The fight for womanhood

A jury of her peers", by Susan Glaspell is a compelling short story, that causes the reader through contemplation and inspection of Glaspell's perspective on sexual injustice to profoundly develop ones cultural understanding. Compared to "Sweat" by Zora Neale Hurston, many striking similarities are evident. Firstly Delia's competence in overcoming her husband's wicked nature is illustrated in her accomplishment to endure and resist her husband's abuse and preserve her Ethical certitude by means of her work and her faith. In the same way that the men find no evidence that Mrs. Wright killed her husband and in the end the women essentially act as the 'jury' in not giving the clues that prove Mrs. Wright of murder away. More significantly the men in the story also regard their wives as the 'weaker sex', only beneficial as workers of the household sector; a sector that the men view as trivial. However in the end "whatever goes over the Devil's back is got to come under his belly".

What really had an affect on me was the fact that Mr. Peter and Mr. Hale were completely oblivious to the little details of the house, which compromised of all the little clues that would solve the case.

In "A jury of her peers", when the sheriff was asked if there were any evidence in the kitchen, the Sheriff simply looked around assuming "nothing here but kitchen things" with a little laugh of the insignificance of kitchen things. In "Sweat", he only takes Skye’s lack of sympathy towards the wretchedness and terrors his wife encounters, as a sport. He does not seem to care about all the "work and sweat..." that Delia has been through after the marriage. Her domestic life to Skyke's is completely insignificant. When Delia challenges Sykes's abuse, "seizing the iron skillet from the stove and (striking) a defense pose", Sykes is a "little awed by this new Delia" and as a result tries to get rid of her with the snake. It saddens me to think of women as nothing more but objects to the cruel and powering men standing above them. Both stories still contain stereotypes that to this day prevail, however I think that the two stories represent a turning point in the 20th Century when women began to stand up for their equality. Whether it is keeping quite as Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hales did in a "jury of her peers" or defending yourself against an abusive husband, a transformation of power and the initiative spirit to fight for their individual female right is confirmed through the endings of the two short stories. 

Cultural Mutation

After having grown up in London for most of my life, at the age of 11 my family moved to Beirut. I spent two crucial years of my life there, and those two years had a huge impact on me culturally. Looking from the gender aspect of things, in such a third world country, women did not have equal opportunities as men. Women would grow up with the simple purpose that has been ingrained into their life from a young age. This was to get married to a wealthy man, who could support her, spoil her, and simply provide for her. After marriage a women will be responsible for taking care of the house and being there when their husbands come back from work. This was a very different case back in London, where women would be seen everywhere in positions that varied from Journalists, news presenters, CEO's to woking in firms, nurses and the stereotypes go on. After enrolling into Women's Literature I have taken more notice to the life's of normal women and based on my experience I will attempt to depict the differences of cultures between these two different cultural territories bringing to light the conceptions highlighted in "The End of Men"by Hanna Rosin.

Hanna Rosin did a great job in convincing me that Women have progressively become increasingly more suited for our current day society. Firstly according to the article the global economy has evolved in such a way that it is weakening the "historical preference" for male children. In the 70's- 80's when countries where going through industrialisation, governments persuaded women to enter the labor force and after a while women began to move to even more urban areas, then got to collage and move to professional jobs. I am fully aware that before such a time, it was very difficult for a women to put themselves out there. However I disagree that this has changed society for the reason that it is better suited for women. Such an argument seems ridiculous to me. She then continues to argue that "with a few exceptions, the greater the power of women, the greater the country's economic success". This may be the case, however it is only a coincidence. Her whole argument is based and heavily based on stereotypes. "Social intelligence, open communication, the ability to sit still and focus" are all traits that predominately vary depending on the person not their gender. In third world countries such as Beirut, where construction, manufacturing and high finance industries have not reached its potential, men will continue to dominate. In cities like London, I am convinced in saying that jobs are somewhat equally distributed and gender has not had a huge impact in regards to employment and society in general.

Her whole article is filled with stereotypes and to me seems like a BIG WHAT IF the modern, postindustrial economy is simply more congenial to women than to men? And if it is the case that it is the end of men, I firmly believe that history will repeat itself in which males adapt to the current situation and society around them and start climbing the chain. Such a process is very unlikely to even take place.

At times of war women where needed to take care of the children and the house, while males held the important jobs. And this I think a major reason why in unstable countries like Beirut men are seen as more superior than women. Many of the freedoms that Women have achieved such as the amount of women receiving their B.A, and facts like "women now hold 51.4% of managerial and professional jobs up from 26.1% in 1980 should not come as a huge surprise as these facts where simply overdue for change. These facts scattered across 14 pages do not show the end of man, but rather the equal rights of men and women.

I think that society around the world, starting in Europe will one day become fully egalitarian. After all looking back into history, it is fairly recent that men have come to agree that women share the same status in society. Men's strength, used to be why they were favoured more, however social, political and economic changes have brought humanity to middle ground. In the end of the day although statistics can mislead many into thinking that it is the end of man or women, it is about the quality of your education, charisma and respectability that affects a persons place in society and Third world countries will follow.