The central conflict of the story is Susan’s lack of and search for an identity independent of her role as wife and mother. These are the identities the gendered expectations of the time mandate, and they are so routine as to seem natural: Susan is to relinquish her career for the sake of child-rearing and housekeeping, while Matthew is to pursue a financially stable—and, presumably, satisfying—profession in order to support the family. This is what “reasonable” and “intelligent” couples do.

Thus, Susan subordinates her personal pursuits to this marriage. At the beginning, she and her husband share goals, including making “sensible” choices and cultivating “their infallible sense for choosing right” (2545), with “right” being whatever social convention dictates. They will fulfill their predetermined roles for the sake of raising well-intentioned children and preserving the tradition of the nuclear family. If all of this seems a bit sterile, then Susan reminds us that “intelligence forbids tears” (2547). This is an arrangement based in rational thinking, not in emotional abundance; Matthew’s indiscretions are merely the expected outcome of a sensible arrangement. In these terms, the concept of marriage seems an inherently limiting and arid one, especially for the woman, whose traditional role relegates her to the family entirely.