A Jury Of Her Peers And Zora Neale Hurson's Sweat

Until the last hundred years or so in the United States, married women had to rely on their husbands for money, shelter, and food because they were not allowed to work. Though there were probably many men who believed their wives could “stand up to the challenge”, some men would not let their wives be independent, believing them to be of the “inferior” sex, which made them too incompetent to work “un-feminine” jobs. In the late 19th century and early 20th century, feminist writers began to vent their frustration at men’s condescension and sexist beliefs. Susan Glaspell’s “A Jury of Her Peers” and Zora Neale Hurson’s “Sweat” both use dialogue to express how women are capable of and used to working hard, thinking originally, being independent

and supportive of the entire household and how their husbands underestimate their wives’ importance.
“A Jury of Her Peers” describe Henry Peters’s, Dickinson County’s sheriff, case to look for clues and motive for John Wright’s murder.

Minnie Wright, John’s wife, is the main suspect. This time, Sheriff Peters asked to bring his wife Mrs. Peters, the county attorney George Henderson, and his neighbors Martha and Lewis Hale to the crime scene. He intended for Lewis Hale, Mr. Henderson and him to solve the case. While Lewis Hale tells the group the details of how John Wright was found, Mrs. Peters and Martha Hale begin looking around the house to judge the state of the crime scene. Before even looking for evidence, Lewis Hale says “Oh, well, women are used to worrying over trifles” (160) to the dismay of Martha Hale and Mrs. Peters. Martha Hale notices that the Wrights’ house was unkempt and sad-looking, which was strange because Minnie Wright used to be a cheerful and meticulous homemaker. Again, Lewis Hale dismisses this as an inconsequential detail, stating that Minnie was just not a good homemaker, even though his wife Martha already told Mr. Henderson that “farmers’ wives have their hands full” (160). A few moments later, the men explore the house, but not before Mr. Hale ironically questions “But would the women know a clue if they did come upon it?” (161). The women began to

find several clues around the house: shabby clothing, unfinished housework, pitiful-looking houseware, a haphazardly-made quilt, and an empty bird cage. Meanwhile, Mr. Peters jokes about “the ways of women (165),” not recognizing the importance of the evidence. The two women discover a dead bird killed similarly to how John Wright was, and deduced that John Wright was stifling Minnie’s enthusiasm over their twenty plus years of marriage, and that John’s killing of the only happiness in Minnie’s life caused her to react negatively and kill him. Mrs. Hale even asks Mrs. Peters “How soon do you suppose they’ll be through looking for the evidence?” (170) right before Mr. Henderson claimed that the case was “all perfectly clear, except the reason for doing it” (171) and Mr. Hale announced that he was not “satisfied [they] can’t do better” (172). The story ends after Mr. Peters teasing Mrs. Peters how she “doesn’t need supervising” because she is “married to the law” (172).
The dialogue between the men and the women is indicative of Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters’s own feelings. Although the two women have not been suppressed to the extent Minnie Wright has been, they both receive patronizing comments about their actions and thought processes by their respective husbands. The men in the story make snide comments to the women, probably thinking they would not be able to understand. The women in the story then respond, which be replied with either a chuckle or a dismissal. The men also display their lack of sympathy towards Minnie Wright’s situation and dilapidated marriage and household; they say that she is incompetent and foolish for not keeping her household up to par, and for worrying about her clothing and jars over her wellbeing and arrest. Again, the women try to defend her, but are dismissed again for being “loyal to [their] sex” (160). By using these back-and-forth exchanges, Glaspell reveals to the reader how the male characters typically trivialize the female characters’ feelings, ideas, thoughts, and mental capacity simply because they are female. The irony of the dialogue is that the male characters discuss their plans to look for evidence in the presence of the female characters, unknowing that the female characters have already solved the mystery for them.