Male Intolerant vs. Female Tolerant

finding is based on the fact in t his play that seems to state male’s characteristics intolerant, apathetic, careless, hard are featured with powerful and dominant attributes . They are the aspect of the superiority. Otherwise, female’s characteristics tolerant, sympathetic, incisive, sociable are considered as the elements of inferiority because their attributes are less dominant and less powerful than the characteristics of male characters. In other words, the story of Trifles is constructed by the existence of male and female characters because they always stand in opposite side, so that they are always in conflict. Additionally, Susan Glaspell also embellishes them with some characteristics that are in opposition. In example, when male character is characterized as something, then female character is characterized as the opponent of that something male characteristic, and it also occurs the same rule for the opposite situation, when female character is characterized as something then the male character is also automatically character ized as the opponent of the female’s characteristic. These characterizations on male and female characters become a pattern that may control the text to let the readers to the climax of the story in the play the domination that is done by the male characters. This pattern of arrangement also automatically sets an accessible image to the readers that male characters are superior and female characters are inferior. Here, it can be said that this image of male’s superiority and female’s inferiority as the textual fact because this image is based on the story of the text. However, the possibility of the different finding is widely open when this phenomenon is analyzed by deconstruction perspective because “deconstruction aims to give a strategy for reading that opens up a variety of new interpretations heretofore unseen by those who are bound by the restraints of Western Thought” Bressler, 1999: 126, in which it also often said in more simple word as “reading the text against itself, with the purpose of knowi ng the text as it cannot know itself” Barry, 2002: 71. As the explanation of the application of that theory which tells about the possibility of various interpretations, here Mrs. Hale’s words are taken as the example. These words are the same words that express the action of Mrs. Wright. MR. HENDERSON. cross to up left door facetiously Well, Henry, at least we found out that she was not going to quilt it. She was going to —what is it you call it, ladies? MRS. HALE. standing center below table facing front, her hand against her pocket We call it —knot it, Mr. Henderson. McQuade, 1999: 990 In this case, the discussion is concerned on the answer of Mrs. Hale that sounds as “She Mrs. Wright was going to tie the quilt”. This discussion demonstrates that the ambiguity in a text results the inconstant meaning in a text. It can be said that these words may be interpreted as the describing way to illustrate Mrs. Wright’s method to murder her husband, Mr. Wright. For example, these words can be interpreted as “She Mrs. Wright knots the rope around her husband’s neck when she chokes him”. Meanwhile, the similar case also occurs in the characteristics of the male and female characters. As already discussed, some of their characteristics are the outline PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI