A Jury Of Her Peers Critical Analysis
Emanuel
Critical Analysis of a Jury of Her Peers Take a close look and notice how society has changed in the last century. One hundred years ago, women were not able to vote, obtain proper education, or even speak up for themselves. In today’s society, things are quite the contrary, women are going to college more than men and we even had a woman run for president. In Susan Glaspell’s short story “A Jury of Her Peers,” she illustrates the constant struggle for women in the nineteenth century and how women as a whole were underrepresented. Glaspell wants the reader to see how confined some women in the nineteenth century were in their traditional gender roles. In “A Jury of Her Peers”, it is the women who take the gold medal in captivating …show more content…
Mr. Hale, Mr. Peters, and the county attorney had one objective when going back to the Wright’s house and that was to find concrete evidence to convict Mrs. Wright. When the men discuss on how there was a gun in the house and how [they] “can’t understand” why it was not used (Glaspell 497). The men know without a solid piece of evidence, the jury would most likely dismiss the case due to the there is no evidence to hold Mrs. Wright accountable. Also since the jury would be comprised of mostly if not all men it would seem like a waste of time to the jury to convict without evidence. When leaving the farmhouse Mr. Henderson stresses how they need to find “something to show anger- or sudden feeling” (Glaspell 497). The men in this scene of the story display the conventional attitudes of early nineteenth century males by looking for an obvious reason on how a wife could kill her husband instead of just using a gun. By today’s standards this would seem unheard of due to the increasing innovations of crime scene technology, but during this time period it was all about clear cut
Critical Analysis of a Jury of Her Peers Take a close look and notice how society has changed in the last century. One hundred years ago, women were not able to vote, obtain proper education, or even speak up for themselves. In today’s society, things are quite the contrary, women are going to college more than men and we even had a woman run for president. In Susan Glaspell’s short story “A Jury of Her Peers,” she illustrates the constant struggle for women in the nineteenth century and how women as a whole were underrepresented. Glaspell wants the reader to see how confined some women in the nineteenth century were in their traditional gender roles. In “A Jury of Her Peers”, it is the women who take the gold medal in captivating …show more content…
Mr. Hale, Mr. Peters, and the county attorney had one objective when going back to the Wright’s house and that was to find concrete evidence to convict Mrs. Wright. When the men discuss on how there was a gun in the house and how [they] “can’t understand” why it was not used (Glaspell 497). The men know without a solid piece of evidence, the jury would most likely dismiss the case due to the there is no evidence to hold Mrs. Wright accountable. Also since the jury would be comprised of mostly if not all men it would seem like a waste of time to the jury to convict without evidence. When leaving the farmhouse Mr. Henderson stresses how they need to find “something to show anger- or sudden feeling” (Glaspell 497). The men in this scene of the story display the conventional attitudes of early nineteenth century males by looking for an obvious reason on how a wife could kill her husband instead of just using a gun. By today’s standards this would seem unheard of due to the increasing innovations of crime scene technology, but during this time period it was all about clear cut