women

[Jordan]

Shakespeare tended to give his female characters (which, btw, were played by men in the earlier days) the role of submissive. It was believed that men were naturally dominant and they would have to either "break" their wife into submission, or marry an already submissive girl. Shakespeare had a lot of this in his other plays -- try checking them out :)

[Unregistered]

anyone who has read this play and thinks it is degrading toward women needs to re-read it 100 times! then take a look at the history and social atmosphere to Shakespeare's time... the joke might then become more obvious to you.<br>

[Alana]

A lot of Shakespeare's comic effect is through sarcasm and satire, so it is ignorant to dismiss his works without actually having read them carefully. In 'Shrew', much of the theme is based on the idea that the powerful can become powerless (i.e. Lucentio as a servant) and the powerless can become powerful (i.e. Sly's time as a Lord). In the context of women's rights, Shakespeare's concept of social mobility was powerful and modern. 'Shrew' is about challenging social stereotypes, and cannot fairly be called "degrading" to women.

[Unregistered]

If you actually understand the point being given, then you might understand that back in the day, they were like this

[12_Year_Old_Shakespeare_Luvr]

READ THE PLAY!!!! You can't just look at an overview and assume you know everything there is to know about the play's attitude. Yes, the play is about a woman learning "how to behave" and yes, the male is dominant, but that doesn't mean she is being slave driven! Don't judge a book by it's cover. If you want to give the impression of knowledge and make people see your viewpoint, you probably will want to do something that gives you an actual look at what the play is all about, like, I don't know, READING IT?!?!?<br> -- 12_Year_Old_Shakespeare_Luvr<br>(By the way, I'm a girl and I still have this viewpoint)

[anonymous]

Firstly don't be so narrow minded... to read an overview and make a judgement on a play of such high standard just goes to show how pathetic you really are and are the cause of all the stereotype that women are pathetic....<br>secondly if you even read the overview properly you would realise the real themes emerging throughout the performance, rather than making a rash decision.....<br>and lastly... who cares if it even was degrading to women..... Think of the context of the play and what the surrounding circumstances were at the time........<br>maybe you might realise something about life, the play and even youre own stupidity!!! :)

[Bert]

Wow guys, you dont need to rip down that hard on this girl... if she doesnt want to read the play, she doesnt have to...<br><br>On the other hand, you cannot disagree with something you know nothing about. Shakespear showed a lot more than just "male domiance" in this show, he showed that, not to be cheesy, but love and greed are what drive all humans to do anything.<br><br>My view is also that she should read the play and try to see the REAL meaning behind it, but if she wants to put on blinkers and be blind to a culture that can teach her about amazing driving forces- thats her decision.<br><br>Oh, and if Korunue ever reads this, I think you should look into the part of Kate. She feels the same way you do.

[Unregistered]

I agree with Bert. I don't think u should be hard on Korunue. But I do think she should read the play, it's really good.<br>(but Ialso agree that Shakespear could have been a little softer on the charater of Kate.)

[Unregistered]

Well, yes, the play is harsh on women, but look at the time period. If you want a more up-to-date version, try watching 10 things i hate about you. it shows that shakespeare was trying to teach Kate how to enjoy life, not to have her become a submissive wife(though it may seem so in the play). Yes, i know, the movie is not exactaly like the play, but it's a good starting point for understanding it.

[Unregistered]

Shakespeare loved women! The whole monologue at the end is "tongue-in-cheek" on Kate's part. You missed the point, I'm afraid. No sexism here!

[Jennifer]

I completely agree with the original comment, and with a Ph.D. in educational psychology, I am not exactly "pathetic" as one of the misogynists (female-haters) who replied insisted. Yes, this play is most certainly bashing women. It is sickening and disgusting that she is "starved" and tortured in other ways in order to get her to conform to what a "proper" woman should be like. And that it was considered so hilarious and was so popular, and CONTINUES to be, is even more telling. We live in a misogynistic culture, and unfortunately, that has not changed. However, I say to the original writer, take your response and do something positive with it. Let's change the world and let everyone know that women deserve to have the right to be angry just as much as men. (Why isn't there even a male word equivalent to *****??) Women's anger is GOOD--this is what makes the world change!

[Unregistered]

i have a question... why would u go to a web page about william shakespeare with an over veiw of the "shrew" if u havnt ever even read the book? it is always better to read the overview after you have read the book that way you can get a better understanding of it. instead of reading between the lines. before you make another judgment about the taming of the shrew or any oter shakspeare works try reading them! that would be a good idea!!!

[Unregistered]

Just by your astoundingly naive and rash comment, I am quite able to tell that you are obviously and unfortunately one of the extremely few women who searches tirelessly for a sexist offense that is not (and in this case never will be) present. I would strongly advise you to re-think your irrationally percieved opinions of sexist writings and voice a thought such as the one I am responding to when you truly come across a piece of literature that indeed does have a bias based on gender.<br><br>-Professor John B. Sutherford, Boston University

[Unregistered]

Well, it can seem harsh on women, if read one way. But the way you interpret the characters depends on how you imagine them delivering their lines and their actions. The play doesn't have to be read seriously and Katherine doesn't always have to seem submissive. She could be speaking sarcastically or angerily when she's delivering some of her more obedient lines.

[jazm]

i think you may have made the descision a little too early. however i can see why you may feel the way you do. the shrew is a very inspirational play and once analysised you will see its true meaning and reflection of the beliefs of shakespears time. cheers buddy

[Korunue]

hey...<br>am i the only one that noticed that this play seems to be rather harsh on women? I havre just read the overview and have no wish to read or see a play so degrading! Shakespear can (and did) do much better work.,

[dritz]

Change of subject here a bit, another perspective. My wife and I went to this play last week in Boise. I sobbed like a baby during the final wedding scene (“if should suit my master to place his foot on my hand”). My wife is harsh and brash and impolite and challenges every assertion and suggestion arrogantly. We’ve been married 7 years. It isn’t as much of an issue of “submission”, I don’t think she should do everything I say without question…. I feel the deeper meaning was just the woman just being respectful and kind, and gentle in spirit to her man (and all people). Everyday I go to bed wishing I had a kind woman in my house. After viewing the play last week, I read the play (twice). I wish there was some real-life application I could draw in my own marriage, but I fear this approach is unrealistic and quite harsh itself (withholding food and clothing, I mean, I would never do that, let alone the legal and social implications). Anyway, I’m done babbling. Suffice it to say, I was deeply touched, and Shakespeare hit home with me. This play haunts my thoughts, even though it is “fiction”.

Still looking for the magic bullet in my own relationship,
Dave

[Logos]

For better or worse, it's so much more meaningful when `fiction' is something we can relate to in our own lives. Some kind of comfort in that.

Welcome to the forums dritz :)

[sKorpia]

The whole monologue at the end is "tongue-in-cheek" on Kate's part.

I don't know. I've been to two productions of Taming (one of which was the Royal Shakespeare Company's travelling troupe from London) and both interpretations played Kate's final speech completely straight. Having experienced it that way, I got at the interpretation that drizt was talking about in his post. A marriage needs mutual respect and affection. We know from the start Petruccio admires her. As he is set up to be her equal, he must also be bored with the docile women that surround him. After all, marriage wasn't a revolving door thing then. To break her only to then realize that he's stuck with a woman he doesn't love would make this a tragedy rather than a comedy.

[gracie08]

hey all
i am doing research on the female protagonist across literature and 'The Taming of the Shrew' is one of my chosen texts (i have watched the play).
i totally agree that Shakespeare was not being harsh on women or more to the point, Kate. it was just the context and period that women were subjected to being submissive to men. true, i am female and i hate to think that we are submissive to men (even though we can be!) but it is true and was true in those times. but yea back to the shrew, i dont see how it was all the bad for Kate to be submissive to Petrucio? was it bad that she was finally 'tame' and didn't scream for the rest of her life? was it bad that she was finally happy as she finally realise how she must be "And place your hands below your husband's foot. In token of which duty, if he please, My hand is ready, may it do him ease."? hmm..well i thort she was happier, just my opinion so please do not go on harassing me about my opinions like some people have...

[byquist]

Kate may look tame and obedient at the end, but maybe she is just temporarily acting a part too. Maybe in a month she will be browbeating Petrucio. I doubt it, because I'm inclined to see them as a mutual fine match. However, she's not going to be anybody's toy, and probably will "wear the pants in the family." It's unlikely that her underlying basic nature is going to chang much, but possibly.

[Night Haunter]

I completely agree with the original comment, and with a Ph.D. in educational psychology, I am not exactly "pathetic" as one of the misogynists (female-haters) who replied insisted.

stop being so up yourself, its not sexist, thats just how things were back then!

[miss z]

I have been reading the play, and I am still a bit unsure of Shakespeare's underlying message here. I am in Act 4, Sc. 5. Sometimes Kate does seem to be put in a good light, and Bianca is put down for being so mindlessly submissive. People I have talked to say that the point is that Kate acts submissive so she can really have her own way. But from what I know of the end, she preaches about how wives should be submissive, but does it really show her getting anything out of going along with Petruchio? I just went through "A Doll's House" by Ibsen with my class, and in that play the lead character had been charading with her husband-- acting childish, coy and manipulating to get what she wanted, because she and her husband couldn't have a face-to-face reasonable conversation (he didn't respect her as a rational human being.) When I compare the "Taming of the Shrew" to this, even if Kate is going along with Petruchio to get what she wants, I don't think it's a great message. Maybe Shakespeare was just trying to put out something to make people in that era laugh.