The relevance today of A Jury of Her Peers In "A Jury of Her Peers", Susan Glaspell illustrates many social standards experienced by women all beginning of the century. It allows the reader to see how a woman's life was completely governed by social laws, and therefore by her husband. Glaspell also reveals the ignorance of the men involved in the story, particularly the sheriff and county attorney. I think some of the examples are quite extreme, but in Glaspell's time they would probably have been common. Women didn't have many rights at the turn of the century. The few rights and freedoms they had were dominated by social standards. They were expected to fulfill their husbands' wishes and commands. I think their society oppressed them more often than their own husbands. A good example of this in "A Jury of Her Peers" is Martha Hale. Lewis Hale treats his wife as an equal in private, but he does not treat her as an equal in public. When Mrs. Hale attempts to interrupt her husband as he tells the county attorney what she has experienced in the Wright family, she treats him not as a teacher, but as an equal (Glaspell 260). She's clearly not afraid of him. Many women at that time would never even attempt to distract or interrupt their husband while they were talking. Clearly defined gender roles are prevalent in “A Jury of Her Peers.” Men should work outside the home and women should work inside the home. Neither men nor women seem to appreciate each other's work. Men do not realize the difficulties women face in cooking, cleaning and maintaining the home. Women seem to understand the difficulties men face, but feel that their jobs are more difficult. At that time men, working outdoors, had set hours, while women worked almost all the time they were awake. The sheriff is particularly critical of Mrs. Wright. He does not consider his work of any value. He dismisses his concerns about his reserves as useless, not taking into consideration the time and effort invested in them (Glaspell 264). He laughs that she wanted an apron while in prison when she most likely wore an apron every day at home. The county attorney makes a mess of pots under the sink by kicking them without any regard (Glaspell 264). Who knows if he would appreciate someone entering his office with so little respect for his things? The deputy soils the towel, which leads the county attorney to complain about Mrs. Wright's housekeeping (Glaspell 264). None of the men appreciate Mrs. Wright's efforts. They are oblivious to his daily life as Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters realize what he has been through. Only when I realized this did I fully understand the title “A Jury of His Peers.” In protecting Ms. Wright, Ms. Hale and Ms. Peters are truly a jury of peers. The county attorney, the sheriff and his deputies in "A Jury of Her Peers" all give the reader an impression of ignorance and poor investigation. Sheriff Peters appears to be in complete control of the investigation. He refuses to take any blame for the mistakes, or to admit that his deputy isn't a perfect detective either. Mrs. Hale notices on the trip to the Wrights' house how "nice and lively" the sheriff is (Glaspell 257). I too find it strange that a noble would be in a jovial mood under the circumstances. Considering that the prime suspect in John Wright's murder is Mr. Wright's wife, it was extremely ignorant to avoid searching through the entire kitchen. Sheriff Peters should have known that Ms..