your least favourite shakespeare play ?

[MorpheusSandman]

There's a character with an obvious social failing who is made the butt of a joke by the community.

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!

I think this is just typical commedia dell'arte stuff, with stock characters and situations an audience in Shakespeare's time would have understood, without overlaying it with our social justice concerns.

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.

[mortalterror]

It's not if you love film as an art-form.

I love film as an art form. I do not love all films or filmmakers. Personally, I hate Eisenstein too.

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!

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?

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!

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.

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.

Maybe, they don't need perfect equality in all things. Some women like a strong man who leads in the relationship.

I think you and I probably have very different ideas of what PC is and isn't.

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.

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.

Or the problem could be our modern inability to differentiate between *****y unacceptable behavior and being a strong-willed woman.

His picks are not promoting stone-age moral systems.

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?

It's what you'd have to find to have an actual analog to what we're talking about here.

I'll try again. "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift

[MorpheusSandman]

I love film as an art form. I do not love all films or filmmakers. Personally, I hate Eisenstein too.

So how can you love film as an art-form and not admire the first discoveries of how to artistically use editing and framing?

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?

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.

I see what Petruchio is doing sort of like domesticating a wild animal

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.

Maybe, they don't need perfect equality in all things. Some women like a strong man who leads in the relationship.

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.

Or the problem could be our modern inability to differentiate between *****y unacceptable behavior and being a strong-willed woman.

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.

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?

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.

I'll try again. "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift

I got the reference, I was merely pointing out that your examples were not analogous to TOTS.

[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.

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.

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.

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: 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.

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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.

If you "swap Kate's gender" then you'd likely remove her reason for being shrewish in the first place. See my post above.

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.

[MorpheusSandman]

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.

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?

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.

I doubt that Ebert is sufficiently informed about Shakespeare or Elizabethan theater to make that call.

Ebert was quoting Bloom, who most certainly is sufficiently informed about Shakespeare.

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.

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).

That's certainly Shylock's defense of his actions.

It's a perfectly rational one that makes since given what we know about what treating people that way does to them.

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.

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.

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.

Is she shrewish because she's been treated wrong, or is she just a shrew?

This assumes that people have no reason to act as they do. Think about that for a minute.

[mortalterror]

So how can you love film as an art-form and not admire the first discoveries of how to artistically use editing and framing?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

It's still idealizing a quaint 1950s lifestyle that is somewhat dated by today's standards.

I got the reference, I was merely pointing out that your examples were not analogous to TOTS.

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.

[MorpheusSandman]

Because I enjoy what it's become more than what it was. I like the advanced levels more than the primitive beginnings.

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.

I disagree. I think your threshold for torture is so low that everything is torture to you.

Pretty sure intentionally starving someone and not allowing them to sleep would be recognized as torture by every major governing body.

I thought you were an atheist who considered man as just another type of animal.

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.

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?

She was given away like tainted cattle:

your father hath consented
That you shall be my wife; your dowry 'greed on;
And, Will you, nill you, I will marry you.

So Petruchio and Baptista, behind Katherine's back, decide she's going to marry Petruchio. Here's Katherine's reaction to her father:

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.

And later to Petruchio:

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...

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.

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.

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.

When she stops being shrewish, he stops being boorish

When she submits to his torture he stops torturing her. The great defense of every wife-beater.

It's still idealizing a quaint 1950s lifestyle that is somewhat dated by today's standards.

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.

I gave you an example of a man telling people it's okay to eat babies.

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.

[mortalterror]

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?

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.

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.

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.

Besides, as I suggested above, in those RomComs the women are not TORTURING the men by any stretch of the imagination.

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.

Ebert was quoting Bloom, who most certainly is sufficiently informed about Shakespeare.

Bloom can be an idiot sometimes.

This isn't just "the code" it's also known as "the law."

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.

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).

Well here's another from Family Guy of Peter fantasizing about killing his wife:
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's a perfectly rational one that makes since given what we know about what treating people that way does to them.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This assumes that people have no reason to act as they do. Think about that for a minute.

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?

[MorpheusSandman]

If we're equal, let's be equal.

Being equal and being a society that treats them as such are two different things.

That privilege stuff is PC nonsense.

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?

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

It's not torture by any means, but it's at least as bad as what Petruchio does to Katherine.

Speaking of nonsense...

Bloom can be an idiot sometimes.

Doesn't refute what he said. Also doesn't refute that he knows Shakepseare.

I figured you would know what I meant, the film code.

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.

Well here's another from Family Guy of Peter fantasizing about killing his wife:
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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[mortalterror]

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.

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.

Pretty sure intentionally starving someone and not allowing them to sleep would be recognized as torture by every major governing body.

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.

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.

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.

So how do you suggest we discipline unruly elements in society? I suppose prison and time outs are torture too?

She was given away like tainted cattle:

So Petruchio and Baptista, behind Katherine's back, decide she's going to marry Petruchio. Here's Katherine's reaction to her father: And later to Petruchio: 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.

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.

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.

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.

When she submits to his torture he stops torturing her. The great defense of every wife-beater.

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.

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.

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.

[Clopin]

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?

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?

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.

[mortalterror]

So statistics on women getting paid less to do the same jobs,

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?

statistics on police predominantly stopping black people...

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.

all that's "PC nonsense," eh? The history of how women were prevented from voting and working... PC nonsense?

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?

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

Yeah, I'm not really looking to read any feminist or communist propaganda today. But thanks.

Doesn't refute what he said. Also doesn't refute that he knows Shakepseare.

I forget what he said. Whaddysay?

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.

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.

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.

So it's okay to hit women, just don't tear their dress or take away their food until they act nice?

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.

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?

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.

It cushions the blow.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Clopin]

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.

[mona amon]

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.



Ah, the voice of sanity at last! Thanks Mona.

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.

[mona amon]

When she submits to his torture he stops torturing her. The great defense of every wife-beater.

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.

Welcome back, by the way! I've missed you.