Introduction
In the play “Trifles” by Susan Glaspell, the protagonists, Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters, find themselves in a precarious situation when they discover proof that may incriminate their companion, Mrs. Wright, in the killing of her spouse. This information points the finger of suspicion at Mrs. Wright. Although they are conscious that they should turn over the material to the sheriff and the local prosecutor, the two women decide to suppress it (Glaspell 980).
In this paper, I will contend that Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters are warranted in the activities that they took, and I will present the textual evidence to corroborate my stance. I will also give a rebuttal to show that I understand the opposite position.
Justifying Mrs. Hale’s and Mrs. Peters’ Decision to Conceal Evidence from Law Enforcement
The manner in which the male authority in the film deals with Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters is among the chief reasons why they are right in suppressing information. This is one of the fundamental motives why Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters are correct in their intention to commit perjury. The sheriff and the local prosecutor treat the two women with a contemptuous and defeatist mentality for the entirety of the text, ignoring the women’s perspectives and encounters.
The scenario in which the men mock the ladies for caring about Mrs. Wright’s quilt and the approach in which the men allude to the women as “goodwives” is an example of this mindset (Glaspell 984). The absence of regard and concern demonstrated by Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters by the patriarchal system fosters a feeling of unity among the women. It confirms the women’s view that they are the only individuals who genuinely comprehend and are concerned about Mrs. Wright’s plight.
In addition, the proof that Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peter find does not appear to be exceptionally damning. The birdhouse with the shattered entrance and the lifeless bird inside is circumstantial evidence that indicates Mrs. Wright may have been pushed to a condition of hopelessness and despair (Glaspell 986). Still, they do not conclusively accuse her of killing her husband.
The women are hesitant to condemn Mrs. Wright in the homicide because they believe she was a decent wife who endured a great deal because of her terrible marriage. They notice that Mrs. Wright suffered horribly due to her marital relationship. Mrs. Peters explains this phenomenon by saying, “Well, ladies are used to fussing over trifles” (Glaspell 986). By saying this, she implies that the women comprehend the circumstances and intentions behind Mrs. Wright’s behavior in a way that the male superiors cannot.
Counterargument
Nevertheless, it is arguable that Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters have a legal imperative to submit the evidence to the authorities, irrespective of their viewpoint or the dispositions of the men. This is because the facts show that the men were involved in the crime. If one does not comply, one risks being perceived as impeding prosecution and shielding a suspect. It is not appropriate for the women’s allegiance to Mrs. Wright to reign supreme over their obligations to report the atrocity and subject the perpetrator to justice. Their conduct could be considered unjustifiable when seen in this light.
Conclusion
In conclusion, even though there are plausible counterexamples, I feel that Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters were correct in concealing proof from the sheriff and the local prosecutor. Their horrible encounter at the hands of the male officials culminated in the absence of evidence that could be used to convict Mrs. Wright. Moreover, their comprehension of the circumstances of her predicament plays a role in their choice to defend their friend. Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters illustrate not only the force and significance of female solidarity but also the distinctive point of view that women contribute to an appreciation of events through their acts.
Work Cited
Glaspell, Susan. Trifles. Frank Shay the Washington Square Players, 1916.