Gender Representation in the Classroom

GENDER REPRESENTATION IN THE

CLASSROOM

A STUDY OF STUDENTS’ CREATIVE WRITING ASSIGNMENTS

Céline De Block

Studentennummer: 01503135

Promotor: Prof. dr. Gert Buelens

Masterproef voorgelegd voor het behalen van de Educatieve Master in de Taal- en Letterkunde. Academiejaar: 2019 – 2020

Table of Content

Corona Preamble ... 3

Abstract ... 4

Introduction ... 6

Set-up of the Research ... 8

The Lectures ... 9

The Writing Assignment ... 12

Results ... 13

Conclusion ... 24

Works Cited ... 28

Attachments ... 30

The Example Story ... 30

Stories from the Students from Group 1 ... 31

Stories from the Students from Group 2 ... 48

Corona Preamble

The measures that were taken for the corona-virus heavily impacted this study. The lectures were

supposed to take place on the twenty-fourth and the twenty-fifth of March, however, by this time, the

schools were closed and the lectures were replaced by online classes, a week later. The teacher had to

give them via Smartschool Live: an application which allows the students to see and hear the teacher, but

the teacher could not see or hear the students. Because of this, the interaction was limited to the bare

minimum and it was not possible to have an actual class discussion. It is therefore difficult to estimate the

influence that the lectures might have had on the students.

Furthermore, forty-one students were asked to participate in the study. However, only twenty-eight

students actually handed in the writing assignment. Because the classes took place a week before the

Easter break, and the school had implemented a rule that no teacher was allowed to give their students

homework during the break, I could not ask the students who had failed to hand in their task to rectify

this over the holidays. The circumstances had moreover already delayed their regular teacher’s

attainment of the curriculum goals, so I could not give these students an extra task after the Easter break

either. I was therefore left with only eight participants in the first group, and nineteen in the second. This

imbalance needs to be taken into account while interpreting the results.

Finally, this research was also supposed to contain an additional class in which the results would be

debriefed and the students could elaborate the choice of their characters and their views on the gender

division in a group discussion. But because of the postponement of the lectures, and the above

Abstract

Many studies have already confirmed the importance of gender representation in the classroom. The

gender of the students would influence the way teachers engage with them (Jarvis 173). Women’s

experiences are often marginalized in textbooks (Puentes and Gougherty 161). And overall, the idea that

the school-culture would be geared more towards boys is said to make schoolgirls feel unacceptable,

which may result in them becoming increasingly more timid as speakers and writers (Fredericksen 301).

The current study, however, did not just want to focus on how students are affected by gender

representation in the classroom, but rather find out how students would actively represent gender

themselves in their own writings tasks. And additionally: whether the teacher’s instruction might

influence them in their conception of gender roles.

The Slasher format (a subgenre of horror) was chosen as the subject of the writing assignment because

Slashers are often condemned for being highly sexist stories (Donnerstein et al. 113). Two test groups of

students each received a slightly different lecture on Slasher movies: in the first one, the format was only

illustrated by referring to a stereotypical example, namely: Halloween (1987). In the second group, the

students also saw scenes from Friday the 13

_{, a Slasher that shows women in less stereotypical roles (in}

this movie, there is a female murderer as well as a female victim who actively fights back). The objective

was to see what the gender division of the murderers and victims in the students’ stories would be, and

whether there would be a distinct difference between the first and the second group from being shown

different examples.

A first remarkable finding of the study, was that not a single male student in either the first or the second

group chose to write about a female murderer. Among the female students, the majority (eleven out of

sixteen students) depicted a male murderer in their story as well. There were slightly more students in the

second group who chose a female murderer compared to the first (four instead of one). This could

suggest that these students were influenced by also being shown a more progressive example of a Slasher

movie.

The study furthermore also looked at the division of the gender of the victims, and found that these

results overall seemed rather innocent. Both men and women were depicted as victims with about equal

frequency. However, the choice to have a male killer with exclusively female victims was the only format

that was chosen by at least one male and one female student in each group. When looking at the most

recurring themes of the stories, it is remarkable that the majority of female victims in stories with male

murderers were targeted because the murderer took a love or lust interest in the victim. This was not the

case in the stories with female killers and male victims.

This study does not ignore the possibility that these themes might reflect real-life tendencies that could

influence the students as well. However, due to the fictional nature of the writing assignment and the

creative liberty that was taken by the students in general, it does not seem persuasive that they wanted

to write a realistic story, and it is therefore still apparent that they adopt this gender division into their

creative writing too.

GENDER REPRESENTATION IN THE

CLASSROOM

A STUDY OF STUDENTS’ CREATIVE WRITING ASSIGNMENTS

Introduction

Gender awareness has been taking on an increasingly important role in our society. To quote Meryl

Kenny: “There is a growing recognition that innovative conceptual tools and methods are needed in order

to explore and understand gendered modes of interaction and to expose the ways in which seemingly

neutral institutional processes and practices are in fact gendered” (91). Considering this attention towards

gender in society at large, it is then all the more interesting to focus specifically on the representation of

gender in the classroom. On the one hand, of course, because the youth is our future: so studying their

perception of gender gives an impression of how gender awareness in general may shift in the future. But

also, because students are, arguably, at the point in their lives where they are at their most influenceable.

As a logical result, the question arises how teachers may influence their students’ beliefs.

Many studies have already been conducted to establish the significance of gender representation in the

classroom. According to Janet Jarvis: “classrooms serve as meeting places which provide safe spaces in

which to reflect on and challenge social norms, such as that of gender inequality” (172). However, the

teacher’s identity can substantially influence the classroom and, subsequently, the teaching-learning

process (Jarvis 173). Jarvis states that: “the findings of various research projects have shown that in

practice, teachers interact differently and often inequitably with their female and male learners” (173).

Jim Duffy et. Al. confirm that teachers tend to interact more with male students than with female ones.

They also explicitly mention that: “this […] was not the result of male students having initiated more

direct verbal interactions with [the] teachers” (Duffy et al. 579). Jennifer Puentes and Matthew Gougherty

then focussed on the representation of gender in textbooks, and determined that “[the] approach

commonly used in textbooks marginalizes women’s experiences” (161). Overall, school experiences often

reinforce a feeling of being unacceptable for girls, as the culture seems to have been created for boys

(Fredericksen 301). As a result, Elaine Fredericksen says that: “schoolgirls may become increasingly more

timid as speakers and writers” (301).

However, in this research, I did not just want to focus on how students are affected by gender

representations in their classroom: I wanted to find out how students would actively represent gender

themselves in their own writing tasks. Additionally, I wondered whether the teacher’s instruction might

influence them in their conception of gender roles. The choice was therefore made to set up two test

groups of students that would each receive a slightly different lecture prior to their writing task. In neither

classes would the focus lay on gender (as to not make it obvious to the students that I was intending to

influence them in this regard), but on the conventions of a specific subgenre of horror movies: namely

Slasher movies.

Slashers were chosen as the subject because they are often criticized for their blatant sexism, with some

critics even arguing that misogyny is a defining factor of the genre (Donnerstein et al. 113). The basic

format of these movies is very simple: a serial killer, often a maniac with a knife or an axe, murders a

group of people, until there is only one survivor left in the end. Most often, the serial killer is a man, who

“epitomizes masculinity to ludicrous extremes” (Rockoff 6). To quote Adam Rockoff: “He is not only tough,

he is immortal. He is not only strong, but powerful enough to string his victims up as human booby traps

for their horrified friends to find. He is not only aggressive, he is psychotic” (6). The victims are usually

attractive young girls who are being punished for their sexuality. The surviving victim is often an

outspoken virgin.

In the first test group, Slasher movies were only illustrated by referring to Halloween (1978): a very

stereotypical example of the genre. The killer, Michael Myers, is a textbook slasher villain. He is a

twenty-one year old man who targets teenage babysitters who are having sex, because his own sister neglected

him in favour of her boyfriend when she was supposed to be babysitting him. The surviving victim, Laurie,

explicitly complains about the fact that boys don’t like her multiple times throughout the movie.

In the second test group, the students were also shown excerpts from the movie Friday the 13

_{(1980). In}

this movie, the killer is a middle-aged woman who murders both male and female camp leaders. Her main

motive is revenge: her own son namely drowned because his camp leaders weren’t paying attention to

him. Sex however remains an important motive: as many of the victims who die are again shown to be

sexually active, while this is not the case for the surviving victim, Alice. But whereas Laurie, in Halloween

(1978) is a typical “scream queen” who – although she has some minor fighting scenes – mainly survives

because she runs around, screams, and is saved by a male hero who swoops in at the very last moment;

Alice is given more agency. She survives because she is able to outsmart the murderer and even defeats

her in a fight.

I subsequently gave both groups the same writing assignment: write your own Slasher story. I wanted to

see what the gender division of their characters would be, and which levels of agency they would

attribute to both male and female characters? Additionally, I wondered whether there would be distinct

differences between the first test group, who only saw the stereotypical example, and the students from

the second test group: who could be influenced by seeing a female murderer with a more emancipated

female victim.

Set-up of the Research

The test subjects that were chosen, were sixth-grade students from the Sint-Jozefcollege in Aalst. This

school teaches general secondary education only. The students whom I could give the assignment to,

belonged to the six economy-modern languages class, and the six science-mathematics class. The

lectures, however, were scheduled to take place on the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth of March, and

were cancelled due to the closing of the school under the Corona virus-measures. They were instead

replaced by online classes, a week later. This change of medium both provided a new opportunity for the

research, as well as posed serious limitations to it.

A positive change, is that the two separate class groups became mixed. The school namely required that

each online class was to be taught twice, so students who have to share their laptops with siblings were

able to follow along on different time slots. In other online classes, the students were allowed to choose

freely to which session they wanted to participate, but for this research, the students were asked to sign

up in advance and indicate whether they would only be able to follow the time slot of their preference, or

whether both slots would be an option. The students were subsequently divided into two groups of

nineteen and twenty-two students, about half of which belonged to the economy-modern languages class

or the science-mathematics class each time. Because of this, the concern that there would be a difference

in the level of the students of these different classes was neutralised.

A negative change, however, is that the personal interaction in these online classes was reduced to the

very minimum. The classes were namely taught via Smartschool Live: an application which allows the

students to hear and see the teacher, but a preliminary test determined that it was not feasible to ask the

students to put on their camera or microphone. The audio quality became too low to understand, and the

students were simply not willing to use their cameras.

As a result, the students could only react via the chatbox. In the classes that I had previously observed,

however, I had already noticed that this only led to a low amount of replies from the students. The

answers that they did provide, moreover, were mostly presented in short (often even one-word)

sentences. In an attempt to stimulate the students to participate more actively in my classes, I therefore

asked the first test group of students to send in their analysis of the movie fragments via collaboration

boards on Nearpod, but this proved not to be a viable option as many students were not able to follow

along due to internet connectivity problems. As the class progressed, I therefore had to switch back to

only using the Smartschool Live chatbox, and did not attempt the Nearpod collaboration boards again in

the second test group.

The Lectures

The classes started with a short introduction of the teacher-trainee (I had not previously taught these

students before), and the preliminary question: “What are some features that you associate with horror?”

to introduce the subject. The answers that were sent in, in both classes, were typical features such as

“blood”, “gore”, “murders”, “scary” etc. and did not include gender-specific elements.

I subsequently explained that we would be looking at a specific subtype of horror movies, namely Slasher

movies, and showed a PPT slide detailing the main features of the genre:

“Basic Slasher format:

-

A serial killer

-

A series of victims

-

One victim that is “different” and survives.

-

A hero that saves this final victim (= optional).”

I specified that Slasher serial killers always have a specific backstory which explains why the killer goes

after a specific group of victims, and illustrated this – in both classes – by referring to Halloween (1978). I

told them the backstory of the killer, Michael Myers, and explained that he targets babysitters because his

own sister gave more attention to her boyfriend when she was supposed to be watching the young

Michael. I then then showed both classes a short movie fragment where Michael’s three victims are

introduced: namely, Annie, Laurie and Lynda. In this movie fragment, Laurie is walking out of school,

carrying schoolbooks, and becomes upset when she realizes that she has forgotten one. While her friends

are talking about their boyfriends, Laurie complains that “guys think [she’s] too smart”. Lynda makes fun

of Laurie for being concerned about her books and continues to talk about her cheerleading practise, and

how she still needs to get her hair done. Annie, finally is shown to yell at a car that drives by too fast,

calling the driver a “jerk”. Lynda mentions that she thought the driver was cute. And Laurie is the only one

who seems frightened by the encounter.

When I asked the students which character they thought was more likely to survive, the majority of the

students guessed correctly that it would be Laurie. When I asked them why they thought this, they

mentioned that she was afraid, so she would be more careful. Another student also thought that she was

an “underdog”: because she looked like a nerd, she might actually be able to fight really well. Someone

also said that she was smart, and “wouldn’t fall for the killer’s tricks”.

After I showed the first group the video of how Laurie actually survives (when she faces the murderer, she

first struggles to escape from a room with a glass door, she then runs and screams. She is able to stab the

killer twice (once with a knitting needle, and once with his own knife) but finally, she is saved by an

external hero), I asked the students to summarize what they saw, and what they thought about Laurie

now. Four students worked together to retell parts of the events and two mentioned that they now

thought she was “pathetic” and “not as smart as I thought”, but a different student also emphasized that

Laurie did manage to stab the killer.

In the second group, the majority of the students guessed wrongly that Annie would be the one to

survive, because she’s “assertive”, and “looks like a fighter”. When I informed this group that it was

actually Laurie who survives, I also showed them the video and asked them the same questions as the

previous group. Two students again summarized what they saw, and one mentioned that she was “just

lucky” to survive.

In the first group, I then immediately gave the writing assignment after this. I had consistently made clear

throughout my lecture that Halloween (1978) was just used as an illustration of the Slasher movie

features. (“There is always a serial killer with a specific backstory, a series of victims that are targeted

because of a moral consideration, and one victim that is different from the others and survives.”) I had

not excluded the possibility that a woman could be the Slasher killer as well, but I had not explicitly

mentioned it either. In the second group, however, I did introduce a female Slasher killer as well.

After explaining that the surviving victims are granted their survival because of a moral quality, I explicitly

elaborated that Slasher killers could have multiple motivations to kill as well. I then showed them an

excerpt from Friday the 13

_{(1980). In this excerpt, the killer, Mrs Voorhees, a middle-aged woman,}

explains to the final victim that her son drowned ten years ago because his camp leaders weren’t paying

attention to him because they were too busy having sex. Like Laurie, the surviving victim of this movie,

Alice, is a girl who hasn’t been shown to have had sex throughout the movie. But unlike Laurie, Alice is not

saved by an external hero: she is able to outsmart and fight the killer herself. She runs into the woods, but

instead of screaming for help, she keeps quiet and hides, so the killer loses track of her. Alice then runs to

a shack with guns, but when it is revealed that the bullets have been removed for camp safety measures,

she fights her assailer with an axe and even succeeds in cutting her head off.

After viewing this excerpt, I again first asked the students to summarize what they had seen, and tell me

what they thought about this final victim. Alice was described as “strong”, “brave” and “clever”. I then

made the explicit comparison with Laurie as well: I explained that throughout the movie, Alice, like Laurie,

hadn’t been shown to have had sex, so her survival was motivated by her moral qualities as well. But I

also drew the students’ attention to the fact that Alice had been able to fight off the killer on her own,

and did not need an external hero to come rushing in at the final moment. I never explicitly referred to

the gender of the killer or the victims, nor did I mention how Laurie and Alice contribute more or less to

gender stereotypes. In my analysis of the movies, I kept the focus on the different ways to fill in a Slasher

plot with the given building blocks, and supposedly only showed the second movie as an illustration of an

alternative Slasher murderer’s motive to kill. I did not want the students to realise that gender was the

starting point for my research, or feel as if I wanted to steer them in a certain direction in their creating

writing task. But I did wonder if being presented with a female serial killer and a more emancipated

surviving female victim would influence the way the students created their own characters in the writing

assignment.

The Writing Assignment

As mentioned before, the writing assignment that was given to both classes, was formulated in the exact

same way. In my description, I also only used gender-neutral terms to refer to the possible killer of victims

of their stories, so the formulation of the writing assignment itself would influence them as little as

possible:

So now it’s up to you to write your own Slasher story! Please use the following writing frame:

• Start your story with the killer.

• Please describe all characters in detail: tell us what they look like, how old they are, what their personality is like, …

• Do not just copy that your killer is “pure evil”: specify which character traits your killer has. Be descriptive and precise.

• Include a short backstory for your killer. • Introduce the victim that survives:

• What separates this character from all the other (2) victims that were killed? Describe their looks, personalities and behaviours in-depth.

• Write about the moment of confrontation:

• The killer attacks the final victim. How, with which weapon, and what happens next? How does the victim survive?

I asked the students to use a fixed writing frame to provide support for the students that might have more

difficulties with a creative writing task. I also included an example story where I had re-written the plot

from Halloween (1978) according to the given writing frame. I hoped this way the students would be able

to focus more on their character design. I even explicitly told them that they were able to copy bits of this

example story if they got stuck in the writing process, but emphasized that I did find it important that they

create their own original protagonists.

I had intended to ask the students to write their stories in a Google docs document, so I could monitor

their writing process as they went along, but it turned out that this was not feasible. Many students

seemed to be unable to get into a creative flow right after the hour-long online class, so I decided to give

them some more time and asked them to only fill out a grid explaining who their protagonists were by the

end of the second hour. This way the students could write the full story on their own pace, but the

invention of the characters would still be as closely related to the previous lecture as possible.

Results

Although there were forty-one students in total in both classes, all of whom attended the online lectures,

only twenty-eight of them also finished the assignment. Since the deadline of the assignment had been

set on the last Friday before the Easter break, and the school had decided on a policy that teachers were

not allowed to give the students any homework during the holiday, I could not ask the students that did

not hand in their writing assignment to finish it on their time off. Additionally, since the circumstances

had already delayed the teacher’s attainment of the curriculum goals, I could not give the students who

had failed to hand in their writing assignment to rectify this after the Easter break either.

I was therefore left with only eight participants in my first test group, and nineteen participants in the

second group. While I realise that the imbalance of the test groups makes it difficult to correctly estimate

the weight of the results, I do want to draw some tentative conclusions based on the gathered data.

In the first group, there were three male students and five female students. All male students chose to

write about a male serial killer. Among the female students, four chose a male killer, and one chose a

female killer. In the second group, there were eight male students and eleven female students. Again all

male students chose to write about a male serial killer. While out of the female students, seven chose a

male killer, and four a female killer.

At first glance, I think it is remarkable that not a single male student in either group chose to write about a

female murderer. This shows that the male students are most susceptible to the gender stereotype of

toxic masculinity. If the story asks for an aggressor, they seem to find it self-evident that this position

should be filled in by a male character. This same tendency could be found among the female students:

out of sixteen female students in total, the majority (eleven students) chose to write about a male

murderer in their story. But there were also five female students who chose a female murderer. This

shows that – at least in this test group – it is slightly easier for female students to also envision female

characters in roles that subvert the stereotypical expectations of gender. Out of the two test groups,

there were also more female students who chose a female murderer in the second group. This could

suggest that these students were influenced by also being shown a more progressive example of a Slasher

movie during the preceding lecture. However, due to the imbalance of the number of female participants

in both test groups, it is difficult to conclude this with certainty.

Furthermore, the gender choice of the murderer is of course not the only way in which the stories can be

analysed: to proceed, it is also interesting to take a look at the gender division of the victims. To repeat:

the students were asked to select two victims that were to be killed, and one victim that would survive

the story. Arguably, the most sexist way to fill this in, would be either to have female victims only, or

female victims who die and a male victim who survives.

However, only the minority of students chose this format pertaining to the victims. In the first group,

there were only three students who wrote about a male murderer with exclusively female victims. (And

not a single student chose a man as the surviving character, when the two victims who died were both

women.) Out of the three students in the first group that chose female victims only, one student was

male, and the other two were female themselves.

It should be noted, furthermore, that the male student’s story was a parody on a teacher whom the

student actually knew. Although the students had been instructed to write about fictional characters, this

student, Tomas, only changed the surname of his protagonist, but kept the last name of the real teacher.

In the story, he was therefore still referred to as “mister X”. (I leave out the actional name in this paper to

guard this teacher’s privacy as well). This teacher had an actual reputation for being a “womanizer”. So

the fact that Tomas chose female victims can probably be more easily explained in the context of him

poking fun at this particular teacher, rather than an actual belief that women are easier victims. In

addition, the female victim who survived in his story also did so by her own merit, and did not fit the

typical Slasher format of the helpless “scream queen”.

However, it is remarkable, parody or no parody, that the reason why the male killer chose female victims,

was because they were seen as possible love interests. Similar motivations also return in the stories from

the female students who chose the same gender divisions. In the story of the first female student, Shania,

the killer was said to be obsessed by his deceased wife. Because the only thing that he had left of his wife

was a lock of hair, and he feared that one day he might lose this too, he started targeting women on

dating sites who had similar looking hair. In Shania’s story, the final female victim survived because she

had told her best friend where she was going, and this best friend called the police when the woman

didn’t return home. In addition, the victim also talked to the killer, telling him that “his wife wouldn’t

want this”, which bought her time until the police arrived.

In the story of the second female student, Juta, there is a male serial killer who kills flirty women, but

spares the life of his wife who truly loves him. The surviving woman, Helena, is characterised as: “Helena

had no fears and was a strong, confident woman who dared to confront Dan. She doesn't run away from

him because she's so convinced he's a good man who won't hurt anyone. Probably just because she's so

madly in love with him she can't see his dark side.” These are arguably modern traits for a woman: she is

said to be “strong” and “confident”, however Juta also specifies that “[Helena’s] house was always clean

and her clothes were very decent, in a blue jeans with a white top and grey socks she spent every day

taking care of her baby”, which are the more stereotypical traits of a good housewife. The women that

were killed, however, “just wanted to flirt and needed attention.” Juta furthermore writes: “Insensitive,

nonchalant, influential and impulsive women were his victims, they laid themselves at his feet. His victims

were easy and listened to what he asked them.” Without implying that the writer’s personal beliefs align

with those expressed in the story, of course, it is remarkable that there is a strong sense of victim-blaming

towards attention-seeking women. While this is a typical feature that often returns in Slasher movies, and

the students were also instructed to include the reason why the surviving victim is granted his or her

survival, Juta was the only participant in this research who played into the sexual morality of women.

If we then look at how the other students from the first group maintained the gender balance of their

stories: we see that there was one male student, Brent, who chose a male murderer who kills male

victims, but has a female survivor in the end. Another male student, Robbe, wrote about a killer who

targets orphans, but did not specify the gender of these orphans, and also neglected the instruction that

there should be a surviving victim in the end. Two female students, respectfully: Lotje and Anke, had a

male murderer kill both a male and a female victim. In Lotje’s story a male character survived, and in

Anke’s there was a female survivor. Finally, in the last female student’s story, that of Valerie, there was a

female murderer who solely targeted male victims.

These stories all build upon the conventions of Slasher movies as well, and make it clear that the surviving

victim distinguished him or herself from the others through moral values. However, it is less obvious to

trace these values back to gender stereotypes. In Brent’s story, it can be argued that the female victim

survives because of her typically feminine virtues: she is described as a compassionate woman who cares

for the murderer when he is wounded, while the other victims were cruel men. The emphasis on the

nurturing side of the surviving woman is a more stereotypical feature. However, she is not explicitly

compared to other women and in that regard is not posed as a direct example of how a good woman

should and shouldn’t behave.

In the stories from the other students, the motivation to kill is furthermore unrelated to gender-specific

stereotypes. In Robbe’s story, the killer’s mother died while giving birth to him because he was a

deformed monster baby. He therefore started killing orphans because he believed that they are

responsible for the death of their mothers’ too. In Lotje’s story the killer targets “women the age of his

mother”. Because his own parents died when he was a child and “he thinks it’s unfair that their children

have a mother and he doesn’t”. But he is also mentioned to kill at least one male child. The surviving

victim turns out to be his father whom he presumed dead, but had in reality only faked his death because

he had been in trouble.

In Anke’s story, the killer is said to have an inferiority complex from his childhood. When he opens up a

candy store, he can’t handle the fact that his customers are happy, so he kills spoiled children. The

surviving victim is a little girl who shares her candy with the killer. In Valerie’s story, finally, the killer was

an ugly girl who was bullied by two boys whom she then decided to kill. The surviving victim was also a

boy who bullied her, but told her that he regretted this and is therefore given mercy.

Although the choice of the gender of the victims seems to be fairly innocent in these cases, and no

notable changes can be observed between the male and female writers of these stories, it is however

remarkable that the female students of the first group had a larger tendency to romanticize the endings

of their stories. This is definitely unseen for the conventions of true Slashers. Both Anke, Lotje and Valerie

ended their stories with the killer becoming transformed by the love of their victims. Lotje mentions that

“his father’s love gives warmth back to his soul”, after which her killer decided never to kill again. Anke’s

killer, too, became redeemed after his final victim shared her candy with him and promised to be his

friend (he also only released her on the condition that they would remain friends afterwards). And

Valerie’s ugly killer, who turns out to have been under some sort of spell, even becomes beautiful after

her victim proclaims his love for him.

In the second group, there were four students who chose a male murderer and exclusively female victims.

One of these students was male, and the other three were again female themselves. (In this group there

were no students who chose a surviving male character paired with female victims that die either.) In the

story by the male student, Stefan, the killer takes pleasure in collecting the body parts of women and then

burying them alive (if they had not died during the procedure already, “which he considered a shame”).

Although this element is not present in his actual story, Stefan mentions in his character grid that the

women who were killed “were the classic housewives”, but the surviving victim, Anastasia Lebedev, was

“a brilliant mathematician and excellent writer”. In his story, like in Juta’s story from the first group, we

can thus deduct a direct commentary on the qualities of a ‘proper’ woman. However, rather than

commemorating the traditional housewife, like Juta did, Stefan actually decided that it were the “classic

housewives” who deserved to die. His surviving victim, Anastasia, was said in the character grid to

distinguish herself from the other victims through her intelligence. In the actual story, however, the killer

notices that Anastasia has heterochromia “which made her right student blue and the left one green just

like his mother”, and it is this resemblance to his mother “which prevented him from carrying out his

plan”. But it is still noteworthy that Stefan’s character grid pointed out Anastasia’s intelligence rather than

other stereotypical feminine character traits.

We then look to the stories written by the female students who chose a male murderer and female

victims. The women that die in Jill’s story are again very stereotypical. They are respectfully the killer’s

girlfriend: “a very sweet twenty-six year old woman […] with her blond hair and brown eyes”, and her

mother who is “a very kind and loving woman”. The woman who survives, however, “is a rebellious

twenty-six year old woman. She has black hair and uses a lot of make-up.” The killer, Mason, “sees that

they have a lot of things in common” and therefore spares her life.

In Maurane’s story, the killer fell in love with the beautiful Lucie: a girl with blonde hair and blue eyes who

worked at a circus. When she cheated on him, he killed her and then became obsessed with the feeling

that the murder gave him. When Lucie was replaced by Grace: a girl very similar to Lucie in looks, he

decided to kill her too, because he wanted to feel the same “kick” he had felt before. Grace was in turn

replaced by Alice: a girl with “short, curly brown hair”, who “had to grow up in an orphanage [and]

became a strong and independent woman who can take care of herself”. When the killer started to chase

Alice, she ran to the tigers’ cage and released them. Since “Alice trains the tigers so she knows what to

do”, the tigers only eat the killer, and Alice is saved.

In Birte’s story, finally, the killer had a twin sister who was his best friend. But the girl he dated bullied his

sister so badly that she committed suicide. The brother then decided to kill his ex and her best friend. The

final victim did not distinguish herself from the other victims through moral values: she was also said to

be a bully, but she looked like his sister. So her looks save her in the end, and the murderer decides to kill

himself instead.

Overall, the motivation of the murderers to kill their exclusively female victims in the stories in this second

group are very comparably to those of the first group: the killer always takes some form of love or lust

interest in his victims. Stefan’s killer namely takes a masochistic pleasure in dismembering women. This

can be seen as a direct form of objectification of women, as Dawn Szymanski et al. explain: objectification

occurs when a woman’s body or body parts are singled out and separated from her as a person. (7). In

Jill’s story, the killer turns against his loving girlfriend and her mother after realising that they are not

tormented souls like he is. Maurane’s murderer revenges himself on beautiful young women, because he

enjoys the “kick” of killing, and he doesn’t value his victims’ lives because they are all potential cheaters

to him anyway. Then, in Birte’s story, women are punished for being bullies, but it is still mentioned that

the killer had a relationship with one of his victims first.

Looking at the other stories where there was a male murderer, we see that there were three male

students: Tom, Bram and Mohamed, who chose to write about male victims only. There was also one

male student, Allan who killed-off two male victims in their story, but had a female character survive.

There were also six students in whose stories both male and female victims died (or victims of whom the

gender wasn’t’ specified). In four of these stories, there was a female victim who survived. Two of these

were written by male students: Stijn and Junior, and two were written by female students, Jolien and

Fleur. In the other two stories, there was a male survivor, and there were both a male writer, Diyor, as a

female one, Sien. Lore, lastly, wrote about a male murderer who killed male victims, but had both a male

and female survivor.

Tom’s protagonist was a war veteran who kills respectless young men. His surviving victim was a soldier

who managed to call the police and talked to the killer until they arrived. In Bram’s story, a video

game-obsessed young man killed a robber, but is specified that this wasn’t self-defence. His surviving victim was

just lucky that he was unconscious. Mohamed’s main character, then, was a man whose parents were

killed as a child. His first victim was the murderer of his parents, but he then took a liking to killing and

expanded to also targeting bullies. The victim who survived in this story was a child that had been bullied

himself, and which was rescued by the police.

In neither of these stories does the gender of the victims seems to play a deciding role in the plot.

Additionally, it is notable that none of the surviving victims in these stories are stereotypical hero-figures.

All of them are either rescued by the police, or survive through sheer luck. On top of that, Tom even

specified that the soldier who survived suffered from trauma due to the encounter with the killer, and “it

took years for [him] to deal with such a trauma”. This in itself is a remarkable addition to a horror story, as

they often take the agony that the victims have to endure for granted, and the stories simply end with

their survival. But in this story, it is especially commemorable that Tom attributes this trauma to a male

character, as especially the vulnerability of men in these types of stories is not often portrayed.

We then look at Allan’s story, where male victims died but a female character survived. Allan wrote about

a boy whose mother was killed by his father, so he murdered his father, and then a teacher that used to

bully him. The victim that survived was a girl he had a crush on, who managed to run away and shout for

help. Allan’s story thus distinguishes itself from the other’s by having the only love interest story survive,

but it is still remarkable how often the theme returns that the male character has the intention to kill a

woman whom he has feelings for.

Then the stories where victims of both genders died, but a female victim survived in the end: Stijn again

decided to have the murderer dispose of a group of bullies. The surviving victim looked like one of the

bullies that had been killed already, “but she was the nice and kind version”. She had never bullied the

murderer either. Although he did target her (he tied her to a chair and intended to torture her), she

managed to talk him out of killing her and even convinced the murderer to turn himself in.

In Junior’s final victim, too, survives by talking to the murderer. In this story, as in Friday the 13

_(1980),

the murderer targets camp leaders because his son died at camp. The final victim, Cynthia, however,

bursts into tears and says that she is innocent: “the other leaders locked her up in the toilets, so they

could have sex.” The murderer then starts crying too, and when at that moment a further unexplained

explosion happens, the murderer even saves her life by shielding her with his own body.

Jolien’s murderer is a bus driver who kills disrespectful children. Although it is said that this bus driver is a

serial killer who killed many children before, it should be noted that in this story however, the only victims

that will die by his hand is a group of boys. However, I did decide to classify Jolien’s story under the

category “male killer murderers victims of both genders” because the murderer does not seem to target

boys specifically. The two victims that survive, however, are two girls. They do not seem to be separated

from the other children through moral values: as one is specified to be a “slobby” girl. They both however

succeed in fighting the bus driver and then smash a window to escape. “Unfortunately, it was already too

late for the boys”, but the girls managed to escape.

In Fleur’s story, the killer is an autistic boy who was left by his father, but later encountered his father in

the park with another woman and a child. He decided to kill the father and the child (a little girl), but the

woman was able to overpower him and kill him afterwards. In the end, however, she decides that she

cannot live without her child and commits suicide.

Fleur’s story can be compared to that of Tom: as explicit attention is paid to the emotional toll of the

horror experience. Even though the woman manages to survive the ordain, she is unable to continue her

life as it was before.

As mentioned before, Diyor and Sien both had a male murderer kill victims of both genders, but unlike

Stijn, Junior, Jolien and Fleur, Diyor and Sien chose to let a male victim survive. In Diyor’s story, the killer

actually kills people whom he considers to be murderers themselves. His own son died in a motor crash

because a corrupt dealer sold him a bike with bad brakes. This dealer is of course the first victim. The

second one is a woman who murdered her own baby. But finally, there is also a doctor who had

misdiagnosed the killer: causing a terminal brain cancer to go unnoticed. When this doctor however

apologises, the killer realises that it was never this doctor’s intention to kill him, so he decides to let him

go, if he promises not to go to the police.

Sien wrote about an ex-police officer who was betrayed by a co-worker and turned to killing corrupt cops.

Although he kills both a male and a female corrupt cop, it should be noted that it is only specified of the

female cop that she fought back. The victim who survives is a good cop, and in the end, the killer

recognizes himself in this man and spares his life.

Lore, finally, had a male ex-military kill male drug cartel members and rebels. When the murderer fails to

locate the final rebel that he wants to kill, he tries to abduct his wife instead. This woman, however,

manages to spray hairspray in his eyes and flee. In the end, the murderer is not able to kill either the rebel

or his wife.

In general, the choice of the gender of the victims in the second group thus again seem to be rather

innocent. The motivation to kill is most often not directly linked to gender, and both male and female

victims are attributed various levels of agency.

To end the description of the gender division of the slasher stories, we also look at the students who

wrote about female murderers. As announced before: there wasn’t a single male student who chose a

female murderer for his story. In the second group, however, there were four female students who did.

Amaryllis and Sofia, first, chose exclusively female characters: both the killer, the victims who died and

the surviving victim were all women. Virginia wrote about a female murderer who only kills men, but

allows a woman to survive. And Liana, finally, bended the gender conventions of the slasher story: she did

not write about a serial killer, but staged a female killer who killed one man, but did not describe any

other victims.

Both Amaryllis and Sofia’s murderers were girls who wanted more attention. In Amaryllis’ story, the

murderer’s cousin had gotten famous due to an attack by a mysterious killer, “the pumpkin man”. The

jealous girl wanted to imitate this attack so she could become famous too. She succeeded in killing her

cousin’s mother and one of her friends, and tried to kill her cousin, so she could claim to be the only

surviving victim herself. However, her cousin managed to fight back and overpower her.

It is noteworthy, that although the killer of the current events is a woman (the previous “pumpkin man”

was an actual man: but the copycat is a woman), Amaryllis describes her actions with male pronouns until

the identity of the killer is revealed in the end. This is of course also a stylistic device to add to the

element of surprise when it turns out that the jealous girl is the killer, but it is also in line with the

conclusion that we can draw from the previous stories, that many students seem to see a male killer as

the default.

In Sofia’s story, the killer was bullied for being fat. She decided to kill popular girls, because “she wanted

to be and look like them, that’s why she couldn’t stand them”. The victim who survives is specified to be a

pretty girl, but a nerd. Yet she doesn’t survive because of any moral qualities, but simply because she

manages to fight the killer.

Virginia’s killer, then, was the victim of partner abuse. Her first boyfriend raped her, so she killed him.

However, her second boyfriend was actually described as a rather understanding and caring person.

However, due to her trauma, she wasn’t able to open up to him. She began to sleep with a knife under

her pillow because she was so afraid. Then one night, when her boyfriend simply wanted to hug her, she

became so shocked that “she put the knife straight through his skull”. She then immediately called her

female friend. This woman had been a rape victim as well and helped her dissolve the body and remove

the traces. The story ends by stating that “they moved in together and shared their hate against men”.

Virginia’s story, is in other words, the one that makes the most explicit statement about the importance

of gender in her story. She also provides an interesting twist on a theme that was already touched upon

by Tom and Fleur: how trauma can impact the character’s lives. But Amaryllis is the only one to describe

not just the trauma of the victims, but also how this can lead the victim to become a perpetrator herself

as well.

Liana, finally, says in her character grid that her killer will be the rich businessman, Demir, who is in love

with the beautiful Zaynab. However, as the story itself unfolds, Demir doesn’t actually murder anyone.

Instead of a slasher story, Liana wrote a more complex tale about love and jealousy. Zaynab namely has a

sister, Esma. An old man, Jassin, is infatuated with Esma, but because she has a boyfriend, he cannot be

with her. Jassin therefore murders Esma’s boyfriend. But when he subsequently tried to rape Esma, she

took an iron rod and killed him in self-defence. The businessman, Demir, entered the house at the same

moment, to look for Zaynab, and saw everything. He promised Zaynab and Esma that he would find

someone to take the blame so Esma would not have to go to jail, but in turn, Zaynab has to get engaged

to Demir. “Zaynab agrees to this as long as her sister can be free.” However, in the end, she cannot

manage to live like this and kills her fiancé.

Although this is not an actual Slasher story, it is interesting to see how Liana turned the clichés around: as

we saw that many students chose a male murderer who killed his female love interests, Liana decided to

instead write about what happens when these fight against being objectified.

Conclusion

To conclude: out of a class of forty-one students who participated in the lectures, only 28 students also

actually handed in their writing assignment. Eight of them belonged to the first test group, and nineteen

to the second. There were three male students and five female students in the first group, and eight male

students and eleven female students in the second group. In neither the first nor the second test group

did a male student choose a female character as their murderer. Among the female students, eleven out

of sixteen chose to write about a male murderer as well, however there were also five female students

who designated a female character to be the murderer of their story. Although there were more students

in the second group who chose a female murderer (five instead of one), which could imply that this group

was influenced by being presented an example of a female murderer during the lecture, the imbalance of

the number of (female) students in both groups makes it difficult to draw any definitive conclusions in this

regard.

In each case, the findings imply that the majority of students in these test groups still subscribe to the

traditional idea of masculinity and femininity, at least to a certain degree. The murderer is the protagonist

of a Slasher story, and the character that showcases the highest level or direct aggression. If the writing

assignment deliberately asks for a murderer, the instinct seems to be to attribute this role of aggressor to

a male character. This is also highlighted by the story of Amaryllis. Even though her murderer turns out to

be a woman, Amaryllis uses male pronouns to describe the character throughout the story and only

switches to female pronouns when her identity is revealed at the very end. By doing this, Amaryllis at

once emphasizes that her story entails an explicit gender role reversal, but she also reaffirms the idea that

most students seem to consider a man as more likely to be a murderer (as it is seen as an element of

surprise that the real murderer is a woman). In this research, however, we also looked at the division of

the gender of the victims. To give a clear overview of these findings, they are summarised in the table

below:

Although the choice of the gender of the victims seems to be fairly innocent, and there is no obvious

majority of students that chose exclusively female victims, it is however apparent that the format of a

male killer with female victims is popular in both groups. It is the only format that was chosen by at least

one male and one female student in each group.

Additionally, one theme in particular often circulated pertaining to a male murderer and female victims:

and that is the idea that these victims were (previously) love or lusts interests. The fact that these women

were love or lust interests is also often the direct reason for killing them. Within this theme, two opposing

tendencies surfaced: the women were either killed because they were condemned as superficial women,

or possible cheaters (as in the stories of Juta and Maurane), which suits the traditional Slasher format.

However, another student, Jill, also directly reversed this idea and had the murderer kill the “good

women” in favour of a “rebel” girl.

Although relationships also played a role in the stories with a female murderer, it is highly remarkable

that the male victims are never targeted because they are love interests, but rather, the opposite is true.

In Valerie’s story, the victim’s life is even saved because the killer falls in love with him. Liana’s protagonist

kills a man who forced her to marry him. And Virginia, finally, is the only student who had her female

murderer kill her male love interests: but it is specified that she killed her first boyfriend because he raped

her, and subsequently accidentally killed her second boyfriend in a trauma-induced reflex. So overall,

these motives are still very distinct from those found in the stories with male murderers.

This study does not want to ignore the possibility that these themes might reflect real-life tendencies that

could influence the students as well. However, due to the fictional nature of the writing assignment and

the creative liberty that was taken by the students in general, it does not seem persuasive that they

wanted to write a realistic story, and it is therefore still noteworthy that they adopt this gender division

into their creative writing too.

Moreover, it is also apparent that the female students who had male murderers kill female victims were

more likely to comment on the morality of the victims than the male students. Although Stijn did mention

in his character grid that his surviving victim would separate herself from the other women who were

killed through her intelligence, this is not actually elaborated in the story itself. Here, the killer only

changes his mind about killing her because her eyes resemble those of his mother. The other male

students who had a male murderer target a female love interest furthermore did not comment on the

morality of these women, nor did they compare different “types” of women to one another to imply that

one is superior. (E.g. Allan simply wrote that his murderer has a “crush” on a girl and subsequently

targeted her as a victim. But the personality of this girl is not elaborated.) As mentioned before, multiple

female students who chose the same writing format did compare different types of women to one

another and so implicitly commented on their idea of a “proper” woman. Although further research is

still necessary to correctly estimate the way in which a teacher could contribute to this, the findings of the

present study thus suggest that (especially female) students do see stories as a space where the position

of women is negotiated. To then refer back to the researches that were already mentioned in the

introduction of this paper: where it is stated that textbooks often marginalize women’s experiences, I

would suggest teachers to be aware of how this might influence their students, and recommend to use

more examples in which women are shown in various roles.

Works Cited

Using MLA formatting:

Primary sources:

Halloween. Directed by John Carpenter, 1978.

Friday the 13

_{. Directed by Sean Cunningham, 1980.}

Secondary sources:

Donnerstein, Edward et al. The Question of Pornography: Research Findings and Policy

Implications. New York, The Free Press, 1987.

Duffy, Jimmy et al. “Classroom Interactions: Gender of Teacher, Gender of Student, and

Classroom Subject.” Sex Roles, vol. 45, no. 9/10, 2001,

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/

10.1023/A:1014892408105.pdf

. Accessed on 8 June 2020.

Fredericksen, Elaine. “Muted Colors: Gender and Classroom Silence.” Language Arts, vol. 77,

no. 4, 2000,

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41483069

. Accessed on 8 June 2020.

Janet, Jarvis. “Reflections on Gender Identity in a Safe Space for Transforming Classroom

Praxis.” Journal for the Study of Religion, vol 27, no. 1, 2014,

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/24798875

. Accessed on 8 June 2020.

Kenny, Meryl. “Gender, Institutions and Power: A Critical Review.” Political Studies

Association, vol. 27, no. 1, 2007,

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-9256.2007.00284.x

. Accessed on 20 May 2020.

Puentes, Jennifer and Matthew Gougherty. “Intersections of Gender, Race, and Class in

introductory Textbooks.” Teaching Sociology, vol. 41, no. 2, 2013,

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43187352

. Accessed on 8 June 2020.

Rockoff, Adam. Going to Pieces: The Rise and Fall of the Slasher Film, 1978-1986. Jefferson,

McFarland, 2016.

Research.” The Counseling Psychologist, vol. 39, no. 1, 2011,

Attachments

The Example Story

Some people believed Michael Myers was the boogeyman. In each case, it was easier to believe that he was a monster than a man. He was tall and mighty. And although he was only twenty-one years old, his robust figure and slow, rigid movements, made him seem immortal. According to his psychiatrists, Michael had always been evil. Moreover, he was emotionless, and lacked even the most rudimentary sense of right or wrong.

Michael committed his first murder when he was just six years old. On Halloween 1957, he had been left in the care of his sister, Judith. But instead of babysitting Michael, Judith invited her boyfriend over as soon as her parents left. The young Michael, enraged by this neglect, drew a knife and waited until the boyfriend left. Then, he crept upstairs, slowly made his way to his sister’s bedroom. And when he found her, sitting at her desk with her back turned to him, he stabbed her to death.

The boy was subsequently locked up in a mental hospital for fifteen years. And when he finally escaped, he was dying to kill more young babysitters.

Laurie Strodes would have become his third victim. But she wasn’t reckless, like the others. Lynda, e.g., had been a typical cheerleader. The only things she cared about, were her looks, boys, and how boys thought she looked. And with her long legs, and blonde hair, she had never had any issues to attract boys. She was head-over-heels in love with her boyfriend, Bob. So badly, she even convinced her friend, Annie, to let her use the house Annie was babysitting in to secretly meet up with Bob. Annie didn’t mind this, though. She only ever started babysitting to have a place to meet up with her own boyfriend, Paul, anyway.

Laurie was the only one who truly cared about kids. Her responsibilities were important to her, and because of this, she had always been a misfit. You could even see this in the way she was dressed. While her friends wore tight jeans, Laurie chose a long skirt, combined with white socks, which made her look horribly outdated. It was no wonder no one ever asked her out. Boys thought she was too smart, so Laurie was always stuck at home.

This was also the case the night Michael Myers attacked. She was babysitting little Tommy, when suddenly she saw the lights go out at Annie’s place across the street. At first, she thought this just meant that her friends were having fun with their boyfriends. But when time passed, and the lights didn’t go on again, Laurie grew suspicious. She tried calling Annie, and then Lynda, but when neither picked up, she decided to go over to their house herself.

Never had Laurie expected that a murderer would be waiting for her here. As soon as Laurie entered the house, Michael swung at her with his knife. By sheer luck (or not?), he missed. The shock caused Laurie to fall down the stairs, but at least this way, she was able to escape. She ran home as fast as her legs could carry her, screaming the whole time as Michael slowly approached her, and hid behind the couch.

It didn’t take long for Michael to break into her house, however. As Laurie was hiding behind the couch, he swung at her again with his knife. But this time too, he missed. Laurie grabbed one of her knitting needles, and stabbed him in the neck. Believing Michael to be dead, Laurie ran upstairs to get Tommy. But the coast wasn’t clear yet. As Laurie is hugging Tommy, Michael appears behind her yet again. Laurie yells at

Tommy to run outside and flee and is caught by Michael herself. He is about to finally kill her, when out of nowhere, Dr. Loomis - Michael’s psychiatrist - comes to save the day. Alarmed by Tommy’s screaming, the doctor figured his patient had to be inside the house, and arrived just in time to shoot him before Michael was able to strangle Laurie.

Stories from the Students from Group 1

Name student: Tomas De Landsheer

So now it’s up to you to write your own Slasher story! Please use the following writing frame:

• Start your story with the killer.

• Please describe all characters in detail: tell us what they look like, how old they are, what their personality is like, …

• Do not just copy that your killer is “pure evil”: specify which character traits your killer has. Be descriptive and precise.

• Include a short backstory for your killer. • Introduce the victim that survives:

• What separates this character from all the other (2) victims that were killed? Describe their looks, personalities and behaviours in-depth.

• Write about the moment of confrontation:

• The killer attacks the final victim. How, with which weapon, and what happens next? How does the victim survive?

Word count: between 500 - 700 words.

Because I have an appointment in 15 min, I’ll just be able to make a listing of my characters.

Who is your killer?

The killer is called Filip Buys. He’s a wreaklace religion teacher in a secondary school in the city centre of Aalst. Filip is about 30 years old and is slowly getting in his mid-life crisis. He’s desperately looking for a wife to treat him like he was treated during his youth. If he dates a girl, but the girl decides that she doesn’t like him, Buys gets in action. You’ll know what happens next.

Off course like girls that are very popular and attractive.

Who is the victim that survives?

What separates this victim from the other victims that were killed? (Also describe 2 other victims).

Emma is a true surviver. She’s the one that get Buys into a decoy.

Emma is more attentive and comes with the cunning plan to ask Filip for a dining evening at a local restaurant. There she uses poison to instantly kill Filip.

MY STORY:

Filip Buys was a religion teacher in the last year of a secondary school. His pupils always liked him

because he was the only teacher at came under the age of 40. Filip understood his pupils en could keep up with all of the technological changes in school. In fact, not everyone liked him. What most off the youth knew, was that Sir Buys never had any successful relationship. Don’t get me wrong, Filip was a real man. What want to declare, is that Filip likes attractive women and dating with them.

The pupils never knew much about his dating live, as it should be for a teacher. Therefore they also didn’t knew Filip’s bad trait. Once a girl declutched Filip, he would get severely angry. In fact, it’s that bad that he would lock up these girls and starve them to death! A girl, dating Filip, was doomed to death.

Kate and Margaret were the 2 most attractive girls in school. Not only were they incredibly hot, they were also the most popular girls of the whole 6th grade. Just like all the other rhetoricians, Filip was their religion teacher. He got along very well with the girls. Just after their prom, he asked both of them to have a drink together. Both Margaret and Kate agreed, but both under 1 condition: They’ll go in one group.

I assume everyone knows how the things went in the pub. Buys kept offering drinks to the girl. It was great fun. they danced until the early hours. Kate her last Passoa was a deadly one. She got sick. As kindly as Filip was, he offered Kate a place to sleep. Margaret didn’t trust the affair at all, so she decides to go along with the twosome. Filip had a nice mansion just outside the city border. Everything went along very well, and the treesome eventually went to sleep at Filip’s place.

The next morning, both Margaret and Kate were extremely hangover. Buys offered to stay until the afternoon, but the girl wanted to go home because they started to feel anxious about Filip. When the girls decided to pack their stuff, Filip grabbed them en kidnapped them.

Now the girls are trapped in the basement of Filip. They didn’t have any hope and eventually famished. Filips next victim was called Emma.Emma has a beautiful appearance and that did not go unnoticed for Filip. What Buys did not knew, was that Emma suspected everything that had happened to Kate and Margaret. She was a very cunning and attentive lady. To give it a twist, it was Emma that asked Filip out after the exams of June! Buys absolutely could not say no to that. They went to a local burger

restaurant.There was a nice atmosphere, there was good music, they had ordered a good bottle of red wine and the evening seemed to turn out to be a real dream for Filip. However, nothing was further from the truth, it would be his last supper for Filip. Emma had taken a sample with poison from chemistry class. When Buys went to the toilet after a few glasses of wine, Emma struck. She first filled her own glass with wine and then put the poison in the rest of the bottle. When Buys sat back down, she offered to refill his glass. Then they would supposedly be on the same level for the rest of the evening. She poured the glass from Filip. It took up to an hour for the poison to take effect. Buys had fallen into her trap. After an hour and a half, he died of a heart attack.