting explanation for my wife’s story (at least in part). There’s always danger in generalizing from personal experience, but 170+ stories — while not a rigorous qualitative study — is nothing to sneeze at. If those women, who know the details of their stories, believe evangelical gender codes help explain their mistreatment, I believe them. The only justification for doing otherwise would require detailed personal knowledge of any given individual story.
Can’t we have both a bro code operating AND imperfect women of all kinds and with competence of varying degrees being impacted by it? Your piece presents a strange false dichotomy- that it’s either the bro code or it’s something wrong with the woman. I won’t speak for Katelyn or others but I would think most of us who resonated with what she wrote took it for granted (as I could imagine she did as well) that, yes, pointing to the bro code isn’t the default culprit in every issue. For most, I think this goes without saying. What we are trying to grapple with is a pattern of behavior that is happening widely to many. One of the aspects of the bro code consistent in every case is dishonesty- collectively and individually by men that perpetuates the bro code.
It seems that a similar pattern of at least an unwillingness for men to tell the truth and in some cases straight up dishonesty is also at the heart of your concerns about not getting honest feedback for your work. Instead of holding them accountable for that, you look to excuse it.
I would challenge this section as incredibly condescending TO MEN:
“If you want to squash constructive criticism, this sort of strategy is a great way to do it. Men will feel only increased pressure to be “good to women”, and any time a promotion is denied to a woman, misogyny is the answer closest at hand. Or a thesis that is sorta dumb is called “excellent”- this has happened to me more than once,”
So men, indwelt by the the Holy Spirit, professing to be committed to walking in truth and Light, can’t tell the TRUTH to a woman because why? Isn’t this a big part of sanctification and following Jesus- learning to be truthful and honest? Shouldn’t our leaders be the best at this so they can lead by example? We have to have higher expectations for Christian men regarding being honest and telling the truth. It makes me think about women beating themselves up for getting angry upon discovering their husband’s porn addiction because somehow their anger will prevent the husbands from telling them the truth. Very twisted logic when we can’t expect the leaders of our Christian organizations to be honest and we blame it on women.
I agree with Katelyn’s assessment … you presented her position rather sloppily here. The gist of your argument seems to be “these women probably ran into the limits of their talent and are blaming it on misogyny.” Maybe that’s true of some, but the phenomenon Katelyn outlined fits my story to a tee, and it was not a case of my being unqualified. I was serving in a church as a volunteer ministry leader and in many ways “outperforming” the male staff pastors. But when there was some conflict in the church the lead pastor targeted me and used a witch-hunt style process (anonymous charges, no opportunity for me to speak in my defense, etc) to push me out. It was abusive and absolutely a case of “bro code,” because his domineering and manipulative behavior was defended by the male elder team while I was scapegoated.
Anyway - I don’t disagree that you’re describing real issues you’ve observed, but Katelyn has absolutely identified a real and problematic tendency in evangelical culture.
Two things to note here:
1) Dr. Sanders has helpfully pointed out the limits of the Brocode analysis, by pointing to the way it is a tactic, but not a strategy. What I mean by that is that it functions locally, and in particular times, but cannot function as an overall explanatory thesis for every case or, it seems, for things beyond an evangelical subset. If it were universally operative, neither Dr. Sanders, nor Dr. Prior’s lives would be possible.
But differently, the journalism which Katelyn provides, and the analysis which Dr. Sanders provides can both be true, with the big caveat that over reliance on a Brocode, as an explanatory function, is to be cautioned against.
2) it seems to me that the series has been accurately summarized with respect to the major points from each issue. There is a section just below the five points that seems as if it is an extended quotes, but the formatting is messed up here.
It also seems that Dr. Sanders does not make use of any of the terms that Katelyn accuses her of, such as oppression or feminist screed. She seems to be fairly reserved in trying to get the series descriptively accurate.
I make these two observations just to say that sexism is true, and that making sexism the at hand response for all instances leads to the counterbalancing problems that she describes. It’s a lot of great food for thought.
This is an excellent post. It helpfully shows the dangers of relying on a single type of narrative for too many different situations. It's also not clear to me that the way the problems in evangelical institutions are being written about won't magnify the problems you are writing about here.
Thank you for writing this! Challenging and liberating at the same time.
I can't really speak to how true either the bro code account or your account is (they're both probs true to some extent in different churches/ministries/organisations), because I'm not really in American evangelical spaces, and I do think the dynamics are often substantially different in my country, but what I will say is that, all other things being equal, it's not necessarily bad when someone is given a role in part because "we need a woman", because it is true that institutions and the like can benefit from a variety of views and perspectives and the like, and so if you're a church, for example, and you've got a mostly male leadership team, it would make sense to want some more women on board to be better able to represent women's experience's and to be able to represent the women in the church better. So I think that if you're leading an institution that has mostly male leaders, and you've got two applicants for a role who are otherwise entirely equally suitable for the role but one is a man and the other is a woman, then it makes sense to say "it would be good to have more woman on our team" and thus hire the woman. It only becomes a problem when their gender is the only reason they're hired, or their hired for a role which they are not suitable for in part because of their gender (beyond that of more suitable men). And that does happen in some institutions (probs in more secular institutions than Christian ones), but how common it is I don't know