Feminism as Archetype for Overcoming Prejudice - Essay Example

Option 2: “Trifles” Feminism as Archetype for Overcoming Prejudice “Trifles,” by Susan Glaspell, is a one-act play that illustratesthe archetypal theme of feminism to offset the patriarchal society and prejudice that is placed upon women because they are considered less than men in all aspects, including intelligence. Feminism and the feminist criticism that followed has often served as a foundation for understanding an oppressed subculture. More importantly, “Trifles” illustrates the camaraderie felt between women, despite their backgrounds, and raises questions about how important such solidarity might be within a culture that needs a certain level of justice to survive. With that said, a close look will be taken in Glaspell’s “Trifles” to illuminate the portrayal of women within a patriarchal society and define how those women work together to overcome their oppression, even though their choices may not have been the best in regards to actual justice. To begin with, “Trifles” is about two women, Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale and the discoveries they make about a Minnie, a woman wanted for the murder of John Wright, her husband. They find conclusive evidence of her guilt, but are sympathetic to Minnie, whom they both see as the victim in the situation. But what, then, is the purpose of justice if women like Minnie can kill whomever they please without consequence? The truth is that Minnie may or may not have been a victim of her situation. She may have had reason to kill John, but there is no real evidence to suggest that she couldn’t have reasoned with him and gotten out of the relationship. Perhaps John was an extremely violent man who would never have let her leave and who would have continued to abuse her for the rest of her life until she was finally killed herself. Or maybe, Minnie was seeing things in the relationship that weren’t as bad as she believed and she could have found a different route for resolution. The plot is frustrating in that the men are portrayed as cold hearted investigators who care nothing about Minnie’s potential reasons for the murder, or that she might have done so out of self defense or to save herself from a situation she felt she couldn’t control or escape from. This is maddening for a reader because both sides have clear reasons for viewing the situation as they do, and both sides are ultimately correct in their assumptions. Where the women take the sympathetic route, the men take the analytical route, and both come to the same conclusions about Minnie; it is the execution of her justice, however, where the two sides differ. Because Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale believe Minnie to be guilty but are more sure of her guilt due to being a victim of her situation, they find themselves trapped in the moral dilemma of whether or not to help her or to hand her over to the proper authorities. One thing that “Trifles” achieves is to grant the reader enough information to be taken on the morality trip with Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale as well. Evidence for both sides is presented, and though there is a clear bias as to whether or not the men should be trusted because of their callous and over-bearing nature, a reader has to question their own resolve as to what they would do if placed on either side. To take the feminist route and let Minnie go free, or to punish Minnie for murder, despite whatever led her to commit the act. More, to choose to side with the men leaves the clear impression that such a choice is wrong because of the archetypal manner in which the women are defined. The men are almost cruel in their analytical natures and are described as showing almost zero empathy in their placement of justice. On the opposite side, the women are defined as creatures of pure empathy, sympathetic to the wounded creature of Minnie, willing to help her because she is a human being in pain in need of assistance. It is a jarring sensation, to feel confident in both sides, yet knowing that neither is exactly right. True justice should take both emotion and analytical study of the evidence to exact a punishment based upon the crime. Now, murder is fairly extreme and if the situation had been reversed, if John had murdered Minnie, for example, the story would have been told in an entirely different manner. John would not have been seen as the sympathetic character, the victim of his situation. He would have been seen as the man who murdered his wife and justice would have been exacted accordingly. And truthfully, the women would still have been on Minnie’s side—touting her beauty and worth as a human being, struck down before her time by a monster. Ultimately, it is in this where the pure archetypal value crafted by Glaspell comes in. The situation cannot be reversed for the feminist metaphor to be as striking. More, the situation would never be reversed because of the inherent nature of women and their bond for solidarity within the gender. Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale would never have taken John’s side because it goes against the feminist nature of the play and the value system in place for women to function with a gender bond. Also, the men in charge of the investigation, had John been the murder suspect, probably wouldn’t have changed one iota. There response would have been exactly the same because of their inherent patriarchal nature for analytical justice. More, Glaspell focuses on a certain portrayal of men, “who often play a vital role in the writer’s ongoing argument of cultural determination versus personal freedom” (Carpentier and Ozieblo 15). Essentially, Glaspell uses her male characters to highlight the gender differences between male and female and how those differences can be paralleled by situational decisions. She uses the male figures as the counter-opposite of the females, showing the males as strong and critical and the women as compassionate and emotional. Further, Glaspell’s illustration of the analytical male as a “depiction of the male predicament as both parallel to and differing from the women’s situation considerably complicates her comment on the human condition” (15). For feminism, Glaspell is taking a backward motion for her readers. It seems, from the stereotypical way in which her characters interact, that they are static and unchangeable, the men will always be critical and analytical and the women will always be emotional and compassionate. Looking at “Trifles” today, it might be received by a more welcoming audience because more women, and men, are sympathetic to the empathy granted by the feminist movement. For a long time people believed feminism was about hating men because they couldn’t see the value in women; but it’s not that at all. True feminism, at its core, is about gender equality—about accepting both men and women for what they are capable of achieving while turning a blind eye to gender. In this, “Trifles” does open some doors to the empathetic nature of women that some men do not possess. However, what it also achieves is to perpetuate the stereotype that women are swooning empathetic idiots incapable of actual justice and that all men are calculating and cruel, unable to accept the signs of a human being in pain. This is where Glaspell’s attention to the archetypal insertion of feminism may have gone a bit too far. What she should have done is a meeting of the minds, of allowing both genders to come together with the abilities and emotional input they had to offer to form a more coherent and more factual perception of justice. In this, neither side is correct, and it is in this moment of realization that a reader might question the validity of either side’s rationale. More, “Glaspell [should be] damned, in fame and sales, for what she did not do, namely, fit the paradigm of today’s ‘women's novel,’ the supermarket romance novel, whether Harlequin or another brand, in which the heroine’s ultimate goal is getting the hero to take care of her” (Makowsky 5). This is where Glaspell’s attention to the gender stereotype does no justice for actual gender equality, which, as a feminist writer, she should have paid more attention to in order to avoid perpetuating the stereotypes. As a feminist writer, she chose to take the archetypal emotional woman and make her the opposite of the critical male, leaving no room for character growth and leaving the reader with the taste of gender equality to the very end. Glaspell also perpetuated gender stereotypes by utilizing symbolism throughout the play. Minnie represented the traditional put-upon female, who marries an over-bearing man and who is then never able to do anything with her life other than to care for him. Anything for pleasure was regarded as negative and John made it clear that she wasn’t to stray from his demands. This alone, was probably the reason that Minnie struck out against her oppressor. And in this, Minnie represents what many women today also represent: the tragic female who marries and then becomes nothing more than a stereotypical wife to her husband. Instead of murdering her husband, it would have been nice to see Minnie take steps to end her oppression in a less violent manner. Because, in doing so, she was still bound by the rules of her oppressor. Killing him meant momentary escape from his bonds, but killing him also meant she would be forever tormented by the act of aggression, and may be sentenced to life in prison for her crime. Had she found another way, maybe through counseling or through speaking with her husband in honest terms that she felt her was being over-bearing, perhaps Minnie could have achieved true freedom from her male oppressor. Further, Minnie was the broken woman, tied forever to the only things in life she was allowed to touch: the kitchen and her sewing. Just as a kitchen feels the heat of a warm stove, so too would Minnie have felt if she had a healthy relationship with her husband. The most important symbol a reader can take from “Trifles” is Minnie’s spirit and moment of defiance. She is broken by her marriage, turned cold by the lack of love and ultimate oppression imposed by the rule of her husband, and in a moment of realization, she struck out at him to take his life—the one thing she felt she had control over. Minnie’s spirit, at this moment reached a level of transcendence that complacency wouldn’t make her life any better, and that for change, she needed to take immediate action. However, she chose the wrong path in escaping from her oppressor and for that, she will continue to pay for the rest of her life, whether or not justice was extracted for her crime. Overall, Susan Glaspell’s “Trifles” offers an ideology of feminism and the differences between the male and female as a gender that leave much open for discussion. The play isn’t so much about the actual plot and events in that Glaspell’s attention to stereotypical conventions gives a reader opportunity for interpretation of gender differences and the value of the use of feminism as an archetype to highlight the oppression women feel in a patriarchal society. Ultimately, Glaspell’s vision is tainted by the feminist movement of her day, focused then, one can assume, on the oppression felt by women; in comparison to the movement of today where both men and women seek gender equality based upon their ability for achievement. What Glaspell teaches is that people are not as cookie-cutter as she has defined within her play. One cannot look at the male gender and assume they will act purely upon critical analysis and instinct while the female as a gender will always act upon their emotional logic and compassion. Works Consulted. Carpentier, Martha C., and Barbara Ozieblo, eds. Disclosing Intertextualities: The Stories, Plays, and Novels of Susan Glaspell. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2006. Print. Makowsky, Veronica. Susan Glaspell's Century of American Women: A Critical Interpretation of Her Work. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Print. Read More