The Portrayal of Women in Susan Glaspell's Jury of Her Peers - Essay Example

A Critical Analysis of the Portrayal of Women in Susan Glaspell’s “Jury of her Peers” In the story, “Jury of her Peers”, Susan Glaspell manipulates the differences between the man’s and the woman’s perspectives on a murder case to refute the traditional claim that women are intellectually incapable of doing detective jobs. She effectively uses ironies and mystery to depict women’s ability to differ between right and wrong. Also by upholding these differences between male and female perspectives, she attempts to show that women are also capable of planning and, finally, of executing their plans. Defying the stereotypical view about women’s frivolity, Susan shows that women are more capable of doing investigation than their male counterparts. Indeed, she tries to prove that a woman’s perspective is fastidious and pickier because of their nature. So, women can focus more on the tidbits and trifles of a case, whereas man seems to overlook them. Also because of a communal understanding among women, a woman can understand another woman’s motif behind an action. Susan Glaspell depicts the female characters, in the story, who possesses intelligence which is sharper than that of their male counterparts (Makowsky 35). Susan Glaspell shows that a female perspective is more capable of perceiving another woman’s psychology. In the story, the female characters feel strong affinity for the main suspect, Minnie. A communal feeling leads to Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters to the discovery that Minnie has lived a miserable life in Wrights’ household. Such communal fervor among the women is evident in Mrs. Hale’s speech: “ I might 'a' known she needed help! I tell you, it's queer, Mrs. Peters. We live close together, and we live far apart. We all go through the same things--it's all just a different kind of the same thing! If it weren't--why do you and I understand? Why do we know--what we know this minute?” (Glaspell, “Jury of her Peers”) They simply discover the rift in Minnie’s relationship with her husband from the dead-bird clue. But the Sheriff and his team fail to discover it. Though they know little about the Wrights’ marital life, the little dead bird helps them to construe Minnie’s oppressed presence in her household. In this regard, David Rachel comments, “Though Martha and Mrs. Peters know little about the Wrights’ marriage, they know enough about the naturalistic weight of patriarchy to intuit the details that the dead bird suggests” (pars.4). The female investigators are aware of the fact that though they live in different households, their fates are almost the same. They know that their fate is wrought at the hands of their male counterparts. Whereas, for the male investigators, the bird is a mere little thing, Martha and others know that it is a symbol of freedom and of possession. Since Mr. Wright has, supposedly, killed the bird, he not only snatches Minnie’s freedom but also deprives her of any material possession. Minnie can, no more, bear such bandit life. As a result, she murders her husband to procure freedom. Susan shows that men’s superiority complex creates a major flaw in their perspective. On the other hand, women’s obsession with trifles provides them with a better perception about things. In the story, Susan draws a clear dichotomy between male and psychologies. The female characters are found to be more obsessed with trifles or minor details of the Wright-case. The women discover, by investigating into the trifles, what the male characters fail. Indeed, the trifles ultimately appear to be of major significance. In the following conversation, Sherriff and County Attorney make fun of the women’s obsession with the trifles: Mrs. Peters' husband broke into a laugh. "Well, can you beat the women! Held for murder, and worrying about her preserves!" The young attorney set his lips. "I guess before we're through with her she may have something more serious than preserves to worry about." "Oh, well," said Mrs. Hale's husband, with good-natured superiority, "women are used to worrying over trifles." (Glaspell, “Jury of Her Peers”) Sherriff comments that women are frivolous, while County Attorney opines that women’s obsession with things like “dirty towels” is built in their nature. Indeed, Susan handles the male characters to represent typical patriarchal perception about women. Indeed, this patriarchy-induced image of a woman is heavily infused with feminine psychophysical inferiority to masculinity. Suzy Clarkson Holstein comments on Susan’s women’s capability of perceiving the truth about an event: “Their method from the very beginning of the story leads not only to the discovery that eludes the men, but also to their ultimate moral choice, a choice which radically separates them from the men” (Holstein 282) But ironically, the women appear to more competent in discovering and, subsequently, hiding the truth about the Wright case. Susan shows that, in a patriarchal society, the male perspective is flawed within itself because of the superiority complex it cherishes in its heart. In the story, men’s perception about women is quite different from the women’s perception about themselves. The County Attorney argues that if Minnie were a good housewife, she would have keep clothes dirty. Since Minnie has not fulfilled her duty to her husband, she is the culprit. In fact, referring the dirty towels, the County Attorney attempts to prove Minnie’s involvement in the murder. But Mrs. Hale refuted County’s claim, arguing that a woman, who used to work on the farm, might not have enough time to take care of dirty towels, as she claims, “There's a great deal of work to be done on a farm” (Glaspell, “Jury of Her Peers”). Mr. Hale’s supposition that “women are used to worrying over trifles” reveals that the early twentieth century patriarchy would consider women’s job as trifles. In this regard, Baker Rambles comments that Susan shows how women were used to being out in the field as well, performing manual labor and possibly being paid by their own husbands for minimal wages, just enough to get by with food and basic necessities, a allowance more so than a paycheck (pars.1). The story reveals that the women’s perception of their indoor and outdoor labor is in complete contrast with their society’s perception. In the meantime, such male notion about women’s manual jobs and women’s aptitude proves to be ironical too. In fact, one of the ironies of the story is the men’s failure to perceive the importance of the trifles in the investigation process. Mrs. Hale admits the significance of ordinary things in the inquiry as following: “I don't see as there's anything so strange,….our taking up our time with little things while we're waiting for them to get the evidence. I don't see as it's anything to laugh about” (Glaspell, “Jury of Her Peers”). In a man’s eye, a woman’s kitchen jobs do not deserve much attention. Sherriff and other male characters’ disapproving remarks about Minnie’s kitchen are obvious in their speeches. In a scene, the County Attorney tries to persuade his companions about the worthlessness of Minnie’s kitchen in their inquiry: “You're convinced that there was nothing important here – nothing that would point to any motive” (Glaspell, “Jury of Her Peers”). Here Susan’s proposition about the difference between male and female perspectives is clearly remarkable. Mrs. Peter and Mrs. Hale are engaged in what the Sherriff and his companions decline to put proper emphasis on, and their instinctual obsession with the trifles in the kitchen leads to the discovery of the motif behind the murder. Susan’s story, “Jury of her Peers” renders an obvious dichotomy between male and female perspectives. Primarily Susan tells how women’s view is different from that of the man. Meanwhile, her story tells about male oppression, domination and women’s subservient position in the early twentieth century American society. But at the same time, it proves women’s superiority in particular areas of life. In contradiction to the male investigators’ judgment that women are good for nothing, their female assistants quite successfully discover the clues and motive behind the murder of John Wright. Eventually they develop a moral ground in order to support the suspect Minnie Wright whom they found to be the victim of male oppression in John household. In her era, Susan’s “Jury of her Peers” was indeed a challenge to the academic assumption that women are incapable to discovering facts because of their reproductive psychology, as Baker Rambles says, “One psychologist from the early 1900’s, Dr. G. Staneley Hall, a very gender biased individual believed that if women were given power, then proper research would be tainted because of their reproductive capabilities” (2). Opposing her contemporary society’s view about women’s physical and intellectual inferiority to men, Susan’s women show evidence of superior intelligence unlike men’s fight or flight decision. Works Cited Glaspell, Susan. Jury of Her Peers. Learner.org. 22 March, 2013. available at http://www.learner.org/interactives/literature/story/fulltext.html New York: Twayne, Holstein, Suzy Clarkson. “Silent Justice in a Different Key: Glaspell's 'Trifles.'” Midwest Quarterly 44.3 (Spring 2003): 282. Print. Makowsky, Veronica. Susan Glaspell's Century of American Women: A Critical Interpretation of Her Work. New York: Oxford UP, 1993. Rachels, David. Story Note: Susan Glaspell, "A Jury of Her Peers" (1917). 22 March, 2013. available at http://noirboiled.blogspot.com/2011/04/story-note-susan-glaspell-jury-of-her.html Rambles, Baker. Trifles Analysis. Hubpage. Web. 24 April, 2012. Read More