Yeah, it's not like he shot your dog. Besides, I think he was trying to imply that I was the misogynist pig/caveman who enjoys dominating women.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
Printable View
Yeah, it's not like he shot your dog. Besides, I think he was trying to imply that I was the misogynist pig/caveman who enjoys dominating women.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
No, looks like it's yours. Feel free to speak for yourself, Ecurb, but please refrain from any further references to my (or anyone else's) wife. As for your later innuendo (and the baiting you just edited into your post), as I said before, I'm not playing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
Okay, the man knows funny. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Well, I forgot I wrote that. But I'm surprised you're insulted by it. "Perhaps"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
:iagree: I read TOTM a long time back, and the linesQuote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
"Thy husband is thy lord, thy life, thy keeper,
Thy head, thy sovereign;"
made me wince, but we have to remember she was bad tempered, violent, and a terrible person, who in the end comes to realize the error of her ways. How bad can that be? From a horrible shrew whom nobody likes she becomes a better behaved, beloved woman, and she's so thrilled about it she goes a bit too far in the opposite direction - the overzealousness of the new convert. I do not remember feeling that her will or spirit was broken in any way. Anyway, surely we aren't meant to take it too seriously, the play being a joke within a joke or something - anything so lightly constructed is bound to lose its charm if handled too much.
Macbeth. Written to deform history into the propaganda required by his royalist patrons The crawler!
Am I the only one who actually likes Kate? :) She's strong, she's witty, she's not afraid to be herself. Yes she has her faults (comedy is about faults), but Petruchio's way over the top, too. In the end, they sort of deserve each other. I'd love to see a sequel--Kate and Pet 20 years later, driven gray by their teenage kids.Quote:
Originally Posted by mona amon
Ah, the voice of sanity at last! Thanks Mona. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by mona amon
It's not if you love film as an art-form. To quote James Agee: "He achieved what no other known man has achieved. To watch his work is like being witness to the beginning of melody, or the first conscious use of the lever or the wheel; the emergence, coordination and first eloquence of language; the birth of an art: and to realize that this is all the work of one man." But, yeah, it's impossible to dispute that Griffith did indeed portray blacks as sub-human.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Katherina gives as good as she gets until the torture, which is absolutely torture. Petruchio certainly plays it for laughs, but there's no denying that what he's doing would be considered torture even under the loosest of definitions. He starves her and keeps her awake, for Pete's sake!Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Awww, the poor misogynistic torturer is tired for his hard day of torturing. Surely what he's suffering is on equal grounds with her. Why, I bet the guards at Abu Ghraib were drop-dead tired after a whole day of waterboarding!Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
The notion that "both... stop being selfish" is nonsense; the notion that they become "the model couple" is blatantly misogynistic. You seriously think this:bespeaks an ideal couple? This argues for equality? This is the best embodiment of the attitude that feminism fought against, trying to achieve ACTUAL equality at work and at home.Quote:
Thy husband is thy lord, thy life, thy keeper,
Thy head, thy sovereign; one that cares for thee,
And for thy maintenance commits his body
To painful labour both by sea and land,
To watch the night in storms, the day in cold,
Whilst thou liest warm at home, secure and safe;
And craves no other tribute at thy hands
But love, fair looks and true obedience;
Too little payment for so great a debt.
Such duty as the subject owes the prince
Even such a woman oweth to her husband;
And when she is froward, peevish, sullen, sour,
And not obedient to his honest will,
What is she but a foul contending rebel
And graceless traitor to her loving lord?
I am ashamed that women are so simple
To offer war where they should kneel for peace;
Or seek for rule, supremacy and sway,
When they are bound to serve, love and obey.
Why are our bodies soft and weak and smooth,
Unapt to toil and trouble in the world,
But that our soft conditions and our hearts
Should well agree with our external parts?
Come, come, you froward and unable worms!
My mind hath been as big as one of yours,
My heart as great, my reason haply more,
To bandy word for word and frown for frown;
But now I see our lances are but straws,
Our strength as weak, our weakness past compare,
That seeming to be most which we indeed least are.
Then vail your stomachs, for it is no boot,
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.
I think you and I probably have very different ideas of what PC is and isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
The problem is that "shrew" was synonymous with "strong-willed woman;" there was literally no difference. When you accept the former speech as the "ideal relationship" between men and women, it's clear that any woman who desires to be treated as an equal would be seen as a "shrew." If half the population was intent on keeping me a weak, second-class citizen without the right to vote or have any input on decisions or work, who viewed me as intellectually inferior, I'd be pretty damn shrewish myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
His picks are not promoting stone-age moral systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
It's what you'd have to find to have an actual analog to what we're talking about here.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
I think it reveals common male fantasies, just as cheap romance novels reveal common female fantasies. There are always exceptions, of course: I have never desired to have a submissive wife or girlfriend, but it's blatantly obvious that a great many men do. Hell, such thoughts are found in the majority of religious writing and moral philosophy going back thousands of years, so not only did (most) men desire it, but most felt that's the way things SHOULD be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
I'm with you in loving those Grant Romcoms. Another I'd add to the list would be It Happened One Night, which stars Gable instead.
Many modern productions have played it ironically, with Katherine winking all the way through. The real question, though, is whether Shakespeare thought it ironic. In a way, Shrew has come to remind me a bit of Titus Andronicus. Both seem to take popular models of entertainment and emphasize their more lurid aspects to such a ridiculous degree that you half-wonder if he was parodying them rather than just following the model. I think of Ebert's review of Julie Taymor's Titus:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
Did Shakespeare expect equally discerning audiences to see Shrew as a ridiculous parody of male fantasies of having dominion over women? The prologue seems to suggest so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Ebert
Context does matter, you know. I mean, you have one clip of Clooney killing a female vampire who's trying to make him a slave; you have another example of Arnold killing a woman who was trying to kill him first. In Ace Vantura, again, you have Carey fighting a woman who was trying to kill him. I must be missing the one that's actually promoting domestic violence as being OK in a normal relationship between normal human beings, because I don't think many feminists would object to a guy killing his girlfriend if his girlfriend turned out to be a vampire. Just sayin'.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
The point Shakespeare makes loud and clear in The Merchant of Venice is that if Shylock is a monster he's been made that way by a society that is no better. Shylock didn't "plot to kill Antonio," Antonio of his own free will signs the contract that if he can't pay back the loan then he forefeits a pound of flesh, and all of this set in motion because Bassanio needs money in order to court a woman. Shakespeare was insightfully aware of the hypocrisy of demonizing the guy that loans money and accepting as good the people that take those loans in order to get rich themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
If you "swap Kate's gender" then you'd likely remove her reason for being shrewish in the first place. See my post above.
Yes, the social failing of being a female with a will of her own who doesn't want to be servile to men. What an egregious fault!Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
We hold Shakespeare to a higher standard for good reason. If all his other plays were nothing but "stock characters" then we'd have no reason to protest. Shakespeare's unique gift was to see the underlying truths of such "stock characters and situations," and that's why we return to him rather than to any number of other playwrights of the same period.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
I love film as an art form. I do not love all films or filmmakers. Personally, I hate Eisenstein too.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
He doesn't beat her. He doesn't pull her nails out or burn her. He doesn't mutilate her body. My mother used to send me to my room without dinner when I was naughty. Was she torturing me? Or was she disciplining a disobedient child?Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Again, you overstate your case and compare something extreme with something very tame. I see what Petruchio is doing sort of like domesticating a wild animal (taming a shrew, like the title implies), which can be hard, demanding, exhausting work; but once successful results in a great bond. When I first got a puppy, it was wrecking my house, causing hundreds of dollars of damage. I barely slept for weeks trying to teach that dog to go potty outside, not to chew on everything, and to stop biting and scratching me. It was terrorizing me in my own house! I hear that raising and disciplining children is often quite a bit harder, and my heart goes out to every saint who goes through the ordeal.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Maybe, they don't need perfect equality in all things. Some women like a strong man who leads in the relationship.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
My idea of funny comedians would be Trey Parker and Matt Stone (South Park), Norm MacDonald, Patrice O'Neal, Bryan Johnson(Tell Em Steve Dave), Louie C.K., John Lee and Vernon Chatman (Wondershowzen), Charlie Day (It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia), Chris Rock, Dave Jeser and Matt Silverstein (Drawn Together), Dave Chappelle, Johnny Knoxville (Jackass), Kevin Smith (Clerks), Mel Brooks (Blazing Saddles), Stephen Colbert (Strangers with Candy), Trevor Moore (The Whitest Kids You Know), Seth MacFarlane (Family Guy), Jason Alexander (Duckman), Mike Judge (Beavis and Butthead), Andrew Dice Clay, Sam Kinison, Rodney Dangerfield, Don Rickles, Howard Stern, The Wayans Brothers (In Living Color), Richard Pryor, Caroll O'Connor (All in the Family), etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Or the problem could be our modern inability to differentiate between *****y unacceptable behavior and being a strong-willed woman.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
In the Simpsons, Marge Simpson is a housewife who's job is to stay at home and raise her children while her husband provides for the family. Modern equality?Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
I'll try again. "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan SwiftQuote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
So how can you love film as an art-form and not admire the first discoveries of how to artistically use editing and framing?Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Starving someone is torture. Not letting them sleep is torture. This seriously shouldn't be a matter for debate. Yes, sending a child to bed without dinner is abuse, absolutely. If it was done repeatedly it would be torture.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
And this doesn't sound misogynistic at all, comparing a woman to a "wild animal." You're lucky you're posting this on a relatively insular board like this one; were you to post it on a public forum with a large and diverse audience you'd be lambasted by far more than one other person.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Some women do, and if they do they have a right to choose that kind of relationship. No man should be allowed to force that kind of relationship onto an unwilling woman.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
The play doesn't distinguish between them, and given Katherine's closing speech it's quite clear that anything beyond pure servileness would be seen as unacceptably shrewish.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Modern equality was about the right to choose. I've watched a lot of Simpsons, and I don't ever recall Homer telling Marge her place is in the kitchen and with the kids and she isn't allowed to have a job if she wants.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
I got the reference, I was merely pointing out that your examples were not analogous to TOTS.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
I don't really have a problem with those Romcoms. I enjoy them too. But they do show a pattern of emasculating men and subjecting men to ridicule, which I find bothersome in modern society. Not gonna' lie, it is a little offensive sometimes, and irritating when every commercial is about a dopy husband and his bright wife. I'm surprised that you don't see the double standard as you praise one way and denounce the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Maybe, maybe not. But I doubt that Ebert is sufficiently informed about Shakespeare or Elizabethan theater to make that call. While nobody really can know what was in Shakespeare's mind at the time he wrote the play, or even if that matters now, I feel that an expert like Stephen Greenblatt would have a more informed opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
That's the way that Hollywood gets away with it now, part of the code. It's only okay to harm a woman if she is trying to kill the man or if she's not really a woman, like she's a monster. Men you can kill or hit for anything, or no reason. It's one of those laughable rules you can see any time you flip on a television. Like if you want to kill someone for almost no provocation, they should say something racist first, which "totally" justifies killing them. The domestic violence would be the first clip with Family Guy. I also included a street fight with women in two of those, and two male/female wrestling matches, although I could probably find a dozen more.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
That's certainly Shylock's defense of his actions. I think Iago rationalizes his villainy that way too, and figures he's justified because Othello passed him over for a promotion. How many loans have you gotten from a bank that required from you a pound of flesh? Shylock was plotting to kill Antonio. When he's offered money at the end he would rather have Antonio's death. He's a bad guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Is she shrewish because she's been treated wrong, or is she just a shrew? I think you make excuses for her on account of her gender, and give her and Shylock a pass on account of their "victim status." There are plenty of virtuous women in Shakespeare who are strong willed and have been treated wrong while retaining their virtue and sweet temper.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
So you get upset by men being "subjected to ridicule" in RomComs but have no problem with a woman being tortured into submission in TOTS... and I have the double standard?Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Anyway, context matters, and this is where privilege becomes an important factor. When you have one group that has historically been in the privileged position, making light of them does not have the same affect that making light of those who are in a much weaker position does. It's like suggesting that both slaves and slaveowners should be equally subject to ridicule. Well, no, they shouldn't. Your "double standard" presumes a level playing field in real life, when the truth is that there is no level playing field, and the playing field back then was far more unlevel then than it is now. Besides, as I suggested above, in those RomComs the women are not TORTURING the men by any stretch of the imagination.
Ebert was quoting Bloom, who most certainly is sufficiently informed about Shakespeare.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
This isn't just "the code" it's also known as "the law." If someone is trying to kill you, it is legal to kill them. If someone is not trying to harm you, it is not OK to harm them. This is also just good-ol' fashioned golden rule stuff. Again, context: two of those clips feature men and women in a consensual wrestling match. At least, I assume the women mud-wrestling are there of their own will. The Family Guy link doesn't work (seems Fox took it down).Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
It's a perfectly rational one that makes since given what we know about what treating people that way does to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
All we ever really get from Iago is that he hates the moor, and getting passed over for promotion is hardly on par with constantly being treated as an animal because of your race/religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
The point is that Shylock didn't do like Iago and knowingly "trick" him into anything. Antonio accepted the agreement of his own free will. Had Antonio paid back the loan and Shylock still demanded the flesh, that would be something different. Obviously, once Shylock is offered the money and refuses he does become a "bad guy" as it shows he'd rather harm another human to make amends than accept the money to cover his actual monetary damages. But, again, his reasons for revenge are far more sympathetic and understandable than those of Iago.
This assumes that people have no reason to act as they do. Think about that for a minute.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Because I enjoy what it's become more than what it was. I like the advanced levels more than the primitive beginnings. I don't care for a lot of the early renaissance painting the way that I do the high renaissance painting, or some of the early ventures in opera the way that I feel about Verdi.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
I disagree. I think your threshold for torture is so low that everything is torture to you. Jack Bauer or Liam Neeson in Taken, now those guys could torture. He stabbed a guy in the legs with metal spikes and then electrocuted him. The iron maiden, that's torture. Stretching people on the wrack, that's torture. Whipping people, cutting off digits, removing teeth, half drowning them in water, skinning, crushing, burning, breaking limbs, thumbscrews, slow slicing, being held in stocks, disembowling, crucifixion, impalement, stoning, breaking on the wheel, gang rape, that's all torture. Alas, tearing someone's dress and sending children to bed without dinner is still not recognized by the Geneva Convention.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
I thought you were an atheist who considered man as just another type of animal. Well, I'm agreeing with you. The behaviorist B.F. Skinner would too, and many members of PETA. If you will check what I wrote, I also compared children to untrained, or undomesticated animals as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
She did swear to honor and obey her husband. If you agree that Antonio and Shylock's bargain should be honored how much more sacrosanct a marriage vow?Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
I think the play clearly distinguishes between them. It's not just Petruchio who calls Kate shrewish. It's other strangers and family members too. I think you'll notice the wedding guests even call Petruchio a devil and claim that they'll make a pair. So, it wasn't the custom of the time to be mean to your wife any more than it was to be shrewish to your husband. Both men and women are censored in this play for their bad behavior which goes against societal mores, further proving my point that Petruchio is a mirror for Katherine. When she stops being shrewish, he stops being boorish. Petruchio's behavior is calculated to prove a point, that nobody likes being around an ill mannered wretch, and he will serve her as well as she serves him: good for good and bad for bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
It's still idealizing a quaint 1950s lifestyle that is somewhat dated by today's standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
You said "When you can find an example of Chappelle suggesting slavery was OK because blacks should know their place, or Allen suggesting the Holocaust was OK because Jews are indeed lesser human beings, or Sienfield suggesting that homelessness is no real problem or that the homeless should be tortured or put to slavery... then you might have a relevant example." I gave you an example of a man telling people it's okay to eat babies.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Those "primitive beginnings" got the fundamental art-form better than the vast majority of the "advanced" followers. Film is the art of images in time; the advent of sound often became little more than excuse to ignore the former. We haven't bettered Murnau, Dreyer, Eisenstein, et al.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Pretty sure intentionally starving someone and not allowing them to sleep would be recognized as torture by every major governing body.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
I do, but this has nothing to do with the morality of treating other human beings as "wild animals" just because they don't want to conform to social structures that are unequal to begin with.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
She was given away like tainted cattle:Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
So Petruchio and Baptista, behind Katherine's back, decide she's going to marry Petruchio. Here's Katherine's reaction to her father:Quote:
your father hath consented
That you shall be my wife; your dowry 'greed on;
And, Will you, nill you, I will marry you.
And later to Petruchio:Quote:
Call you me daughter? now, I promise you
You have show'd a tender fatherly regard,
To wish me wed to one half lunatic;
A mad-cup ruffian and a swearing Jack,
That thinks with oaths to face the matter out.
So Katherine is literally being forced into marriage, and forced into vows that are inherently misogynistic and create and unequal marriage from the get-go. I must've missed the part where Antonio was forced into the deal with Shylock and the law that said all deals must involve a pound of flesh upon failure of payment.Quote:
I'll see thee hang'd on Sunday first.
...
No shame but mine: I must, forsooth, be forced
To give my hand opposed against my heart
Unto a mad-brain rudesby full of spleen...
What in the world does this have to do with anything? The play does not distinguish between a woman who's a "shrew" and a woman who has a will of her own and refuses to be subjugated within a patriarchal society.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
When she submits to his torture he stops torturing her. The great defense of every wife-beater.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Portraying a certain lifestyle is not idealizing it or suggesting that everyone should be like this. Marge isn't being forced into being a housewife.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
It's called irony. If we don't read Shrew ironically then it is literally suggesting it's fine torture a woman if she doesn't submit to the will of her husband.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
I think they are both funny. I just don't like double standards and one way traffic. If we're equal, let's be equal. But this stuff* here, it ain't equal.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
That privilege stuff is PC nonsense. It's just another justification for your own biases, why yours are alright and other people's are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Making them wear dresses, humiliating, emasculating them, and hitting them? It's not torture by any means, but it's at least as bad as what Petruchio does to Katherine.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Bloom can be an idiot sometimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
I figured you would know what I meant, the film code. The morality code about what can and can't be shown on television. You know, how we weren't allowed to show guns going off in the same frame as the person being shot, or how much blood we were allowed to show, or how much cleavage, drug use, or certain words we aren't allowed to say. Men hitting women is on that list of proscribed no nos and the MPAA or FCC standards and practices have rules about how and when violence is "justified." For one thing, it always has to be justified. For another, you usually have to address it like having someone say "Oh, that's wrong." I'm talking about censorship, meant to uphold a rather narrow and particular view of morality, and what art should be.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Well here's another from Family Guy of Peter fantasizing about killing his wife:Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8MycwWwYGU
Here's another crummy version of the one I posted earlier where the whole family fights:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2CpHdZ9Avc
It happens quite frequently on the show, like in this promo of Peter and Lois fighting over the bathroom
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw6eqmRVlDY
Another where Peter and Stewie bond over messing with Lois:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4QnQBkdgrU
Couldn't find the one where he asks if she's pregnant and then pushes her down the stairs, or repeatedly crashes into her car driving her off the road into a building and then says "Admit it, I got you!" That reminds me, Preston Sturges made a black comedy in 1948 called Unfaithfully Yours where a conductor fantasizes about killing his wife. Haven't seen it, but it's got a 7.7 over on imdb.
It is understandable, but it doesn't absolve them of all wrongdoing, or mean that they don't need to make an adjustment to be more socially acceptable. Understanding is not the same as condoning.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
I'm not so sure we can say that the Venetians treated Shylock like an animal because of his religion. They made light of him. They didn't befriend him, although that might have as much to do with his job as a usurer as his religion. How well do you speak of the bankers you owe money too, or the Wallstreet tycoons during the debt crisis? But they did business with him and he seemed to be made rich by it. One has to wonder, how much, and to what degree a wealthy man in that society would be deprived of things and treated as a second class citizen with much to complain about. When you think about it, Kate is a rich woman, with servants. By the standards of her time, she lives a very comfortable life.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
I disagree. Shylock wanted to kill people because of a couple of insults they'd made to him but he was prospering. Iago was actually being oppressed and kept down as a member of a lower class. He wasn't a rich man with options like Shylock.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
They have reasons, but not all of their reasons are environmental. Some are biological. And even if you believe that Kate is a shrew because of her environment, is it because she is oppressed, or because she is spoiled?Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Being equal and being a society that treats them as such are two different things.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
So statistics on women getting paid less to do the same jobs, statistics on police predominantly stopping black people... all that's "PC nonsense," eh? The history of how women were prevented from voting and working... PC nonsense?Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Here's a webpage that has plenty of links to sources, studies, and statistics on male privilege as it exists today... meaning in world AFTER feminism where women can actually now vote, work, and hold public office (which was rarely the case in the past): http://www.mayan.org/do_you_have_gen..._figure_it_out
Speaking of nonsense...Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Doesn't refute what he said. Also doesn't refute that he knows Shakepseare.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
We haven't had a "film code" since Hayes. I don't promote censorship of any kind any way, so I don't know why you're bringing this up. If a film or TV show wants to depict gross misogyny then let it, and then likewise the makers can put up with millions of people ranting about it and boycotting their products.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
None of these is promoting actual domestic abuse. The first is Peter fantasizing about killing Lois because she turned down a lot of money. Second is the entire family fighting in a ridiculously stylized manner. Third is a play-fight over trying to use the bathroom first. Last one is about Peter trying to make Stewie laugh, which is what Lois suggested. I'm still missing an example where it suggests it's OK to torture someone until they submit to your will.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
And I don't condone Shylock for demanding a pound of Antonio's flesh, especially after someone offers to pay the debt. Unlike you who seem to be condoning what Petruchio does to Katherine, despite her having done far less to him than what the Christians did to Shylock.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
There are different kinds of privileges, and having one doesn't negate the others. There is certainly a privilege that comes with having money, but that doesn't mean you don't lose out in other areas because you're an "undesirable" race or religion or sex.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Shylock suggests that he's been the target of abuse and ridicule long before the play starts. Iago might not have been happy being a "lower class," but there's no indication that he was forcibly kept there because of how he was born.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
We're all biologically capable of behaving in the same manner as just about everyone else. Whenever we do behave a certain way it's usually because the environment selected that response and that response worked to achieve whatever our biological programming wanted. I don't see anything in Shrew that suggests Katherina is spoiled. Most of her protestations are against being forced to do things she doesn't want to do and wouldn't have to do if she didn't live in an oppressive patriarchy that had already decided what the ideal for her sex was.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Please, films with color and sound are way better. There are hardly any films from that time which are as good as films today. And if you think we haven't bettered Murnau, Dreyer, and Eisenstein, then you should go see a film by Fellini, Kubrick, Bergman, or Kurosawa.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
I'm pretty sure that those are the two ways of making people uncomfortable that nearly every major governing body doesn't classify as torture.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
KATHARINA
That I'll try.
She strikes him
or
KATHARINA
Go, get thee gone, thou false deluding slave,
Beats him
Of course, that is not allowed by Geneva.
So how do you suggest we discipline unruly elements in society? I suppose prison and time outs are torture too?Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
You really think Shylock isn't a villain for striking such a bargain? I think Antonio even says that he thought it was a joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Because you say that she's just a strong woman in a misogynistic society. However, there are other women in that society which are not called shrewish. Katherine's sister for instance is better thought of than Katherine.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
When she reforms, she stops being corrected. Do unto others as you would have done to you. That's the golden rule. I don't think he actually ever strikes her, even though at one point she strikes him.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
The play is a comedy, so it's not all meant to be taken at face value, but you overstate things when you call it torture. The moral of the play is that you should be a good person so that others will be nice to you back.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Really, women are paid less for working the same hours, at the same job, and with equivalent seniority? Isn't it curious then that businesses don't mass hire women to cut costs? Wouldn't you think that in a capitalist economy some CEO or other (and there are women CEOs which makes this even more curious) would hire only women and save the "22%" on labour? Or is every CEO in the world (including the women CEOs) such sexist monsters that they would prioritize hiring men over women who have the same credentials and skills and yet will work for significantly less pay? This bull**** defies all basic logic and I can't respect anyone who parrots ****ing statistics without ever bothering to check where they come from, or what they actually say. Can't you use basic logic Morpheus?Quote:
So statistics on women getting paid less to do the same jobs, statistics on police predominantly stopping black people... all that's "PC nonsense," eh? The history of how women were prevented from voting and working... PC nonsense?
The wage gap statistics are a totally bogus myth, and one of the most destructive lies that people stil spread around. Seriously, find me an actually credible study which finds that women working equivalent hours and positions earn less rather than just taking an aggregate. Men as a whole earn more than women as a whole, but that is an entirely different thing from suggesting that women earn significantly less for the same job. I earn less as a daycare instructor than nearly anyone in Canada, but not because I'm discriminated against. I could make an awful lot more money where i live (Alberta) by doing dangerous, unpleasant work surrounded by cocaine addicts while living in some ugly demoralizing northern hellhole, (and hey guess what gender is expected to do these **** jobs?) but i CHOOSE to earn less working in a daycare (which is dominated by female staff who amazingly earn less than rig drivers on the oil sands. This is where your wage gap comes from). My female coworkers also do not earn less than me for the same position; I know this for a fact.
The wage gap simply boils down into absurdity when you start making simple checks and considerations like this. The fact that women are overwhelmingly more likely to work in childcare and men are overwhelmingly more likely to work labour jobs on the oil patch is not evidence of gender based wage discrimination. It's evidence of different jobs carrying different market values. What a ****ing shocker that one is eh?
Here are some simple video for you.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=58arQIr882w
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BDj_bN0L8XM
God how I hate Obama.
Well, they definitely should be paid less to do some jobs. Take that soccer stuff recently. The women won and the men only made it to the finals, but the men made more money. But the men were probably better athletes overall, and probably also got more viewers for their games which generated greater revenue, resulting in higher salaries. I'm fine with unequal wages where pay is tied to performance. They ought to be the same in jobs which a woman can do the same as a man, but not the same where one sex has a clear advantage. Personally, I'm more concerned that women divorce men and take his kids, everything he's ever earned, or ever will earn, and how they get ten years more LIFE than us men. That's the inequality I'd like addressed. How 'bout that life gap?Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
I got no problem with profiling either. I got stopped by some cops going to a bookstore in a black part of town, because I looked out of place.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
They've had the vote now for about a century. They outnumber male voters too, so any laws they don't like are on them at this point. Don't like how congress is full of old white guys? Well, how about you vote for a couple of women for once, ladies?Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Yeah, I'm not really looking to read any feminist or communist propaganda today. But thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
I forget what he said. Whaddysay?Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
The code isn't law anymore but it is still followed as tradition. And we do still have the FCC, MPAA, standards and practices etc. I brought it up because it ritualizes violence and makes it socially acceptable. It shapes attitudes about what is appropriate and what is inappropriate. It tells us that violence against men is acceptable, but that violence against women is unacceptable, which has been your position in this argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
So it's okay to hit women, just don't tear their dress or take away their food until they act nice?Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
How do you feel about Falstaff being beaten in the laundry basket in The Merry Wives of Windsor? Or the pranks against Malvolio in Twelfth Night?Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
It cushions the blow.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
He says in the opening lines that he served Othello for some time in a number of battles, that other men had noticed his abilities and suggested making him a lieutenant, but Othello chose to pass over him for a man with no experience. Why, because that man, a mathematician, had helped him woo Desdemona. Iago has ability and experience on his side, but Othello can't see him in a higher rank. He reserves the officer's places for gentlemen of breeding, who get around in high society, and with whom he can make advantageous connections. He snubbed Iago probably after years of service. If Shylocks grudge is of long standing then Iago's is too.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
I see as much evidence for her being a spoiled little rich girl as you do of her living in a patriarchy. We could speculate about how she came to be considered a shrew to our hearts content, but she's still just a fictional character. All we have to go on is that Shakespeare and every character in this play calls her a shrew, so we may assume that's how Shakespeare thought of her, that's how the people who knew her thought of her, and the reputation was well earned before the play starts.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Oh for ****s sake, are people serious about that male soccer team? It's a REVENUE based industry you absolute morons. Men's soccer generates more REVENUE so they get paid more.
Not talking to you Mortal, just venting about that stupidity in general. The men and women should just play a match for the money, they are equal athletes after all ;)
Men also have the privilege to make up the vast majority of:
Homicides
Prison populations
Suicides
Homelessness
Serious workplace injuries or deaths
Combat deaths (often as a result of a male only draft)
I don't know that you can get less gender privileged than being drafted to die in a war.
Long time since I read it, Pompey, and I hardly remember what Kate was like but I do remember her treating the others around her badly, and being considered a shrew by everyone. I'm planning on reading it again tonight to see what all the fuss is about. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
When did any wife beater ever stop the abuse when the woman submits? They tend to choose women who are submissive to them in the first place, and the abuse only becomes worse the more submissive they are. Petruchio chooses Kate because of the laws of natural attraction (her dowry may have helped, but that couldn't have been the only reason). He wants a strong willed, spirited woman, and he succeeds in changing her into a better person (rather than the patriarchal better woman), but I'm pretty sure he'd stop liking her if she actually lived up to her "our husbands are our lords and masters" speech and became a submissive creature.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Welcome back, by the way! I've missed you. :)
Is that final speech a joke Petruchio and Kate are playing on everyone else? She's putting it on to help him win his bet?
This is an interesting point, Mona. Bullies are highly selective about their victims (I believe that is the current psychiatric consensus) and Kate doesn't seem like anyone to mess with two me. As for the argumentum ad nauseam this thread has produced, dead horse abuse is an ugly thing. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by mona amon
:beatdeadhorse5:
No. All this does is tell you really don't care for the art of film. Nobody who does says such things.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
I've seen every Kurosawa and Kubrick film, 33 films from Bergman, 16 films from Fellini, all (available) Hitchcocks, 24 from Ozu, 21 from Bunuel, 32 from Ford, every film from Bresson, 23 from Godard, 16 from Mizoguchi, every film from Angelopoulos, Hou, and Kieslowski, 15 from Satyajit Ray... need I go on? (FYI, I keep such numbers on a film list that I keep, so it's easy to look up; I'm not just guessing)Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
None of those filmmakers bettered Murnau, Dreyer, and Eisenstein in terms of cinematic artistry. Some may have equaled them and created their own unique artistry, but none bettered. If they "bettered" them at all it was solely because of their more prodigious output, a good reason one might prefer, say, Shakespeare to Marlowe. Again, the fundamental art of cinema is images and time. Murnau, Dreyer, and Eisenstein reached the pinnacle of what film is capable of in both aspects. Eisenstein theories of editing were so thorough that nobody has been able to innovate since him.
Well, let me come over and starve you and deprive you of sleep for a few days and let's see if you're "uncomfortable" enough to classify it as torture.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
WTF are you talking about? What did Katherine do that was against the law? How did she violate anyone's rights? Did she steal? Kill? Assault? Damage property? Is she an arsonist? Is she selling national secrets to the enemy? Last I checked, she didn't want to get married and be subjugated. That's "unruly?"Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
I think Antonio is a dumbass for accepting it. In general, I think the desire for revenge for wrongs done against you is far less "villainous" than those wrongs were to begin with. Certainly I think Shylock overstepped the bounds of what "fair" revenge would be, but that's the only part where his villainy comes in and, again, even that is more sympathetic and understandable than what's done to Katherine or what Iago does to Othello.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Bianca is willing to be the patriarchal feminine ideal; of course she's "thought highly of." Care to name another strong-willed female character in the play who isn't called a shrew?Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
She didn't deserve "correcting" in the first place is the entire point.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
It's torture. Starvation and sleep deprivation are torture.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
The moral of the play is spelled out in Katherine's closing monologue. It has nothing to do with "being a good person," it has everything to do with being the "ideal woman" according to the patriarchal society's ideals.
Revenue based jobs are not what I'm talking about. There, what you make is equivalent to the money you bring in. That would be a meritocracy, which would be fine, but it's not what we have.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Parental laws definitely need to be addressed, as I agree with you it's unfair that mothers tend to get custody with all else being equal. However, divorce is a 50/50 split; who gets the better end of it will depend on who was making more/less in the relationship. If the man was making less, then he'd get more than he earned in the divorce. Alimony can go both ways too. Can't do much about the "life gap," except better medicine. When we talk about equality it's really about things that we can do as a society to make things more equal.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
You should.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Yes, because money and power has nothing to do with who gets elected in politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Translation: "I'll ignore the evidence so I don't have to cede the point."Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Yeah, because it's not like there's gratuitous nudity, sex, and violence in modern films.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
TV is regulated because kids watch it. They don't worry about it on any of the "pay" channels. Rating systems aren't censorship, they're just informational.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
When did I ever say violence against men was acceptable? That's not my position at all!Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
All of the Family Guy clips are not one person knowingly torturing another person to get them to change their attitude. Two of them are exaggerated conflicts over everyday occurrences (a family dispute, trying to use the bathroom first) that aren't violent in real life (or, at least, not in remotely the same way). There's also no "moral" at the end about how it's good to abuse your wife if it makes your baby laugh or whatever. Again, these ARE NOT EQUIVALENT EXAMPLES. None of them are remotely suggesting that the kind of domestic violence/abuse that occurs in reality on a daily basis is OK, and they're certainly not advocating the kind of torturous "taming" we see in TOTS.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
I don't remember much of TMWOW, but I always thought the Malvolio prank pretty mean-spirited.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
There shouldn't be a blow to cushion.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Then Iago should go serve someone else. Not getting a promotion you feel you deserve is hardly getting constantly derided for being a certain race or religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
This really shouldn't even be a debate. Katherina's closing monologue reveals the patriarchal feminine ideal; if that's the ideal, then NOT abiding by that ideal (doing the opposite) was precisely what made her a shrew. It's really simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
I didn't say they did; I said that's what they'd say, as in "well, if she just did what I wanted and didn't piss me off I wouldn't beat her/would stop beating her." Obviously that's not usually the truth, and pretty despicable even if was the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by mona amon
Petruchio only shows any interest once he finds out about the dowry. And if he wanted a strong-willed woman then why did he go through all that to "tame" her? I completely disagree about her being a "better person;" again, her closing monologue is entirely about being a "patriarchal better woman," there's nothing in there that's about being a better person that would apply to both sexes.Quote:
Originally Posted by mona amon
Thank you! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by mona amon
That's something I never considered, though it reeks of a fanwank given that there's no real evidence for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by JonathanB
Yes: http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gapQuote:
Originally Posted by Clopin
1. They have done this. http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/31/news...source=cnn_binQuote:
Originally Posted by Clopin
2. It's not as if all businesses are consciously, knowingly paying women less money. The 4-5% gap that the first link quotes would be accounting for the same job across a lot of different businesses, many of them probably wouldn't be offering a pay difference and the ones that were probably wouldn't be knowingly doing it.
Except they're not. They get much worse when we consider jobs dominated by men VS those dominated women. Why do you think it is that most women-dominated professions just happen to be those that pay less?Quote:
Originally Posted by Clopin
And one anecdotal example > Actual studies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clopin
And the market just happens to overwhelmingly favor the jobs that men do?Quote:
Originally Posted by Clopin
I love that you ask me for credible studies while posting a Youtube clip of a random guy who cites his own webpage as his source. First one might be worth watching. I'll give it a go later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clopin
Morph you are the one making a claim here so you're the one who needs a real source to verify it. I'm just explaining to you that market forces would absolutely destroy any huge pay gap between men and women (for the same work) because all businesses would prioritize hiring women to save money. All of them, not just one Morph.
Though I wouldn't expect someone who posts the "make privilege checklist" as a serious citation in an argument to be able to reason or think clearly so I understand that you won't be able to understand what I'm saying.
This is a totally different argument. The pay gap myth implies that men and women are paid different salaries for the exact same work. Otherwise the statistics are meaningless. As far as male vs female dominated positions, frankly a lot of the higher paying jobs which are dominated by men are extremely dangerous, carry with them long term health risks (labour positions) and a very low level of job satisfaction. I don't think a female elementary school teacher would be happier making a higher salary in Fort Mac as a rig driver for the oil patch, working a Godawful, dangerous job and doing Godawful shifts.Quote:
Why do you think it is that most women-dominated professions just happen to be those that pay less?
By the way, I believe women live longer and happier lives and tend to report enjoying their jobs much more when surveyed. Sounds like a good deal to me. I would much rather take on a career which would reward me with a happier and longer life than a stressful, unpleasant job which pays a bit better.
Also standards and what not go both ways. I've said before that my dream job would be running a home daycare. This is basically impossible for me entirely because of my gender since people are very reluctant to accept male childcare workers. There is a rather pervasive notion that men are more likely to be pedophiles or to molest children, or that men are unfit for the work. A woman my age who wanted to take on the business of a daycare would be commended as a self starter and a hard, competent worker doing a pretty difficult job; I would be considered very weird and would get no business. That's unfortunate but how it is. When women defy gender roles or take on a career in a field dominated by men they are showered with praise and plaudits. It would be nice to receive the same treatment.
The women I work with always enjoy their jobs more when I survey them! (So they tell me)
Well, I do and I did.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
If you think Kubrick, Fellini, Bergman, and Kurosawa aren't better than Murnau, Dreyer, and Eisenstein perhaps you either like weird stuff or have bad taste. As I recall, you like Stan Brakhage, Bela Tarr, and other crazy avante garde stuff. How can you like film while disdaining narrative, color, and sound? If I don't like the early beginnings of film, it sounds like you don't like the majority of film production, ie mass market films, blockbusters, narratives, or commercial films.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Beat you too it. I'm already on a diet, which is all being hungry but not starving enough to die is.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
I'm talking about the nature of justice and how we punish people or maintain order in this country, from the felon or terrorist, which you have frequently mentioned, to the pet or child as I have frequently mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Fair revenge in Shylock's case would be insulting Antonio back, charging him high interest on his loan, or not loaning to him at all. Tricking him into a bargain that endangers his life, and then insisting on his blood instead of cash repayment is villainous. Besides, maybe Antonio and others said mean things about Shylock because he wasn't a nice person to begin with, because he has it in him to murder his fellow man, maybe that's why they don't like him. Even the dude's own daughter doesn't like him. He's clearly a representative of the stock character The Miser, who hoards money and doesn't care about people.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
But she's subjected to the same societal pressures as Katherine while maintaining a good attitude. She has a "strong will" which she uses to help orchestrate Katherine's marriage as a means to facilitate her own. Also, if you would recall, Bianca does not come at her husband's call. Then again, there is the Widow, Hortensio's wife. She doesn't come when called either.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Then neither did Falstaff or Malvolio.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
dart not scornful glances...she is forward, peevish, sullen, sour,...To bandy word for word and frown for frown;...craves no other tribute at thy hands But love...Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Clopin made a very good point about male/female equality in the job market with those videos showing how the wage gap is actually about 5-7% and not 23% when adjusted for various factors. The videos Clopin posted also made an interesting point that the 5-7% wage gap may be due to men being more willing to ask for a raise.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
That life one really gnaws at me though. Money don't mean anything if you aren't around to spend it. All these guys die and then their widows spend their money. Maybe, that's how they get to financial equality. I was recently driving past a dairy farm with my mother in the car and noticing all of the cows and calves, but no bulls. "Well you only need one bull to breed with," my mother said. "Bulls don't make milk so they all get turned into hamburger." "Well that certainly seems fair," I replied. Men get the short stick in this society all over the place, like Clopin showed with that list on the last page. The draft! Are you kidding me? All us men gotta die so the women can stay home and do their nails. Uh uh. No. You want that wage equality and the vote you pick up a gun. Gonna' leave everything on our shoulders? You gotta be kidding me. Israel's got it right.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Idealism needs to give way to pragmatism in the real world. Here we do what works, not what we wish worked.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Lot of rich women out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Or I'm highly skeptical of the source of that information, and think it would be a waste of my time to read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Not nearly as much as I'd like. Not nearly.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Tell that to Howard Stern, George Carlin, or Opie and Anthony.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
You said that you enjoyed the romcoms where men were abused. Then you said that it's okay to abuse men because they are a privileged class.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
So you don't have a problem with violence. You have a problem with compulsion or patriarchy.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
I guess you don't like prank comedy.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Maybe not.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
You don't know what kind of options he had to leave Othello's employ. He mentions at one point that creditors are eating him to death. He has a wife to consider. He might have some real financial problems. Remember back in those days, there was no social safety net. You couldn't pay your debts you'd go to debtor's prison, or become a beggar. Also, with the patron system of the time Iago probably needed a good reference from Othello to change employment. Personally, I think poverty and classism can sting as much as racism, or sexism.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
I don't think it is. I think Kate spells out an obligation to love one's husband, and as a natural consequence of that love you will want to serve him, just as he in his turn will want to serve his wife, for love. The language may be couched in feudal terms of lords and vassals but it's just as true today. We gladly serve those whom we love and a house divided against itself cannot stand.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
No Mortal you don't understand. Men are all over privileged patriarchs who can't possibly face any problems, and who honestly can't even walk down the street without being showered with unequal pay or being offered high powered jobs and political positions of power!
I... oh wait...
http://www.old-picture.com/united-st...ing-scenes.jpg
Sounds like fun!Quote:
Underground, Cape Breton coal miners like Matthius "Tius" Tutty worked in dangerous, primitive conditions.
"I had a lot of accidents. Theres no question about it ... I had this hand smashed ... I had that skull fracture(d)" remembered Tutty. "I got to make a living and there's no other place to go. I said, I'm not a coward. If I die down there well I'll die down there."
Tutty starting working in the Glace Bay coal mines when he was 14 years old. His father had drowned and Tutty became the first in five generations to leave the sea.
Tutty drove horses that hauled boxes of coal along the underground tracks. He worked six days a week, surrounded by other child miners, some as young as nine.
Here's how one of them remembers life in the mine:
"We had been ... working 12 hours a day loading in a low seam on our hands, being cursed at from morning to night by a greedy boss and seeing daylight only on Sundays ... We faced the prospects of a dismal and unhappy existence."
http://www.rantlifestyle.com/wp-cont...orld-War-I.jpg
Huh, I wonder where this fits into the male privilege checklist?Quote:
Soldiers in the trenches did not get much sleep. When they did, it was in the afternoon during daylight and at night only for an hour at a time. They were woken up at different times, either to complete one of their daily chores or to fight. During rest time, they wrote letters and sometimes played card games.
The trenches could be very muddy and smelly. There were many dead bodies buried nearby and the latrines (toilets) sometimes overflowed into the trenches. Millions of rats infested the trenches and some grew as big as cats. There was also a big problem with lice that tormented the soldiers on a daily basis.
http://m.c.lnkd.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/p/...df/3ed9740.jpg
You know you really don't see too many female homeless! Hey I wonder if they experience a difference in the amount of money people give them? Do you think female beggars only get 77 cents on the dollar?
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/me...lead_large.jpg
I would hate to be tortured and/or killed while serving a prison term. Luckily as a male I am privileged to be 11 times (not percent, multiples) more likely to be imprisoned!
Men can be raped too, only it's usually funny to people, or not really a big deal. Here's an ad which threatens men who drink and drive with being raped. Is rape the punishment for drinking and driving? (or for anything?). Nope! but who cares about male rape victims anyway?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HLURvkC1HuM
And here are the suicide stats. Men are three to five (or more) times more likely to commit suicide than women all over the world. I guess with so much privilege it's hard to find a reason to keep living. I mean when everything is handed to you so easily you can get bored right?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gend...ces_in_suicide
Suicide is also the leading cause of death for men under the age of thirty five in the UK now! Who cares? Nobody. Where's the widespread public outrage over this gender disparity? Or is the fact that men are losing their lives somehow to be considered less important than women not being interested in playing video games or chess? Or pursuing careers in STEM subjects.
My point is that Petruchio does not continue the 'abuse' after she plays along, so he cannot be compared to a wife beater. I just re-read the play, and all he's doing is giving her a dose of her own medicine, and then some. She has a filthy temper and beats people up. His strategy to make her behave more reasonably is to echo, and perhaps exaggerate, her own shrewishness, ranting at the servants, throwing the food about and so on. In other words he out-shrews her, and if she goes hungry and sleepless for one night, too bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
You seem to be equating 'strong willed woman' with 'shrew'. Yes, Kate is a strong willed, spirited and witty woman (could Shakespeare create anything less?) but she's also bad tempered, throws tantrums, and beats up people. When Petruchio starts acting shrewish, she quickly realizes that there's never going to be any peace in the house if people behave like that, so yes, it applies to both sexes. Her final speech, I feel, is merely a continuation of her earlier plan to agree with whatever Petruchio says, even when he declares that the sun is the moon. Once Petruchio goes back to normal, so will all these new strategies to maintain domestic peace.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Now I'm not saying all this is not sexist, but what isn't? We live in a sexist world, and as Clopin points out, not everything works out to the advantage of the male. I thought it was a lot of fun, and there's an excellent chemistry between Petrucchio and Kate.
Heh heh yes, and here I go doing it again, but I just re-read the play, so couldn't resist. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
Doing it again? You're the only one who's even (really) talking about the play, Mona. Everyone else is just beating his own dead-horse-shaped political drum. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by mona amon
:beatdeadhorse5:
Boom-boom as Basil Brush would ventriloquise.