Like many other feminist short stories that emerged around the turn of the century, Susan Glaspell’s “A Jury of Her Peers” sharply critiques patriarchal gender roles and norms. Called a “small feminist classic” by literary critics, “A Jury of Her Peers” was published in 1917, several years before women in the United States could vote in public elections. Glaspell’s story shows how women use whatever means possible to reassert themselves and take back their power. Feminist criticism takes an analysis of “A Jury of Her Peers” a step further by showing the multiple ways patriarchal power is meted out, but also subverted by conscientious actors. Protagonist Martha Hale and her friend Mrs. Peters accompany their husbands to a crime scene. Seeing that the perpetrator of the crime is an abused woman, Martha Hale and Mrs. Peters decide together to hide a crucial piece of evidence that would have incriminated Minnie. Although Mrs. Peters almost has a change of heart at the end of the story, ultimately Martha’s strong willed nature allows all three women to bond together to challenge systematic sexism in society. Glaspell’s short story shows how women must use deviant, devious, and even criminal means to negotiate power and authority within a patriarchal structure. Theirs is a new ethical order, one that is subversive and yet less sinister than the patriarchal social order that metes out systematic oppression and wanton abuse. Patriarchal power is hegemonic; female reclamation of that power is doled out judiciously and in small, relatively harmless ways. All three of the main women in the story, Martha Hale, Mrs. Peters, and Minnie Wright, all commit crimes. The first two withhold evidence and tamper with a crime scene, which in the context of a small town at the turn of the century would not be considered serious crimes at all. More important is Wright’s alleged crime—for the reader will never really know with certainty whether Wright is guilty or not. Withholding evidence from a crime scene and murder are clearly subversive tactics that the women...

Likewise, these are desperate measures that would not have been used had the women been considered social equals to their male counterparts. Minnie’s own crime is an act of desperation; even the weak and timid Mrs. Peters can admit as much: “A person gets discouraged--and loses heart,” she says.
The women in the story undermine the patriarchal social order by usurping their husbands’ presumed authoritative knowledge of the crime. Martha Hale is especially astute, noticing in the tiny details forensic evidence that can be used either for or against Minnie Wright. Thinking like a detective, Martha Hale notes the myriad “things begun--and not finished.” The dishes are only halfway done. Most importantly, the quilt has recently been sewn in a haphazard way. In the early 1900s, only a woman would spend the time to examine a quilt in as much detail. The men—even those whose job it is to take all the details of the crime scene into account—ignore what they believe to be “trifles,” as when Mr. Hale states, “women are used to worrying over trifles.” The irony is that Mr. Hale says that about his wife at the very moment she is figuring out what happened to Mr. Wright. Even before Glaspell wrote “A Jury of Her Peers,” she wrote this very same story as a stage play entitled Trifles, referring to this exact theme. Men in a patriarchal social order view women’s work as trifling, devaluing their unpaid domestic labor. Judging by the way the Sheriff and Mr. Hale summarily dismiss the input of their wives also suggests that men in a patriarchal social order view women in general as human trifles: delicate, frivolous, silly objects. Mr. Hale’s “good-natured superiority,” as Martha describes it, permeates his condescending tone of voice. Mrs. Hale ironically trumps her husband, solving the crime while also remaining fully in control of the legal system itself: something that is totally off-limits to women. Mrs. Hale in fact notices the imbalance of power in that the police are allowed…