The Taming of the Shrew

[Sycron]

Does anyone else find that the Taming of the Shrew is insulting to women? When I read it for the first time I really didn't know what to say. Was Shakespeare ernest in what the play says about women? It portrays that the only role for women to play is that of obedience to their husband. What do you think?

[amuse]

i think it's funny, and was reminded of myself at different junctures in my life.
so, no.

[emily655321]

Shakespeare was an abnormally pro-female person for his time. Think of the strong female characters in his other works...uh...well, Viola's the only one I can think of offhand. I haven't read any Shak. in quite a while. But I'm with you on Shrew; I was left stunned and confused. I don't know what the man could have been thinking. That final monologue is something else. All I can guess is, it was a different time; the way comedies in our time still portray gender stereotypes, despite a widespread cultural rejection of them.

I wish Kik was around to discuss this. He has plenty to say in Shrew's favor, and far more education on the subject than I do. Where the heck is that boy? Evaporated into the ether, has he?

[Sycron]

Yes, the last spiel by Katherina in the last scene of the play is particularly disturbing. I suppose it could be meant to be viewed as ironic, and therefore funny. And yes, Shakespeare has written some fantastic heroines, which is why the Taming of the Shrew still confuses me.

[crisaor]

Does anyone else find that the Taming of the Shrew is insulting to women? When I read it for the first time I really didn't know what to say. Was Shakespeare ernest in what the play says about women? It portrays that the only role for women to play is that of obedience to their husband. What do you think?
No, I don't. What's the thing you find insulting about it? Above all, it's a comedy, and all things must be understood in that context. There is of course a gender stereotype, but that's pretty much part of that historical period, and is much lighter than what could be expected. The fact that Shakespeare regards obedience as a woman's best asset is because he defines them by their relationship to men. Anyway, whatever thing Shakespeare might say in the play is purposedly exaggerated. He was married to a woman older than him, and he wasn't the one with the pants in that relationship.

[emily655321]

He was married to a woman older than him, and he wasn't the one with the pants in that relationship.

Oh really? Abandoning his family in Stratford to live in London and carry on affairs with Dark Ladies and Young Men, and who was wearing the pants again? That is, making the hypothetical assumption that William Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon was the real author of the plays. But actually, that aside, the man who wrote the plays -- whoever he was -- clearly had a much broader impression of women than is most often represented in the literature of the time. Certainly, he had shrews like Katherine and Emilia; silly princess-types like Olivia and the Midsummer girls; virginal victims like Ophelia, Desdamona, and Lavinia; evil queens like Lady Macbeth and Tamora. But then there are Viola, Juliet, Portia of Julius Caesar, Beatrice, Cordelia, and of course Rosalind. Even the victimized Hermione has her show-stopping monologue, eloquently defending herself in the face of the ultimate of chauvinist offenses: cuckolding. Not only are these strong, self-determined women, but think how many of them are the main characters and heros of their respective plays. Shakespeare obviously knew intelligent women and respected his female characters as intellectual equals -- and in some of his plays, betters. Shakespeare was no chauvinist.

Which is why Taming of the Shrew baffles me all the more. Kate has no redeeming value, except if you consider her initial strength and independence. What makes a comedy a comedy is that everything turns out right in the end...but if "right" means a broken-spirited woman grovelling at the feet of her sadistically dominating husband, then...what? How is that a happy ending? What was in his head?

[amuse]

i still like the ending. but i've said that before and should shut up finally.

[crisaor]

Oh really? Abandoning his family in Stratford to live in London and carry on affairs with Dark Ladies and Young Men, and who was wearing the pants again? That is, making the hypothetical assumption that William Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon was the real author of the plays.
Oh, he had affairs with dark ladies and young men, god forbid...
I'm not seeing any point here. I never claimed Shakespeare to be a role model on how a citizen should behave (it is a writer's example though). Thing is he wasn't the one who called the shots in his house. Maybe he went away in order to avoid this, it wasn't a happy marriage after all. Anyway, speculating on the personal life of a man whose entire existence is doubted is somewhat relative.

[emily655321]

I wasn't commenting on his moral character. I was just wondering where you got the idea that he was controlled by his wife, or that she was domineering, or whatever you meant by it, since most details aren't known about his personal life, as you pointed out.

[crisaor]

Sorry about the confusion. To tell you the truth, I don't know where I got it. I've browsed several sources regarding his life/works in the past years, so I wouldn't be able to direct you in the right path.

[Sancho]

From whence The Shrew came; - who the heck knows. It certainly doesn’t fit in with anything else old Billy wrote. It was early in his career wasn’t it? Also it was written either just before or just after a similar (anonymous) Elizabethan play entitled The Taming of a Shrew. In The Taming of a Shrew Kate had two younger sisters and, if you can believe it, this version was even less “politically correct” than, The Taming of the Shrew. No one really knows which one was produced first, so no one really knows who ripped-off who. I’m just saying, it was early in Shakespeare’s career and it doesn’t really fit in with anything else the man wrote.

[GapingStarling]

Also, I think that Kate's speech at the end of the play can be read in more that one way. (I think I've said this before). If it's read earnestly, I can see the broken-spirit, obedient-wife picture. On the other hand, it's the longest speech in the play, longer than anything Petruchio gets to say. So, Kate has managed to secure the spotlight. And, by being so over-the-top about her submission, she could be seen as exaggerating and poking fun at the very conventions she is outlining. After all, a few-word reply about the duty of a wife would have satisfied Petruchio's command equally well. So, I think there is room for more than one interpretation of the ending, including one in which Kate is still challenging Petruchio, albeit in a subversive rather than overt manner.

[emily655321]

Hmm.. that's really interesting. Do you mean the speech delivered with outright sarcasm? I've heard of it done 1) where Kate is happily obedient, 2) where she weeps the speech miserably. But I never considered the possibility of it being purely sardonic... if that's what you mean; I'd have to read it over, but I can definitely imagine Kate wailing and gesticulating like a bad soap opera actress, to her own great amusement -- declaring once and for all that her words may dutifully call the sun the moon, but she will never roll over and become a Bianca, while Petruchio stands dumb-founded and red-faced, ending the play in utter defeat. That would be awesome.

[amuse]

emily, direct it please, please! :)

[emily655321]

Hehehe. I have a friend who is PERFECT to play that Petruchio. :D
*rubs hands together in sinister contemplation*

[GapingStarling]

Yeah, exactly, especially if you read her earlier 'concessions' (the sun/moon, the old man/young girl) in the same cheeky light. It would also end the play on an interesting note, because we've just seen that neither Bianca nor - oh, who was the other one? - come when their husbands summon them, while Kate does. So, you've got what looks like a victory for Petruchio... ;)
Anyway, I'm certainly not arguing for this as the only reading, but I think Shrew is open to a lot of possibilities with the ambiguity of the end.

[emily655321]

Random thought: seeing as "Taming of a Shrew" had just been produced, what if Shakespeare's "Taming of the Shrew" wasn't plot-theft; what if it was a PARODY, intended to be acted tongue-in-cheek? A representation of the way the original might happen in real life -- and, dare I say, mocking it for its misogyny.

Most likely that's a stretch, but an intriguing possibility nonetheless.

[JediFonger]

what's wrong with the play? just saw it over the weekend with two of my friends as tranio and grumio.

[Shore Dude]

Also, I think that Kate's speech at the end of the play can be read in more that one way. (I think I've said this before). If it's read earnestly, I can see the broken-spirit, obedient-wife picture. On the other hand, it's the longest speech in the play, longer than anything Petruchio gets to say. So, Kate has managed to secure the spotlight. And, by being so over-the-top about her submission, she could be seen as exaggerating and poking fun at the very conventions she is outlining.
Starling, I think this is right on.

I think it is important to keep in mind that great writers/ artists leave a good amount of their work up for interpretation – Shakespeare does this quite frequently. What fun is a didactic expression of art?

Kate starts off in the monologue of her last scene...

To wound thy lord, thy king, thy governor:
It blots thy beauty as frosts do bite the meads,
Confounds thy fame as whirlwinds shake fair buds,
And in no sense is meet or amiable.

Right from the start, it seems she is laying this on pretty thick using expressions like, ‘Thy lord, thy king, thy governor’. I believe the use of meet here can be seen as a pun, and thus is received to the audience as the first sense of ambiguity in Kate’s beliefs. In one sense, it can be seen as a coming together, a finding of (in this case) two people. It holds that a woman is 'precisely adapted to a particular situation' and thus acts accordingly. However, the verb form of meet also denotes the act of 'encountering as antagonist or foe' – something Kate and Petruchio have experienced the entire play. Their scenes together have been marked by sarcasm, playfulness and wit. Petruchio knows this as well. Earlier in this final scene, Kate gets up to confront Hortensio’s widow on her accusations that Kate is a shrew. As they get up to face off, Petruchio says, ‘A hundred marks, my Kate does put her down.’ Petruchio knows the rebellious, tough ways of Kate. In this play, although Kate (in a sense) has been tamed by Petruchio, he has also conceded in ways and at times has seemed outwitted by Kate. Either way, there can be expressed a sense of understanding between these two characters. Perhaps their lives will always be marked by playful deception, with people around them as well as with each other.

Act IV, Scene 5 is a good example, because it is after Petruchio has supposedly set Kate in her ways, defining her role as wife. They start off arguing about whether it is the sun or the moon which shines so brightly. Petruchio says it is the moon. Kate says she knows it is the sun. Then Petruchio (in a patronizing father-child manner), reminds Kate that she must agree with what he says. So she does. Even Hortensio tells Petruchio to let it rest when he presses the issue.

Then the group meets Vincentio. Petruchio asks Kate to comment on ‘her’ beauty. When Kate obliges, referring to Vincentio as a ‘budding virgin’, Petruchio jumps in asking Kate if she is 'mad, for in front of them is a man – old, wrinkled, faded, wither’d.' Petruchio purposely set Kate up to look foolish. Kate replies by pardoning herself (sufficing Petruchio), though saying her mistaking eyes were bedazzled with the sun! Petruchio immediately disregards the comment asking Vincentio whereto he plans to travel. In a sense, Kate has again gotten the better of Petruchio using her wit – even this late in the play.

Back to Kate’s final monologue, the uncommon use of ‘meet’ as an adjective is stylistic predilection (in my opinion) for Shakespeare. Couple that with a sense of facetiousness in Kate’s tone, and I think the audience receives their first taste of ambiguity within Kate's final monologue. Perhaps she is putting on a show for everyone that only Petruchio and the audience can see. Perhaps even Petruchio is led astray – depending on how it is played by the actor. Don't forget, these are plays and the tone of speech is crucial to meaning.

After all that, I think it would be simplifying the text to say that Kate is playing the obedient role of wife, and that the Shakespeare’s plays ends with an insulting tone towards women. In a sense it is played so everyone wins. If Kate plays the obedient role in front of the guests, Petruchio is happy. If the audience knows that Kate doesn't truly believe in what she is saying, Kate wins.