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!
Printable View
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You have obviously never really studied into this piece at all, it is not outdated it is actually still the same.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.
Do you realise how absurd your comment is on this play?? It was written hundreds of years ago in a time when women had to learn their place or they suffered for it. No one, or very few, condone that behaviour these days but this play is not to condone. Shakespeare was one of the first men to stand up for the rights of women and by satirising the society which allowed and even forced this behaviour, Shakespeare is arguing against the regime and society that promoted it. Read the play properly and the background concerning it before jumping with both feet and criticising a classic play that stands with your apparently very feminist views, not against them.
whether this play is sexist or not is up to the director. it can be taken as a woman being beaten down and destroyed, or as a woman learning to take the system and use it for her own advantage. <br>personaly, i think kate seems much happier at the end of the play than the begining.<br>everyone will interpret a play a little differently and no reading is more right than any of the others. You get out of it what is put into you. <br>Polly should not be condemmed because she takes it to mean one thing, but perhaps censured for telling others that they can't understand it the way they choose too. Isn't feminism all about choice?
Dont get your knickers in a twist love, I'm a women too but I dont find the taming of the shrew the least bit offensive, Shakespeare didnt write this play because he was sexist, he was just telling a story about situations that were quite common in his time, hes not agreeing with the way women were treated, in fact I think he questions it. Its just a light hearted play that was not meant to be taken too serouisly.<br>Regards xx
The last commentary hit the nail on the head! Don't be so serious ... it's Kate who tamed the mad Petruchio!
Are you saying that any Shakespeare with themes and views that differ from modern day politics should never be performed? Perhaps you would prefer to burn them?
this play is an awsome play, get a grip, just because the play depicts something that was resolved 100 years ago, doesnt mean that we cant laugh about it now
I second all of the opinions above ecept for those that are downright demeaning.
I can understand about you thinking that the Taming of the Shrew is an insult, but how wrong you are. Don't you see that, even though Petruchio married for money, he still loved Katherina? Can't you understand, that he left that great wedding feast, and "starved" her, just so he could help her rise to her full potencial? Don't you see the trust he must have had in her to bet on her loyalty? He only wanted all those other men to see that Katherina was not the shrew they thought she was. He stood up for her, he put his trust in her, he did not merely toy with her; in fact, if you will read at the end of act 4, scene 1, you will see that he wants a different solution to "tame" her, because it is hard on him.<br>Do not discredit this play, because if teaches the divinity of women; learn something from it.<br>Sincerely,<br>Aubri
I agree with you diane; I mean, how DARE other people besides the ones you agree with express their opinion to someone else's opinion. Isn't that just criminal? As for leaving the Taming of the Shrew in the past, that would make life so boring: nothing for feminists to express their feminist views onyou understand. And I didn't know that Shakespeare was resurrecting the Taming of the Shrew. Perhaps he'll resurrect himself and give us an answer to the vital question of whether he was or wasn't a feminist?
Get over yourself. Place the play in its time and place. Youre a true dolt if you really believe that this play illustrates that. You obviously have ZERO grasp of The Bard. And your ignorant comments illustrate that.<br><br>Kate was tamed because she was IN LOVE with Petruccio. What a dolt you are.<br><br>Sean
Your post was beautifully written. I enjoyed it, and have always felt exactly the way that you do, but could never have put it so eloquently. <br><br>
you need some taming topic starter!<br>why do young people today have the need to attack the past?<br>shakespeare IS history. that is what happened then. it is a sexist play but not just to women. there are many good quotes that i cannot be bothered to find right now, somewhere out there in that great book that brang me so much joy reading and re-reading as a child, are quotes that portray the men as gluttenous pigs, and much more stupid than any of the women, who are given quick comeback lines and witty speeches<br><br>Before you attack the generation of the past, remember that it IS the past.<br>and although it should be left when and where it is, we should still learn about it, or mr.garrly yoshomoto would be out of a history teaching job!<br><br>haha ha, do you find me very amusing?<br>i find myself hilarious<br><br>ol' gilbie
i think that this polly person is a hardcore feminist who needs to loosen up.. i do feel that shakespeare is a very boring topic and i dont see why we have to learn about something that happened so many years ago.. this lady needs to concentrate on the better things in life reather than fighting for lsebian rights
we agree with everyone else on this. this play is not offensive to women. it just shows that women have the right to say what they think and not have to hold back because of their situation! <br>we believe you have a serious problem if you look at thing this way. not everything is as it seem. not everything is sexist to women. some are even promotiong the greatness of women. what women cab achieve.<br>but in all fairness everyone is allowed to have an opinion, but in this fact we disagree with yours.
Taming of the Shrew is sexist, insulting, totally irrelevant and should not have been performed in the last century. It is quite frightening that in this day and age people actually find humour in a woman being mentally abused and starved in to submission by an obnoxious, egotistical nightmare of a husband who was only after her money anyway. Forcing women into marriage is NOT funny. Men who place bets on their wives should not be rewarded. Women are not on this planet purely for the ammusment of men. Have we forgoten that women died to promote this fact? Must we take such a massive step back in time? It is shocking that women had to actually protest to gain the right to vote, and not that long ago either. Performing the Shrew today is a disgrace to modern culture. Gone are the days when we can laugh about "a silly little women who should know her place". I'm sure the shrew was hilarious 200 years ago, and that is where it belongs. Much of Shakepeare's work is timeless, wonderful, deep and very funny, but sorry Will, the Shrew is dead. PLEASE stop resurecting it. sincerely, Polly, Theater Marketeer.
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