Feminist Inquiries in Trifles - Essay Example

Feminist Inquiries in Trifles In Susan Glaspell’s Trifles, a one-act play written loosely around the murder of a man by his wife, Glaspell examines the male and female perspective in terms of understanding crime. Glaspell’s play is unique in that it offers a true parallel between the male and female perspectives, leaving the audience to ponder which side is the moral choice. With that said, a close look will be taken into the male and female perspectives of Susan Glaspell’s Trifles to highlight the parallel between the two perspectives and illustrate the means by which women, in attempting to thrive in a patriarchal society, might make choices that defame their gender. Trifles is a unique play in that Susan Glaspell’s time spent as a reporter earned her information on the murder of real-life John Hossack, who was reportedly murdered by his wife, Margaret Hossack, via an axe to the head while he slept (Wright 228). Just as in the play, Margaret (named Minnie in the play itself) was given close study and it was discovered that she was clearly unhappy in her marriage, which prompted the gruesome murder of her husband. The women immediately take to Minnie, because they are sympathetic to their female counterpart, proclaiming her innocence because she was clearly abused by her husband, while the male characters, out of their pure lack of emotion, cite Minnie as clearly guilty, and reasons aside, is guilty of her husband’s murder. There are two ways with which an audience can view Trifles. First, they can take the side of the female characters. The feminist perspective has circled their wagons around poor Minnie and fought for her innocence as the brutalized wife who had no other choice. On the other hand, a reader could take the male perspective, viewing the harsh realities of the case and blatantly accusing Minnie of murdering her husband in cold blood—if she was so abused, why had she never come forward, and more, why had she never left him? It was absurd, from the male perspective to relegate Minnie as anything other than a cold-blooded murderer who should be well punished for her crime. With that said, a close look will be taken at both the male and the female perspective to determine which path for justice may have been the proper one. Glaspell has chosen a unique plot device by utilizing a “judicial examination of the facts to give textual representation to the reality of the [feminist] experience” (Wright 225). Within the play, it is clear, despite the male or female perspective, that something is a tad awry with the legal system. Being a married woman seems to add a level of repulsivity to the crime, making Minnie’s alleged murder even more reprehensible. Thus, it would seem, that Minnie is set for prison simply because she is a married woman. Now, from this factor, the women in the play circle their wagons and pledge a quiet solidarity to Minnie—they understand the difficulties of being married, and while they too believe she is guilty, they are truly sympathetic to the conditions of the crime itself. The women believe that Minnie is inherently innocent because she was abused by her husband who had no respect for her in their marriage, and more, he was a man who wouldn’t allow Minnie to become anything other than a housewife. While it may or may not have been her intentions to take up additional hobbies, the fact was that she wasn’t allowed to be anything more than what John decreed. This, in and of itself, gave the women of the play enough reason to declare Minnie’s innocence based upon the situations of her home-life. More, the purpose of Glaspell’s prose does much to illustrate the “injustices of a legal system which was unsympathetic to the social and domestic situation of the married woman” (Wright 225). While much can be said about the staunch and unrelenting view of the patriarchal perspective, in truth, the men are more at fault in their utilization of the justice system to punish the guilty based upon their beliefs. Minnie stands accused of murdering her husband “and parallel to [this] legal plot lies a complex story of female revenge in the absence of justice” (Wright 226). This is the moment where the feminist perspective allows for revenge against their oppressor. For the women of the play, Minnie was well within her rights (although she took the most violent form possible) in taking revenge against her husband. For all intents and purposes, she was abused for the majority of her marriage, and situations came to a head where she simply couldn’t stand to live with John any more. Because she had developed a fear of her husband, as the ruler of their home, she chose to murder him because then, in her mind at least, he wouldn’t be able to harm her any more. On the other hand, the male perspective understands John’s decree for Minnie to be the quintessential housewife. For them, this is the perfect scenario. For Minnie to then rebel against such a situation, puts them at risk within their own home lives for wanting the same things as John. The male perspective, here, is the need for a strong woman at home—to do the chores and to make them meals, and to understand the hardships of their day. She cannot be strong in any other facet, and more, if she is, she has become a threat to their home environment and must be taken care of before things get worse; for example, she rebels. Further, in looking at the plot of the story itself, a reader can see that not only is this a tale of feminist versus male perspective, but it is written from the perspective of those who have nothing to do with the intricacies of the legal system, “in this instance, women—and how they react when that legal system is about to destroy one of their own” (Angel 229). In this case, because they have no means for which to defend their fellow woman, they take a stand in the only manner that they can and fight to declare her innocence without spending much time on the events of the crime itself. They were, perhaps literally, the first feminists in literature to observe the protection of their fellow woman for the sake of protecting their own gender. While much of their ideology still needing working out, the basis for the foundations of feminism had begun. Women needed to protect each other from the patriarchal society of men who literally gave women no choice, and no options, because they were considered the lesser gender. Glaspell was a woman of feminist belief far before her time. It wouldn’t be for another fifty years or so until the feminist perspective took off. But her words are that of the foundations of the feminist perspective in which she defined the “[empowerment of] women to take actions together which they could not take as individuals…they could act out of a new respect for the value of their lives as women, different from, but certainly equal to, the world of men” (Marsh 201). Most importantly, the women in her play prove their sovereignty to their gender, circling their wagons around a woman in need irregardless of the situation. They see a woman in trouble and they take her side, taking a stand against the patriarchal society that harmed her in the first place. The author of the article brings up the parallel between Trifles and the film Legally Blonde that was released in 2001. In fact, both works define the “the importance of sisterhood, the need to provide options for disadvantaged or abused women, and the destructive potential of the objectification and devaluation of women by men” (Marsh 201). Both the film and Glaspell’s play utilize the ideology of feminism to observe the patriarchal society in which women are still, well into the twentieth century, castigated by men as the lesser gender. The interesting twist in both Trifles and Legally Blonde is that “the key evidence in both cases is precisely the evidence that the men overlook” (Marsh 202). In Legally Blonde, the men have literally no idea about the workings of feminine beauty and would have overlooked the rules of perm maintenance. While in Trifles, the men also have literally no idea about the significance about the loaf of bread forgotten, the messy kitchen table, or even the missing pet canary. In a study of feminist literature (or film), these are the keys that connect all plot lines, and these are the elements that the male characters, because of their entirely unemotional and uncaring natures would have completely overlooked because they wouldn’t know the significance of such things. This is where the women gain a sense of empowerment, and more, this is where the power of the feminist perspective takes hold of a reader and allows them to see another side to the legal case. More, “the differences signal a newer concern not found in Glaspell's work: the exclusivity of a narrowly defined feminism that leads to the objectification and devaluation of women by other women” (Marsh 202). This is an interesting facet to the ideology of feminism in that women protect and provide solidarity for other women on the basis of their gender, again, irregardless of what their crime might have been. This signals a lack of intelligence, actually, and highlights the fact that women are choosing the feminist perspective with the underlying current of hating men, and not on defining the genders as truly equal. The ultimate purpose of feminism should be gender equality, and at its foundation, it should function as a guideline for both genders to understand the value in the other. Overall, Trifles is a unique take on the feminist perspective and allows a reader to interpret the good and bad of both genders based upon their actions when a woman is accused of murder. In this, Glaspell does much for the foundations of feminism in that she has set up the boundaries for women to find solidarity within those of the same gender, irregardless of the situation. If one compares Trifles to a work of a similar theme, such as Legally Blonde, the audience can see that not much has changed in terms of the male perspective and the power of the patriarchy within society. Even today, almost a hundred years after Trifles was published, the ideology stands the same. Women must stick together, irregardless of the situation, because the male perspective is unable to fundamentalize the most significant factors of the events at hand because they are unable, as men, to rationalize the importance of certain elements. In conclusion, Susan Glaspell’s Trifles is a unique take on the feminist ideology and offers an audience the opportunity to analyze the choices of both the male and female perspectives and choose for themselves which path would have been the wisest. After taking a close look into the perspectives of both genders, one can see the means by which the feminine perspective, in fighting so hard against the patriarchal views of their society, make choices that demean their intelligence because they sought solidarity in a male-dominated world. Trifles is the perfect form for examination of the feminist perspective in parallel to the limitations of the male perspective. The only complaint a reader might have is that true feminism, at least as it is known today, is based upon the valuation of both genders. In seeking to define women as being of the same caliber as men, and at the same time, valuing men as being the same as women. Both genders have much to offer, and to stigmatize one or the other is to be ignorant of everything the other gender has to offer. Works Cited. Angel, Marina. “Criminal Law and Women: Giving the Abused Woman Who Kills a Jury of Her Peers Who Appreciate Trifles.” American Criminal Law Review 33.2 (1996): 229- 348. Print. Marsh, Kelly A. “Dead Husbands and Other Girls’ Stuff: the Trifles in Legally Blonde.” Literature/Film Quarterly 33.3 (2005): 201-216. Print. Wright, Janet Stobbs. “Law, Justice, and Female Revenge in ‘Kerfol,’ by Edith Wharton, and ‘Trifles,’ and ‘A Jury of Her Peers,’ by Susan Glaspell.” Atlantis 24.1 (2002): 225-243. Print. Read More