One would think that such a radically out-of-touch feminist would at least know how to spell... At any rate, it appears that Polly the Shrew is in fact very much alive!
One would think that such a radically out-of-touch feminist would at least know how to spell... At any rate, it appears that Polly the Shrew is in fact very much alive!
You have obviously never really studied into this piece at all, it is not outdated it is actually still the same. The play predates the realism movement of the 19th century with ibsen. Its so true, its almost a psychological treatment of Kate. She is not abused she is taught a lesson. She is brought not into submissiion but rather love. Her abuse comes from her father and i really dont think that s treated comically. Its a great classic piece of theatre that everyone shoule have to read. Have you ever seen 10 things i hate about you?? Its exactly the same story, clear down to the placements of monologues, and characters names. Take some theatre history courses, and learn about it, before you go slamming it. It is not dead, and it is much alive in todays society. Accept today its about a mental abusive father most likely and the daughter that is a result from it. Maybe someone who is educated will not abuse their daughter and this will not need to happen. She was a ***** and a spoiled brat, are you promoting that, because i would not want a wife like that. <br>READ A BOOK!!
im am female myself and i found this play most humerous but never offencive, women like you will end up old and lonely
Several layers of advice:<br><br>Investigate CONTEXT<br><br>Learn HUMOR<br><br>Develop TOLERANCE<br><br>Expose yourself to DIVERSITY<br><br>In other words, GET A LIFE.
And the Shrew has been found! After thes 200 supposed years you talked about the Shrew has come back to life. It's you. Why don't you first learn how to spell, agreeing with the previous reply, and then prioritize your beliefs. This story isn't meant to attack women's rights and especially women's suffrage, I don't know where you got that from, it is meant to portray the love of men OR of women and what they will do to get what they want. If you're a Theater Marketeer, I think you should change occupations.
I am always pissed off to find illiterate idiots and rash, over-sensitive, "Politically Corect" pricks spreading their disease over the net that don't even bother to proofread.<br><br>Thank you to all of you who have taken the time to state your cases against this madwoman.<br><br>And to the woman herself:<br><br>Lighten up. You're the same kind of annoying idiot as those who wanted to put a leaf over David's crotch. Art is Art, and Shakespeare is high art.<br><br>Please refrain from speaking from this time forward.
I haven't read the play itself, but I have researched it and read several overviews of the plot. Also, I did view the movie "Ten Things I Hate About You" in my high school English class just last week, and I feel it follows the storyline quite rigidly for such a modern piece. But, back to the topic at hand, the purpose of the play was not to degrade women and portray them as inferior to men, therefore constituting immediate subordination and obedience. I think, rather, that it was a challenge to Petruchio's wits from the shrew-like Katharine, though this was less intentional, for he entered the situation only out for financial gain, and that his means of "taming" her were more or less just getting her to realize the error in her demeanor. She wasn't abused or tormented, but instead was just forced to learn a particularly harsh lesson. In my opinion, you need to get off your feminist high horse and realize that the play was not a stab at the rights and position of women in society, but a humorous tale of an outlandish girl who needed someone to get her back to reality.
You know some scholars claim that shakespeare was actually making a comment about the fact that the treatment women recieved. That in fact he was saying the opposite of what you took the play to mean, by demonstrating in the play what it was about the marrying off of women that he disagreed with. Of course no-one will ever know exactly what his actual intentions and thoughts of the play were, its open to interpretation - if you ask me thats the beauty of Shakespeare! And the best part of that is that people interpret things differently, and then you get a little controversy. If we took that right away from people I think we would be removing a lot of life's spark.
I would like to second all of the above (except calling her a psycho).
YEAH BOYS I AGREE, MAN SHAKESPEAR ROCKS, HE WAS TEACHING A PERSON, WHO HAPPEND TO BE A WOMAN, A LESSON IN LIFE, TO PROVE SHE WAS WRONG. I GUESS YOU CAN SAY THAT IT IS SEXIST BUT YOU HAVE TO BE PRETTY ANTISEXIST YOURSELF. ( I BELIEVE ALL THE PEOPLE WHO WILL READ THIS IS HARD OUT SHAKESPEAR FANS AND UNDERSTAND AND KNOW ENGLISH VERY WELL, SORRY FOR NOT HAVE THE RIGHT SPELLING AND PUTUATION, IM STILL AT SCHOOL ;-) <br>ANYWAY, I BELIEVE POLLY? IS IT POLLY?... SHE HAS A RIGHT TO SAY ITS SEXIST BUT I ALSO THINK PEOPLE DONT NEED TO GIVE HER THE POOS. ANYWAY ... IT'S WHAT I THINK ... AND IT'S HUMAN TO THINK AND ACT DIFFERENT!!!<br>PEACE OUT TO ALL THE G'S
I played the shrew in my high school drama group's production, and I'd have to disagree with you and say that basically, Shakespeare is writing from an age where that was how women were treated. Whether or not we like it, that was history. And I found Taming of the Shrew to be worth performing because I learned about the times. I didn't feel degraded when I played the character. After all, she wasn't exactly a sweetie-pie herself, and I think that she and Petruchio really developed a good relationship. Besides, some people think that Shakespeare was making a point about how women were treated. And I found it to be quite humorous. <br><br>Try not to get so worked up and just have fun, girl!
First I must say that I dont like to slam people, but when it comes to ignorance and downright stupidity- some people just need to open their eyes to a good slam.<br><br>The reason that this amazing piece has stayed alive so long is not that people still believe in male dominance- look at the news sweetie- but that this play shows more, it shows human nature.<br><br>At first petruchio was just in it for the money (greed), and Kate was only rejecting him because of the problems with her father (who doesnt have these? regardless of 'dominace'), this play showes that love overcomes everyting- hate, abuse, greed, all human driving forces.<br><br>Its not about submitting to men, because no one ever does that, its submission to love, and only love. Petruchio actually submits first- in all reality HE submits to HER before she considers love.<br><br>Get a clue and read behind the words. And NEVER, I repeat NEVER disagree with something you know nothing about.
In the Taming of the Shrew, we have a picture of a woman who has been deeply hurt by her goody-two-shoes little sister and her neglecting father. As a result she has overreacted- it's just a typical reaction of that intelligent, highly strung, sensitive Kate. Then along comes Petruchio, who is slightly wild himself-- someone perfect to deal with Kate. He meets Kate and begins his taming by holding up against her a mirror of herself. For he overreacts to everything. Meanwhile he is falling in love with her, and also she with him. It is by reminding herself that she manages to keep on being a shrew. At one piont she even falls into light badinage, but realises her lapse and repairs it. Then the wedding, and after, where he whisks her away, proclaiming, "She is my goods, my chattels," daring anyone else to touch her. No-one can touch her, but no-one can hurt her. She is safer than she was when she said, "Will you make a stale(prostitute) of me among these mates?" when her father seeks to auction her off to the first comer.<br>They get home, and Petruchio keeps on with the mirror treatment. He refuses to fellowship in sleep, food, or sex with her until she has stooped. Long ago, when training a hawk, to form a bond, the owner would refuse the hawk food and go sleepless with it for three terrible days. "Till she stoop she must not be full-gorged" says Petruchio. The reference to hawking is clear--Petruchio does not sleep either. He is training a hawk. And is not a hawk more useful when it has been trained? <br>Finally Kate is trained. Her natural wit flourishes beneath her husband's rule. She is raised to a point where she is equal to him. And when Petruchio tells her against the evidence of her eyes that it is a maid that stands before them, she embroiders upon his tale, making reference to "her" rosy cheeks et al. Her new discipline turns her wit to constructive purposes. <br>Then the final marriage feast, where Petruchio hawks at the other brides "To her, Kate!" Then Kate steps into her natural leader's role and lectures her sisters on duty. And finally the whole point of the play is explained as Kate kneels to Petruchio and he raises her up to kiss her and make her equal to himself.<br>And one thing which has always made me wonder-- Why, if you say that Petruchio benefitted from their relationship, is it sexist to piont out that Kate was the main benifitee, so to speak?
It's funny how so many people believe that they have some sort of legitimate background in Shakespearian literature just beacuse they were in the play back in high school....ha!!...and even worse - so many of you haven't even read the play - you decided that hollywood would do a good enough job of replicating the play and just watched the movie - HOW TYPICAL!!<br>While reading the responses I found it incredibly sad to see so many women who were willing to put down another woman in her quest to deconstruct the patriarchy and do away with the mysognistic ideals that obviously run rampant in Taming of the Shrew. <br>Wow, I am sorry Polly but it looks like the media, the men in power and literature such as the aforementioned play has been successful in making women believe that sexism is acceptable. I totally understand what Polly is saying. The literature of Shakespeare is genius (I dont' say "Shakespeare the man, because many scholars suggest that Shakespear's works were actually written by a group of people...) and the majority of his plays will always be seen as vital components of the canon. We need to be careful however, in accepting EVERYTHING he has ever said or written. Shakespeare isn't perfect, and thats okay, we dont' have to think any less of him. Step back before you attack; don't you want to live in a sexist free world??????
whether or not taming of the shrew is or isnt sexist has already been submitted so i wont waste my thoughts on whether or not that is true. however, lets just say it is sexist, to say that the taming of the shrew should not be shown is completely ignorant (sorry i am sure u r regretting what you hav said now) as it is history. political correctness is taking over and it is wrong. in shakespeares times people were sexist and if younger generations dont know this how can anyone appreciate today. it is like saying people should not learn about the treatment of the jews in world war 2 or that how black people were treated in the past should not be shown because these two parts of history are racist. of course they are and that is why we should learn about them. not only to teach younger generations but also because by blocking anything politically incorrect you are undermining everything that people went through in those times. taming of the shrew may or may not be sexist but it SHOULD be shown.<br>thankyou.<br>rebecca aged 15 - england.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks