10. Here Comes Spiderman, the Arachnophobian: Halloween and Constructions of Gender
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Holidays are celebrations, symbolism, and cultural traditions combined. Halloween allows for individuals, for one night a year, to transform themselves and enter a fantasy world (Kugelmass, 1994). However, upon further critical examination, this rhetoric of Halloween as a harmless, imaginative, and liberating experience undermines the critical reflection of the negative impact of many of the Halloween traditions. The Halloween ritual perpetuates social constructions of gender, which reflects society’s gender inequality and heteronormativity. During Halloween celebration, exaggerated gender stereotyping is acceptable and is thus reinforcing these norms without critical examination. Themes, paraphernalia, rituals, and costumes, under labels such as ‘Halloween’, ‘tradition’, or ‘holiday’ are symbolic and hold much power. This research seeks to deconstruct these meanings in order to argue the effects they have on the reproduction of gender norms and stereotypes as well as heteronormativity. Halloween has a lot to do with visual representation. Often, this visual representation during Halloween celebration “…reproduces and reiterates more conventional messages about gender (Nelson, 2000). In the process of ‘celebration’, these messages about gender are given the opportunity to manifest themselves. Rarely do those partaking in these rituals critically examine the broader implications to gender stereotyping and inequality as well as heteronormativity and homophobia. Areas of study that will be discussed in the process of arguing these statements include gender (norms, roles, stereotypes, deviance, and sexuality), media, culture, consumerism, fashion, celebrations, and rituals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".