Power_,_Justice_,_and_Justice_Clarity

Power, Justice, And Gender Clarity Throughout centuries of human of evolution, we have dealt with numerous social and ethical issues, but one of our most controversial issues has always been the gender separation. From strict feminism to simply accepting women as equals in the work place, these are ongoing problems that we are still facing to this day in under developed countries. Long before the women rights movement, Susan Glaspell wrote “Trifles” in 1916, and in a way has tried to raise awareness for future generations. The play was based on a true story, making it a considerably credible reference to the kind of treatment that should be considered wrong. In the three articles that we have read for this response, a controversial issue has been whether the male gender can see women as being equal to them while being feminine, and doing things in a different way than them. On one hand, some have argued that feminine women cannot simply have clearer judgment than men, simply because they are very unmethodical and involve feelings in jobs that don't require any. On the other hand, there are some who argue that women are just as capable as men and can do the same jobs and obtain the same occupations, but with different approaches and methods. Power and justice are crucial aspects of today’s world, and in the movie “Courting Justice” by film producer Ruth Cowan, the struggles for recognition of women in the South African judiciary system directly relate to the play and how we are still dealing with the same problem. Common sense seems to dictate that women, who succeed in a profession dictated by men, are either feminists or have slipped through the ranks by objectifying them selves. Even though this might be true, what women have in common is that they all decide to form an inter gender bond, because they understand them selves better than men can. In “Trifles”, the wives of the men who investigate the scene manage to do their own investigation from their perspective. In order to prevent the wife of the victim from being penalized for a crime they assume she didn't commit, they go as far as tampering evidence. This is caused by their assumptions that the kitchen is not clean, and the woman’s chores aren’t done, and therefore they assume that someone has framed her to be a credible suspect for the crime. And even though they might be correct, at the end they choose not to infer and keep quite for their own sake. Regardless of the circumstances, this shouldn't occur because it creates a lack of credibility in the female gender. In Dead Husbands, author Kelly A. Marsh argues that a new form of narrowly defined feminism is present in today’s world that leads to the objectification and devaluation of women by other women. Marsh asserts, “In every case, the men are more or less sexually motivated, a given according to Elle’s pragmatic viewpoint, what surprises her though is how she is treated by those who are not necessarily sexually motivated – other women.”(4) Marsh suggests that the progression of women in the workplace has somewhat progressed and they have become less discriminated against, allowing women to discriminate other women. This has created a new problem for the feminist community, and suddenly it has become a problem within the female gender that is much harder to fight against. In conclusion, then as I pointed out at the beginning of this paragraph, feminism in the 21st century has become a unique issue rather than a controversial one. The women who started the movement succeeded by being able to work among men but never accounted for other women interfering with their idea, which also proves that while they are willing to go through endless problems, not all women agree with what they are trying to do, because they don't share an absolute common ground. Although the subject of new modern feminism has created problems among women against women, an argument can be made that this only applies countries that are highly modern and continue to move forward. As for countries such as South Africa, the place where the movie “Courting Justice” was filmed, women seem to have a different mentality due to terrible oppression. Ruth Cowan, a female producer shows the judiciary system’s reform in South Africa after years and years of tyranny, and shows how her fellow feminists have fought to become sixteen percent of the justice system. In Jury of Her Peers, author Karen Alkalay-Gut argues that women should have loyalty, sympathy, and trust for other women, because it can be crucial to their overall success. Alkalay-Gut concludes, “The women here realize, through their involvement in the murder investigation, that only by joining together can they, isolated and insignificant in their society, obtain for themselves and extend to others the support and sympathy that will help them endure the loneliness and unceasing labor required of them”(1) Alkalay-Gut suggests that the attitude displayed by these women truly shows that when cooperating, the community of women can continue to overcome odds like they have done in the play and in Cowan’s documentary. They have managed to overcome oppression against all odds, and all it takes is for them to trace their roots, and see that working together is better than working individually as a woman fighting for a cause that is much bigger than she thinks. In recent discussions of the concept of feminism, a controversial issue has been about women’s roles in society and how their knowledge is perceived from the opposing gender on various contexts. This issue also appears in “Courting Justice”, in which it has taken women twenty-one centuries to break a barrier of stereotypical perception and enter the judiciary system as voices of not only reason but great logic and perspective. In “Trifles” however, Glaspell portrays the women and completely different thinkers who are almost not capable of thinking like the men. She instantly points out that their information is simply not as valuable because of their way of obtaining it, through a different kind of approach that can be seen as emotional. In Silent Justice, author Suzy Hollstein argues in her essay that while the women might have taken a different approach, it should still be seen as a credible source of intelligence. Hollstein implies, “Women on the other hand valued cooperation and worked to interconnect, taking time to make up their minds. Such behavior was dismissed as indecisive instead of being understood as a separate model that promoted integrated thinking”(Mann 382) By using this paraphrase by Judith Mann, Hollstein suggests that while the men have always had a very methodical thought process, they have failed to realize that there are multiple ethical ways to obtain answers and solve problems. The self-confidence and self-reliance of these investigators in the play, have led them to form a quick answer that is nowhere near concrete or efficient. This can also be used as a contrast to Rowan’s movie because oppression in South Africa has been present for so long, mainly due to constant self-reliance and arrogance among the male gender, therefore not allowing women to state opinions or make any major decision. However after long waits and hardships, women in South Africa have no become a vital part of promoting democracy, and a different kind of leadership that can help rebuild a struggling economy. Both Rowan’s movie and “Silent Justice” celebrate the fact that women think differently but have the same amount of impact as men do, and that their concept supports an ethic based simply on psychological and mainly cognitive thinking, unlike men who as investigators often follow a code of conduct and very simple logic. Through reading these three articles and watching parts of “Courting Justice”, I have discussed the relevance of the play to the way we live in today’s world. In the initial reading of the play without the articles, it seems as the play is outdated and type of feminism discussed in it is long gone and doesn't appear to be relevant. However, after reading these three analytical articles that capture all of the symbolism and imagery in the play, it can be said that the play is very relevant to the way we live now. As a human species, we have adapted to the way both genders think and how they complete various tasks. For too long the way a woman thought was seen as satirical because they mainly based their answers on pure psychological knowledge rather than being very formally logical. “Trifles also explores the concept that is very modern and explains how women to this day interpret situations and contrast to men and how we still value it the same way. Because of her deep contrast, her ability to create a masterpiece that is timeless rather than just contemporary is surprising. The paradigms of the male thought process and the female thought process in the play, directly relate not only to the way we live today, but also to everything we do. Although all these authors are feminists, they have managed to create a balanced comparison, thus deserving great recognition, acknowledgement, and awareness from the male gender. Works Cited Alkalay-Gut, Karen. "JURY OF HER PEERS: THE IMPORTANCE OF TRIFLES." Studies in Short Fiction 21.1 (1984): 1. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 9 July 2010. Holstein, Suzy Clarkson. "Silent Justice in a Different Key: Glaspell's 'Trifles.'." Midwest Quarterly 44.3 (2003): 282. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 9 July 2010. Mann, Judith. The Difference: Growing Up Female in America. New York, N.Y.: Wamer, 1994. Marsh, Kelly A. "Dead Husbands and Other "Girls' Stuff": The Trifles in Legally Blonde." Literature Film Quarterly 33.3 (2005): 201-206. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 9 July 2010.