Questioning the morality of LASO’s date auction

Doing it wrong: Leveling the field in student employment

The different types of student employment trouble me. For many students at Bowdoin, working here is their first job experience. So when the College places an inexperienced student at a desk job so undemanding that they are able to study the entire time—what is Bowdoin teaching that student about work? We are—truthfully—still at a quite impressionable age; the jobs that students are placed in should attempt to reflect the reality of work life.
There are students who work and there are those who do not work. For some students, real life budget problems creep into the bubble of campus life. And while it is false to assume that everyone who works is busier than everyone who doesn’t, and that everyone who works is low income and vice versa, it is true that those who do not work are separated from a reality of life. Here’s a shocker: when people ask you what you want to do for a living in the future, they are referring to your job, because you need to work to live.
Students who do not work are privileged in not having to realize that reality until they graduate, and divisive privileges are not something we need more of at this school, or in this world in general. However, avoiding a job until graduation is not solely advantageous. Students who graduate from Bowdoin without having been employed are missing out on valuable work experience, time management improvement and development of essential life skills. There is not only a distinction between the unemployed and the employed at Bowdoin; there is also a distinction between students with busy, sometimes strenuous jobs and these with conspicuously relaxed jobs.

Doing it wrong: ‘Biddie’ battle: ditch the divisive term and find our commonality

Biddie. I had never uttered the term before arriving at Bowdoin, nor did I hear it all that much. Nevertheless, the term has become part of my daily vocabulary, even though I’ve never learned what it actually means.
After Googling the phrase “Bowdoin Biddie” with no real success, I searched for “College Biddie” and found a blog called “Biddie Lifestyle” which described to me the commonalities of biddies everywhere. Apparently, biddies wear leggings as pants, have iPhones, love glitter, pretend to know about sports when guys are around, and listen to Jason Derulo and Nicki Minaj. I am guilty of 3 of the above, yet never in my worst nightmares could I imagine anyone referring to me as a biddie. Unthinkable. Further research was needed.
I then found “biddie” in the Microsoft Word dictionary. After correcting my spelling to biddie (I will continue to use this spelling out of respect for Amherst President, Biddy Martin), Microsoft kindly explained to me that the term biddie (noun) is 1. “Same as chicken,” or 2. “an offensive term for a woman whose behavior is regarded as fussing or interfering.”
Pink, Nicki Minaj, glitter—the loud things, the bright things. These are the things that society condemns women for embracing, yet simultaneously conditions them to adore. For a woman to enjoy these things is to interfere with our social standards, but if she does not comply with these interests, she fusses with social norms. Unsurprisingly, there is no way out.
Urban Dictionary says that a Biddie is “gullible/easily tricked,” “does not remember the last weekend that did not involve a hangover,” and “dreams of being a woman from Desperate Housewives.” It is audacious to me that this term could involve so many intricately offensive assumptions, yet in reality is applied to so many women. I can’t remember the last time I looked at a girl wearing a sequined tank top at a college house party without “biddie” being the first thing that came to mind.
Where does one draw the line between biddie and non-biddie? It’s unclear, if not impossible. Because I listen to Bright Eyes and shamelessly detest football, does this make me a non-biddie? But I wear leggings as pants on occasion and I have an iPhone. Does this make me a biddie? This shouldn’t concern me. It shouldn’t concern anyone. We need to stop classifying women and pitting them against each other.
The term biddie separates women in a society where women should be finding their commonalities in order to fight against the oppression that is prolonged by the use of gendered and derogatory terms. Women are constantly mocked for what they are and what they aren’t. Instead of ridiculing women for having certain tastes, we should work towards a society in which women are comfortable to explore their interests.

Doing it wrong

Questioning the morality of LASO’s date auction

This piece represents the opinion of the author:

February 13, 2014

Last weekend, the Latin American Student Organization (LASO) hosted a Valentine’s Day Auction, during which, according to the student Digest, LASO would “auction off dates with more than 15 lovely Bowdoin students.” LASO is to be applauded for its effort to raise money for a very deserving organization, Safe Passage. Nevertheless, I think there is something inherently immoral about a date auction in general. This isn’t an attack specifically geared towards LASO. It is a critique of the date auction.

What does the term “date” invoke? Most people associate a date with free time, a fun experience, an activity over which one has autonomy. Now think of the word “auction.” What comes to mind? Sadly, because of this country’s history, we are often reminded of phenomena such as slavery and prostitution when we hear the word “auction.” We also think of objects. In an auction, the idea of obligation is involved. After an item is bought at an auction, it is required to be given to the highest bidder. Already, there is a contradiction in this term. A date that is sold in the context of a date auction is not really a date, because there is an element of obligation involved. There are definitely social pressures at play, as with all sorts of agreements. A date resulting from a date auction is more like a debt than a date.

At a date auction, people are bid on in exchange for money. When you buy a certain amount of time with someone, you are effectively putting monetary value on them. In a date auction, you are not only paying for a date, you are payng for a specific person. If you were just paying for a date, then the auction would be anonymous.

Being sold at a date auction is therefore a form of reification in the Marxist sense—the action of turning a person into a thing. As thoughtful members of society, we have to think about the psychological and societal consequences of putting a price tag on a person. What is even more distressing than the reification that occurs in the process of a date auction is the fact that when you sell someone’s time at an auction, you are essentially selling their rights for a period of time.
Besides putting monetary values on people, thereby degrading their worth to that of a commodity, a date auction also places comparative values on people. At an auction, people get sold at different prices. This is not necessarily a sinister thing—obviously different bidders have different economic means. Still, because money is a measure of worth in our society, the people up for auction leave with different values of worth. A date auction therefore serves as a mechanism of comparing the worth of people. I don’t think anyone should have to feel that they are worth less than the person standing next to them. It is intensely dehumanizing to place monetary value on someone’s personal attributes. How can it be acceptable for one to judge something like that?

The idea of a date auction may not be that shocking to people because our society thrives on the objectification of people. The reality of labor in our society puts a price on people’s time, and we see the attributes of people, especially women, objectified in the media all of the time. Even the word objectification itself has been normalized to the point that people gloss over accusations of it. However, a date auction is a very explicit form of objectification that cannot be ignored.

Comments are permanently closed.