The Patriarch Dominance
In Susan Glaspell’s
Trifles
)Oppression, Subordination and domestic violence)
University of Al-Mustansiriya,
College of Arts,
Department of English Language
and Literature
By:
Assistant Instructor
Huda Jassam Obead.
5105
‫الهيونة الذكىرية في هسزحية "تفاهات" لسىساى كالسبل‬
‫)اضطهاد ‪ ,‬الثانىية ‪ ,‬العنف االسزي)‬
‫الجاهعة الوستنصزية‪ /‬كلية االداب ‪ /‬قسن اللغة االنجليشية وادابها‬
‫هذي جسام عبيذ‬
‫‪5102‬‬
‫الخالصـــــــــة‬
‫نحد االٌ تعبَي فئخ ٔاسعخ يٍ انُسبء في كم انعبنى يٍ انٓيًُخ انذكٕريخ‪ .‬حيث يعتقد ثعط انزجبل ثأٌ‬
‫انُسبء يكتسجٍ ْٕيتٍٓ االَثٕيخ يٍ خالل عالقتٍٓ ثبنزجبل ٔنيس يٍ خالل انخصبئص انٕراثيةخ نٓةٍ كأَةب ‪.‬‬
‫فيًبرس ْؤالء انزجبل ْيًُتٓى انًتصةةخانٗ حةد يةب ثةبنعُ‬
‫أ انتٓديةد ثبنعُ ‪.‬نةذن يًكةٍ انقةٕل ثةأٌ انٓيًُةخ‬
‫انذكٕريخ تشجّ َظبو يتسهط يسيطز عهيّ يٍ قجم رجبل اقٕيةبء يسةيطزٌٔ عهةٗ انُسةبء ٔاال ةةبل ٔحتةٗ عهةٗ‬
‫انطجيعخ‪.‬‬
‫ندٖ انزجبل في يسزحيخ سٕساٌ كالسجم (تةبْبد) (‪ْ )0906‬ةذِ انُظةزح انتسةهطيخ عهةٗ انُسةبء ْٔةذا‬
‫يبسيتُبٔنّ انجحث‪ ،‬حيث سيعطي َجةذح يختصةزح عةٍ تعزية‬
‫ٔيٍ ثى استعزاض نتطٕر انعبئهةخ االيزيكيةخ ٔكية‬
‫انٓيًُةخ انذكٕريةخ كًةب تُبٔنٓةب عةدل يةٍ انكتةبة‪.‬‬
‫اٌ انٓيًُةخ انذكٕريةخ يتأيةهخ فةي ثُةبء انعبئهةخ‪ٔ ،‬ثعةد نة‬
‫انًسزحيخ ٔتحهيهٓب حست انًٕظٕع انًختبر ٔاالستُتبج يهخص يب تٕيم انيّ انجحث‪.‬‬
Abstract
A wide category of women all over the world suffer from patriarch
dominance. Till now, some men believe that women are granted their female
identity by virtue of the women‟s relation to men rather than through their inherent
qualities as females. The men, accordingly, have the domination which is
characterized, to certain extent, by violence or threat of violence. Patriarchy is a
system controlled by powerful men in which women, children and even nature are
dominated by them. In Susan Glaspell‟s “Trifles” (0906), the men have this
assumption and that what this research chooses to shed light on.
The research takes the following order, it firstly gives a brief account of the
definitions of patriarch as it is tackled by different writers. Then, a survey of the
development of American Family and how the theme of patriarchy is rooted in the
structure of the family. The analysis of the Trifles according to the selected theme
is coming afterwards. The conclusion sums up the findings of the research.
The word ' Patriarchy' derives from the Greek words [pater = father] and
[arch = rule]0, and literally means the rule of father in a male-dominated family5.
Patriarchy is a system in which “women experience discrimination, subordination,
violence, exploitation and oppression by men”3. In patriarchal society, women are
treated as inferior in all aspects of their lives; men control women‟s reproductive
power, their mobility and even their economic resources 4. Patriarchy is defined as
a " social and ideological construct which considers men as patriarchs to be
intrinsically superior to women”5. Although there are many patriarchal forms and
practices, patriarchy is not universal notion because the different forms of patriarch
depend upon the interaction of patriarchal structure in different times and places6.
Walby identifies six structures of Patriarchy and states that these are defined in
terms of the social relationship in each structure. They are:
…. Patriarchal mode of production in which women‟s labour is expropriated
by their husbands; patriarchal relations within waged labour, the patriarchal
state; male violence; patriarchal relations in sexuality and patriarchal
culture”7.
1
Walby also makes a distinction between public and private patriarchy. The latter
excludes women from the realm of social life where a patriarch appropriates the
services of the individual woman in the private sphere of the home. Public
patriarchy subordinates women in all areas of social life and the appropriation of
women in more collective than individual8.
Broadly, the concept of patriarchy is referred to as “the web of economic,
political, social, and religious regulations that have enforced the domination of
women by men throughout the ages"9. On the other hand, patriarchy as an
oppressive force, has a long history that stretches across national and cultural
boundaries and it is a system that regulates women by means of male dominance 01.
In its narrowest sense patriarchy is a “social system controlled by men and as an
inheritance which is passed on from father to son. Family members are dependent
on, and submissive to the male head of the household” 00. In other words, patriarchy
is a system in which men dominate, oppress and exploit women and extends
beyond the household to include society in general.
In fact, it was with Kate Millet‟s book Sexual Politics 0969, that the concept
of patriarchy became popularized, especially amongst American Feminists 05.
Millet states that “traditionally patriarchy granted the father nearly total ownership
2
over wife or wives and children, including powers of physical abuse and often
even of those of murder and sale”03.
Barnett states that patriarchy as a ruleship is linked to procreation in a
manner that misconstructs and exaggerates the role of the father and regulates
women‟s reproductive roles04.
One can clearly conclude that patriarchy dominates where position of
authority is claimed by men in all spheres of society; including law, religion,
economy, education, military, in addition to domestic sphere 05. A society where
cultural ideas of what is good, desirable, preferable or normal are identified with
males. In other words patriarchy becomes male centered06,where focus is placed on
men and their actions and where women are historically excluded from state,
church, university and other fields of life.
The American family, as a unite, first emerged in the sixteenth century, when
sex role separation in the domestic setting became more stringent in stark contrast
to the clan like equality gender composition of previous generation. In this
hierarchical familial situation, women and children subordinate to the authority of
the patriarch continued well into the nineteenth century with men taking an active
role in child rearing07. Work was expected from all the members of family in order
to ensure the survival of the group. Marriage was a political institution because
3
families gained strength, power and wealth through marital arrangements, therefore
“affection for one's spouse came after marriage and each person was expected to
bring skills to the marriage partnership”08.
The dominance of the father in American family was a steadfast fact. The
father was active in selecting proper mates for his children 09. He owned the land
and, in turn, passed that land on to his sons thereby making it economically
possible for them to marry. As a result of this strict patriarchy the man by marriage
absorbed any property belonging to the woman prior to her marriage. Although,
changes in economic circumstances, namely the Industrial Revolution in the
nineteenth century would transform the domestic household and modify certain
particularities of gender roles, it would not change altogether the general adherence
to the family form. The prevalent household system
in the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries, which allowed for some flexibility in domestic labour
practices between men and women, transformed once women left the private
sphere to the field of men as necessitated by growing industrialized
labour
practices51. Prior to industrialization “most families were rural, large, and selfsustaining”50. But as work for earn living was removed from domestic space
families became much smaller. Men as the family breadwinner came to dominate
the middle class in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century and became a
cultural icon for working classmen hoping to earn a family wage, and to perform
4
the new role for the husbands. Wives became the care givers and nurtures in the
marital relationship. As industrial economy replaced an agricultural economy the
lines between family and work were more sharply divided, which caused a
separation of duties form between female and male tasks. A man was paid a “living
wage” for his work, which was the amount of money needed to support his family.
As a result, for the first time, the home became a place of refuge for the husband
from the world work and the wife‟s duty was to make the home a safe and relaxing
enviroment55.As the members of family stopped using home as a place for work.
However, the concept of the home as a refuge was reserved for wealthy or middle
class, families, because poor, immigrant families of various ethnic backgrounds
could not survive on the wages of one family member. Therefore, family structure
patterns began to differ according to the socio-economic status and ethnicity of the
family. Also, the structure of family whereby fathers‟ parenting role declined and
mothers became virtuous paragons of rearing the next generation of society
became dominant during (08491-0911)period. As a result, only a quarter of
families in the society were financially able to be this kind of family 53. On can say
that the portrait of the ideal American family was based solely on middle class
values and their lifestyle.
Near the turn of the nineteenth century, the “unequal arrangement of gender
power"54 in the domestic space did not wane even as compassionate marital
5
unions based on spousal attraction in steal of matrimonial duty and began to
emerge separate sphere, ideology became central to the conception of the white
middle class and its patterns of family life 55. In contrast, African-American
families which to this point had relied on the quality of the gender roles and
featured adaptive kinship structure that included non-blood relation, tried to
emulate separate spheres ideology but this dominant family form was reserved for
whites as most African-American families could ill-afford to keep women away
from assisting in the family income. For white Americans, the Victorian
conception of family coincided with new “urban industrial society with low birth
and death rates, the rise of the political democracy, the growth of science and
technology, and the spread of mass schooling and literacy”56.
By the 0901 and 0951, a new form of the compassionate marriage emerged
emphasizing family cohesiveness and emotional ties, unlike its more hierarchical
predecessor57. According to Christiana Simmons, this compassionate marriage
attempted “to adapt to women‟s perceived new social power” 58. Accordingly, the
good marriage is not a political institution, the good marriage is built upon mutual
attraction, intimacy and companionship. Alongside the idealized mother of the
Victorian era was replaced in the 0951 by the “wife-companion” in which
motherhood was down played in favour of “an emphasis on women‟s role as a wife
and on the romantic eroticized dyadic relationship of the couple” 59. The men, on
6
the other hand, began to redevelop their position within home by spending more
time at home after work than in leisure activities and pursuing more affectionate
relationships within the family. Even though, the sociologist Arlene Skolnick
argues that despite the abandonment of the patriarchal, nuclear family, young
couples were merely revising and adopting the previous kinship form to new
circumstances. He continues to say that the new companionate marriage model
“emphasizing affection, friendship, and happiness, was just an elaboration of the
Victorian themes”31. Yet, in the late 0951 and early 0931, the independence and
isolation of the family from the extended kinship was a cause for a renewed
anxiety. Obviously, women were presented with opportunities outside the domestic
space starting with advancement in the higher education attainment. But, despite a
broadening philosophy towards women‟s abilities in the public sphere, women
were still consigned to the limited freedom only the home could provide. Although
the gender and class remained “crucial constitutive elements of the middle class
self-definition”30, it was separate spheres, domesticity that would continue to
permeate familial values well into the late twentieth century35.
One should mention that the changes in familial organization have coincided
with cultural developments in women‟s history. The first “Feminist Movement”
connected to women‟s domestic duties and aptitude for working outside home.
Education advancement , and the pursuit of economic independence contributed
7
heavily into redefining the gender role ideology. In 0951Margaret Marsh observed
an increase in men adopting more responsibility in everyday task of children
rearing and domestic details. The construction of men‟s masculine domesticity was
heavily influenced by the new economic circumstances that allowed men to devote
more attention to their families33. But, in spite of all these changes of outlook
towards women, Chambers noticed: “Importantly, neither companionate marriage
nor masculine domesticity altered essentialist attitudes supporting men as head of
family”34.
Susan Glaspell is an American playwright (0876-0948). Her most popular
play “Trifles” is loosely based on true events. As a young reporter, Glaspell
covered a murder case in a small town in Iowa. Years later, she wrote Trifles
inspired by her experiences and observations. She was born in 0876 in Daven port
, Iowahe graduated from Darke university and worked as journalist on the staff of
the Des Moines Daily News. When her stories began appearing in magazines ,she
gave up the newspaper business . Much of Glaspell's writing is strongly feminist,
deals with the roles that women play or forced to play , in society and in the
relationships between men and woman.
The Trifles begins as the men followed by the women enter the Wright‟s
empty house. On command from the country attorney, George Henderson, and the
8
sheriff, Henry Peters, Mr. Hale, the neighbor recounts his visit to the house the
previous day, when he found Mrs. Wright behaving in a strange way and found her
husband upstairs with a rope around his neck, dead. Mr. Hale notes that, when he
questioned her, Mrs. Wright claimed that she was sleeping when someone hanged
her husband. Thus, the focus of the play is on conducting a murder investigation
into the death of John-Wright. All the suspicious are directed towards Minnie
Wright, the man‟s widow. They all returned to the crime scene to gather evidence
for the case against Minnie. Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale have also accompanied
their husbands to the Wright‟s house. While the men search the house and the barn
for clues to determine any motive for the crime, the women are left in the kitchen
where the men assume that no evidence could possibly be found. Through careful
observation of the kitchen and long conversations about how Minnie Wright had
changed since her marriage, the women smartly solve the crime first by
discovering evidence and then by explaining it. In fact, they solve crime by finding
what the men are looking for, but they conspire to conceal the evidence from the
men because they adhered their identity as women rather than as wives and by
their action Minnie well set free because the men efforts are in vain in collecting
plain evidences of the crime.
From the early beginning of the play, one can see the separation between the
male characters from the female characters as a kind of demonstration to the
9
difference in their worlds. When Henderson, Peters and Hale enter the Wright
house, they are in group with their wives, but as soon as, they enter the home they
immediately go to the stove to warm themselves, conversely, Mrs. Peters and Mrs.
Hale came “in slowly and stand close together near the door” 35 (p. 35), and they
only move in closer to the heat of the fire when the men demanded from them.
They could not even walk until their husbands order them. The separation
continues when men go off to walk through the house to find clues for the murder.
The women are left behind in the kitchen because as Peters points out to
Henderson: “there is nothing important in that room only kitchen things” (p. 517).
The women world and their works most of the time belittle and trivialized because
as Hale said “Well, women are used to worrying over trifles” (p. 517).
Throughout the actions of the play, one can plainly notice that the men are
never at loss for words nor do they struggle to find the correct words to use in
order to express themselves. They behave according to their physical environment.
They never ask the women‟s opinions or thoughts on the case, as they believe
themselves superior to talk about an essential issues, like that of a murder case with
women. While one of them passing by the kitchen on his way to the barn, he
overhears the women discussing quilting, Peters remarks: “They wonder if she was
going to quilt it or just knot it” (p. 518), follow by the stage directions which
indicate that all the men laugh. Therefore, the men not only find women‟s work
11
unimportant, but they also have the same judgment on the women‟s conversation.
Also, when Hale makes the first statement in reference to installing a party
telephone line, Hale thought that perhaps if he discussed it with John in his wife‟s
presence, it would help John to participate in telephone line. However, Hale
concludes: “I didn‟t know as what his wife wanted made much difference to John”
(p. 516). To emphases John‟s dominance in his house, Mrs. Hale remarks: “I don‟t
think a placed by any cheerful for John‟s Wrights being in it” (p. 517).
Out of the patriarch environment, the women unlike the men have difficulty
in expressing themselves. As noted by Ben-Zvi:
Glaspell often connected language and action, and the dialogue in Trifles was
not an exception. A connection between how the women are perceived by the
men, what they discover, and how they formulate a conclusion is evident in
the play36.
The women struggle to voice what they are thinking of, and they, therefore,
“pause, stammer, and speak in half sentences” (p. 515). Even though, apart from
the women‟s lack of verbal skills, they are able to exceed what is considered a
11
weakness in the masculine world, the women communicate with each other
without speaking. They could speak volumes without saying the words or finishing
their sentences. Therefore, the stage directions indicate the following actions after
discovering the final clues in the case of the murder:
The women sit there look at one another, but as if peering into something and
at the same time holding back when they talk now it is in the manner of
feeling their way over strange ground, as if afraid of what they are saying, but
as if they cannot help saying it (p. 501).
Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters then proceed to discuss their feelings of loneliness and
isolation that always accompany them, as an indication to the oppression which
they all are suffering from under the masculine sphere. Mrs. Peters says: “My it is
a good thing the men couldn‟t hear us. Wouldn‟t they just laugh! Getting all strived
up over a little thing like a dead canary. As if that could have anything to dolo
with-with, wouldn‟t they laugh” (p. 501).
Generally, the men who work believe that they have a legal power bestowed
upon them by their occupations. Both Peters, as the sheriff, and Henderson, as the
12
country attorney, represent the physical embodiment of the “law” and they have
the responsibility to enforce the law or to persecute those who break it. Just
because he is discovering the body and he is a „man‟, Hale is allowed to participate
in the investigation although not employed in law enforcement. The women are not
granted the same power as men, although Mrs. Hale knows the victim and the
accused, she is told by Henderson that he will get back to her to gather that
information but he never does. Even when Henderson affords Mrs. Peters some
power, he attributes this power to her husband. He says: “No, Mrs. Peters doesn‟t
need supervising. For that matter, a sheriff‟s wife is married to the law” (p. 501).
The men believe that women are too flighty and narrow minded to worry about
important issues such as the investigation. The men could ascribe everything bad to
women, when they observe the troublesome state of the Wright‟s kitchen, the men,
at once, conclude that Mrs. Wright must be at fault in her duty as a housewife
because they all know John Wright as a good dutiful man. It is true that John has
the apparent meaning of domesticity that is the ability to keep a home organized
with clean kitchen and well-sewn quilts, but he failed to make his home warm and
comforting emotionally which is the essential meaning of domesticity.
The power of husband over the wife is best demonstrated by the relationship
between John and Minnie Wright. John, in many places in the play, is
characterized in terms of his power. He isolated his wife in a “house back off of the
13
main road” (p. 519)., and he refused to install a telephone (p. 516). As a sign of the
domestic violence, Mrs. Wright is suffered from, the women noticed the broken
door hinge. Mrs. Hale clearly comments, it seems as if someone has been rough
with it and that shows anger and hostility. She goes on to say how it was hard to be
around Mr. Wright, she describes John as “a hard man … just to pass the time of
day with him – like a raw wind that gets to the bone” (p. 519). Prior to her
marriage, Mrs. Hale notes that Minnie wore pretty clothes and was actively
involved in church activities but that changed after her marriage because: “Wright
was close. I think maybe that‟s why she kept so much to herself. She didn‟t even
belong to the ladies aid. I suppose she felt she couldn‟t do her part, and then you
don‟t enjoy things when you feel shabby” (p. 501). John kept Minnie from
participating in these groups as a form of dominance. The bird and its cage
symbolized Minnie‟s restricted life, “a life of solidarity confinement with only
John to break the silence”37. As Minnie is childless her only consolation is her little
pet the bird of canary, she used to sing and enjoy hearing the bird singing but,
“John killed that too” (p. 501). Like the cage limited the canary and its freedom,
patriarchy also prevented females from becoming independent and achieving their
personal goals. Mr. Wright killed the canary bird and this served as a physical
representation of men‟s power, it illustrates the often fatal power men have over
women‟s dreams and actions. Mr. Wright‟s display of control over Mrs. Wright by
14
killing her bird and underestimating her paved the way to his own death. Mrs.
Hale, as well as, Mrs. Peters know very well the type of life Minnie has as they
suffered from the same but in different types. Mrs. Hale summarizes the unspoken
sadness for women in marriage: “I might know she needed help! I know how
things can be – for women. I tell you it‟s queer, Mrs. Peters. We live together and
we live apart. We all go through the same things-it‟s just a different kind of the
same thing” (p. 501). Therefore the women are powerless in marriage, while the
men possess the power and dominance over them.
It is important to notice that the action of “Trifles” takes place in the kitchen
of the Wright‟s house, but only the women stay in the kitchen, while the men move
from room to room upstairs. This fact, of staging pattern, underscores the trapping
of women in the domestic role and suggests the freedom and the mobility that men
have in marriage. Most of the time, the women watch if the men are approaching,
the women “look upstairs where steps are heard” (p. 501). The footsteps from
above symbolize the men‟s power and the danger that women might be in if they
go through with their unspoken plans.
Another aspect of power is demonstrated by the name assigned to the
characters. The male characters all have first and last names. Minnie Foster Wright
is the only female character to have full name. Mrs. Hale refers to her as Minnie
15
Foster and she never refers to her as Minnie Wright as if Mrs. Hale is attempting to
give her an identity beyond her husband or her current circumstances. Mrs. Hale
and Mrs. Peters have last names only, and their last names represent their married
names. They even refer to each other by their last names. According to Gross “This
subtle name recognition, as applicable to Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters, emphasized
both the women‟s subordinate role to their husbands and the loss of identity for
women in marriage”38.
16
Conclusions
The men in “Trifles” follow the traditional roles of superiority. The men are
the leaders, and they control the situation. Their work in the public sphere is
assumed to be valuable while the women are domestic care takers who are
responsible for household duties like cooking, cleaning, sewing … etc. The works
of women most of the time are belittled and trivialized because the men believe
that women used to worry about trifles and that what the title of the play suggests
the diminishing status of the women‟s world.
17
Notes
0. D. M. William. The Morphology of Biblical Greek: Zondervan 0994, p. 519.
5. K. Bhasin. What is Patriarchy?, New Delhi: Raj Press. 0993, p. 3.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid., p. 6 to p. 9.
5. S. Ray. Understanding Patriarchy Foundation Course. Human Rights, Gender
and Environment, University of Delhi. 5100, p. 0.
6. S. Walby. Theorizing Patriarchy. Sociology, 0989, 53 (5): p. 553.
7. Ibid.,p.551.
8. Ibid., p. 558.
9. S. Jones. Feminist Theories and Christian Theology: Cartographies of Grace.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 5111, P. 77.
01. L. Manson and S. M. Kilonzo. Engendering development: Demystifying
Patriarchy and its effect on women in rural Kenya. International Journal of
Sociology and Anthropology, 3(5): 5100, P. 45.
00. A. Laurien. Patriarchy in Goethals, G. R. Sorenson G. J. and Burns J. M. (eds.)
Encyclopedia
of
Leadership
[online]
>
http://www.sage_
ereference.com/.leadership/article_n56,html/705114.(0).
05. Feminist: a group of women believe that women should be treated as potential
intellectual and social equals to men. The discrimination should not be based
on gender, sexual orientation, skin color, ethnicity, religion, culture, on life
style. www. Urban dictionary. Com<define<terms.
03. K. Millet. Sexual Politics. London: Virago, 0969, p. 33.
04. H. Brnett. Source Book on Feminist Jurisprudence, London: Cavandish
Publishing Ltd. 0997, p. 057.
18
05. H. Mirkin. The Passive Female: the Theory of Patriarchy. American Studies,
55, (5). 0984, p. 045.
06. A. G., Johnson.
The Gender Knot: Unravelling Our Patriarchal Legacy.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 5115, p. 9.
07. Ibid.,p 01
08. R. H, Bloch. American Feminine Ideals in Transition: The rise of the moral
matter, 0978-0805. Feminist Studies,, (5) 010-056.
09. S, Mintz and S, Kellogy. Domestic Life Revolutions: A social History of
American Family. New York: the Free Press. 0988.
51. Ibid.
50. R. C. Cowan. The Industrial Revolution in the home. Technology of Culture,
07, 0976, p. 0 to p. 53.
55. Ibid., p. 0.
53. M, Hoffnung. Motherhood: Contemporary conflict for Women. In J. Freeman
(ed.),
Women: A Feminist Prescriptive. (5th ed.) Mountain View, CA:
Mayfield, 0995. P. 065 to p. 080.
54. B. G., Farell. Family: The Making of an idea, an institution, a controversy in
Aerican Culrture. Boulder, Co: West View Press. 0999.
55. P, Pasco. Gender System in Conflict: The Marriage of Mission-educated
Chinese-American women, 0874, 0939. Journal of Social History, 55 (4).
0989, p. 634.
56. C, Stansell. Women, Children, and the uses of the steels: Class and gender
conflict in New York city, 0851-0861. Feminist Studies, 8(5), 0985, p. 319 to
p. 335.
57. A. Skolnik.
Embattled Paradise: The American family in an age of
uncertainty. New York: Basic Books. 0990, p. 55.
19
58. C. Simmons. Companionate Marriage and the Lesbian Threat. Frontiers; A
Journal of Women‟s Studies 4 (3). 0979, p. 55.
59. L, Jacobson. Manly boys and enterprising dreamers: Business ideology and the
construction of the boy consumer, 0901-0931. Enterprise and Society, (5).
5110, p. 555 to p. 558.
31. A. Skolnick. 0990, p. 51.
30. G. Bederman. Civilization, the decline of middle-class man lines, and Inda . B.
Wells‟s anti-lynching campaign (0895-0894). Radical History Review, 0995,
p. 5-31.
35. C, Stansell. 0985. P. 319 to p. 335.
33. M, Marsh. Suburnan Men and Masculine Domesticity, 0871-0905. American
Quarterly, 41 (5), 0988, p. 065 to p. 086.
34. D, Chambers, Representing the family, London: Sage Publications. 5110.
35. S. Glaspell. Trifles: A Play in on act, In W. B. Worthen (ed.), Modern Drama:
Plays Criticism, theory, Fortworth, TX: Harcourt Brace. 0995. Coriginal
Work Published in 0906.
36. L, Ben-Zvi. Susan Glaspell and Eugene O‟ Neill. The Eugene O‟ Neil News
Letter, 6 (5), 0985, p. 50 to p. 59.
37. B. A., Smith. Women‟s Work- the trifles?: The Skill and insights of playwright
Susan Glaspell. International Journal of Women‟s Studies, 5 (5), 0985, p. 075
to p. 084.
38. J. L., Gross. Susan Glaspell‟s Trifles and “A Jury of Her Peers” Feminist
reading and communication. Tennessee Philological Bulletin: Proceedings of
the 94th Annual Meeting of the Tennessee Philological Association: 0999, p.
37 to p. 48.
21
Bibliography
 Barnet, H. (0997). Source Book on Feminist Jurisprudence, London: Cavendish
publishing limited.
 Bederman, G. (0995). Civilization, the decline of middle-class man lines, and Inda
. B. Wells‟s anti-lynching campaign (0895-0894). Radical History Review,
p. 5 to p. 31.
 Ben-Zvi, L. (0985). Susan Glaspell and Eugene O‟ Neill. The Eugene O‟ Neil
News Letter, 6 (5), p. 50 to p. 59.
 Bhasin, K. (0993). What is Patriarchy?, New Delhi: Raj Press.
 Bloch, R. H. (0987). American Feminine Ideals in Transition: The rise of the
moral matter. Feminist Studies,, (5) p. 010to p.056.
 Chambers, D. (5110). Representing the family, London: Sage Publications.
 Cowan, R. C. (0976). The Industrial Revolution in the home. Technology of
Culture, 07, p. 0 to p. 53.
 Farrell, B. G. (0999). Family The Making of an idea, an institution, a controversy
in American culture. Boulde, Co: West View Press.
 Glaspell, S. (0995). Trifles: A Play in on act, In W. B. Worthen (ed.), Modern
Drama: Plays Criticism, theory, Fortworth, TX: Harcourt Brace. Coriginal Work
Published in 0906.
 Gross, J. L. (0999). Susan Glaspell‟s Trifles and “A Jury of Her Peers” Feminist
reading and communication. Tennessee Philological Bulletin: Proceedings of the
94th Annual Meeting of the Tennessee Philological Association, P. 37 to p. 48.
 Hoffnung, M. (0995). Motherhood: Contemporary conflict for Women. In J.
Freeman (ed.), Women: A Feminist Prescriptive. (5th ed.) Mountain View, CA:
Mayfield, p. 065 to p. 080.
21
 Jacobson, L. (5110). Manly boys and enterprising dreamers: Business ideology
and the construction of the boy consumer, 0901-0931. Enterprise and Society,
(5), p. 555 to p. 558.
 Johnson, A. G. (5115). The Gender Knot: Unravelling Our Patriarchal Legacy.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
 Jones, S. (5111). Feminist Theories and Christian Theology: Cartographies of
Grace. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
 Laurien, A. (5114). Patriarchy in Goethals, G. R. Sorenson G. J. and Burns J. M.
(eds.)
Encyclopedia
of
Leadership
[online]
>
http://www.sage_
ereference.com/.leadership/article_n56,html/705114.(0).
 Marsh, M. (0988). Suburnan Men and Masculine Domesticity, 0871-0905.
American Quarterly, 41 (5), p. 065 to p. 086.
 Manson, L. and Kilonzo, S. M. (5100). Engendering development: Demystifying
Patriarchy and its effect on women in rural Kenya. International Journal of
Sociology and Anthropology, 3(5):. p. 45.
 Millet, K. (0969). Sexual Politics. London: Virago, p. 33.
 Mintz, S. and Kellogy, S. (0988). Domestic Life Revolutions: A social History of
American Family. New York: the Free Press.
 Mirkin, H. (0984). The Passive Female: the Theory of Patriarchy. American
Studies, 55, (5). p. 39 to p. 57.
 Pasco, P. (0989). Gender System in Conflict: The Marriage of Mission-educated
Chinese-American women, 0874, 0939. Journal of Social History, 55 (4), p. 630
to p. 655.
 Ray, S. (5100). Understanding Patriarchy Foundation Course. Human Rights,
Gender and Environment, University of Delhi.
22
 Simmons, C. (0979). Companionate Marriage and the Lesbian Threat. Frontiers; A
Journal of Women‟s Studies 4 (3). p. 54 to p. 59.
 Skolnik, A. (0990).
Embattled Paradise: The American family in an age of
uncertainty. New York: Basic Books.
 Smith, B. A. (0985). Women‟s Work- the trifles?: The Skill and insights of
playwright Susan Glaspell. International Journal of Women‟s Studies, 5 (5), p.
075 to p. 084.
 Stansell, C. (0985). Women, Children, and the uses of the steels: Class and gender
conflict in New York City, 0851-0861. Feminist Studies, 8(5), 0985, p. 319 to p.
335.
23