Just becuase you have issues doesn't mean you have to take them out on shakespeare! I'd like to see you write any better! get a life!
Printable View
Just becuase you have issues doesn't mean you have to take them out on shakespeare! I'd like to see you write any better! get a life!
i think that polly should consider the men rights in the play because the women offended the men in the play as pigs, and stupid. also katherine striked PETRUCHIO. however, we should consider the fact that PETRUCHIO might be the one who was kated, not kate TAMED
It's a shame Shakespeare was not alive long enough to write a play in which a heroine saves the day, and she is revere for her heroism. This play could also show readers that women should be respected because they are also as strong as men, and if not stronger. Perhaps, Shakespeare could have also written a play in which a man needed to be "tame". Surely, this play would be the accompaniment to "The Taming of The Shrew".
Some people have posted comments saying that Petruchio actually loves Katherine. Not on this planet! He does not love her, why? Here's why: 1) He's not in love with her, he's in love with her money. 2) He does NOT love her, he wants to contain and dominate her. That is not love, that is 1 step from abuse.
I'm inclined to disagree with these two points. The first and most obvious point is that if money and domination are Petruccio's desires, then why pick a woman that makes him have to work so hard? People who make comments like the two above almost seem to function under the belief that Petruccio did not have any other options as a young man just recently inheriting his father's estate? Why would a man undertake to "tame" a woman like Kate when there are probably plenty of other well-doweried daughters around Padua who were already subservient and ready to be dominated? I cannot speak for all men, but I will generalize - men generally like a peaceful home. Coming home to strife is not our idea of excitement. While it is true that some men get a kick out of seducing the firebrand woman, that's a very different thing from committing to a life-time of marriage. Very different.Quote:
Originally Posted by equalrights
Secondly, here are comments I've made elsewhere:
Is Kate really "humiliated" and in "full subservience" to Petruccio? I'm not convinced. Men who don't want a "firebrand" for a wife do not seek one out merely to "break" her. Petruccio - as a wealthy heir to his father's estate - would certainly have no problem finding a well-doweried woman with not even a tenth of Kate's attitude problems. I can't imagine a man who willingly seeks out a woman like Kate unless he sees something in her worth the challenge, worth the risk. Although Petruccio spoke as if the money was the motivation, it was after his first meeting with her - where she insulted and struck him - that he spoke adamantly about his desire to marry her. I don't believe for a minute that Petruccio "broke" Kate into "submission." I think she's too intelligent for that - I believe that - in the key scene where they are riding to her father's house - that she finally puts her pride down and shows her husband that she's willing to "play his game." It's not that Petruccio wants blind submission - it's that he wants to know that his wife trusts him enough to put her resistance down and join him. I see the banter between the two during that scene as her responding tongue-in-cheek, showing him that she understands what it is he wants.
Secondly, I often hear from students a mirror of eddd's belief that Kate has lost her "self respect," "her spirit" and "her bite" in her submission to Petruccio. It's interesting how - in order to not appear like chauvanists - we are willing to call Kate's destructive, violent and hostile behavior as "spirit." Such behavior in a male character (I'm willing to bet) wouldn't be termed such. Kate is not rebelling against a repressive culture - she is not protesting for female freedom - she is hostile and ranting and out-of-control. There is no "higher purpose" to her violence and shrewishness. She is cruel, willful and malicious. Since when are such things considered positive characteristics? Such comments as "Kate has surrendered her individuality and her spirit" do a diservice to Kate because they imply that Kate is only capable of demonstrating self-assertiveness in dysfunctional behavior. I believe that she has lost none of her spirit, her "bite" or "self respect" in her submission: rather, I believe she becomes more able to express that individuality within the relationship with her husband. A man like Petruccio does not want a "whipped puppy"; he wants a woman with spirit, with fire, with the fiestyness that Kate has (but without the clearly dysfunctional way she relates to the world).
that's your opinion, but not every "female" agrees with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered