2006-11-21 09:33:55 · 17 answers · asked by Robert P 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Theater & Acting
It is a comedy and it is very funny. We have to remember the time in which it was written. Many people do think it is offensive and very sexist, especially the last scene. But how can we compare something that was written before 1600 with today's standards of feminism?
2006-11-21 09:43:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely not. It's a romantic comedy, and should be perceived as such.
People with little or no experience with Shakespeare's dramaturgy are constantly trying to LOAD this play with their own petty personal agendas...but that tells us much more about THEM than it does about the play or its author.
Kate IS a shrew at the beginning of the play, but for perfectly good and understandable reasons. Petruchio comes to town and "tames" her, but his method really consists of little more than treating HER the same way that SHE has been treating everybody in HER world.
The key to the play is that Petruchio really does fall for Kate the first time he sees her; his "taming" is merely the process of his wooing. Kate finally "gets" it during the sun/moon encounter In Act IV, scene v. At that point, Kate realizes that she doesn't HAVE to go to war with everyone that comes within arm's reach. She finally realizes that she can have everything she wants -- including a loving husband -- by merely agreeing. From that point forward, she and Petruchio play as partners, having a great laugh at the expense of all the OTHER couples in the play.
Notice that, at the end of the show, Kate and Petruchio are on their way to bed to consummate their marriage, while the other two marriage couples are left in utter disharmony.
2006-11-22 05:26:31 · answer #2 · answered by shkspr 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
there is not any deal conceivable with the Republicans. they're combating even proposals that they used to help earlier the 2008 elections. those featuring those compromises are liars. you be attentive to that the Republicans will vote against any bill in the Senate. you be attentive to they at the instant are not drawn to compromise. you be attentive to that the Republican version of "bipartisanship" is doing each thing the Republicans elect. you're being cheating, and you're fooling no person. Pelosi is right. The Democrats are in potential, they have been elected to enact specific rules, and it relatively is not clever to with no bring about sight attempt to compromise with Republicans who're greater drawn to making a large number than fixing something. If the Republicans want a say in coverage, enable them to start performing like adults in the different case win the majority lower back.
2016-10-22 12:24:15 · answer #3 · answered by equils 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In some ways, yes. But, remember when it was written in the 1600's, women were often objects of comedy and jest. Shakespeare did, however, model Kate, the Shrew, after his wife Ann Hathaway whom he grew to dislike and disrespect. In his will, he left her an old bed, not much for a successful and fairly wealthy man of his time.
Chow!!
2006-11-21 09:57:03 · answer #4 · answered by No one 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It really all depends on the interpretation, though I personally don't think Shakespeare was sexist. One has to consider the time period and audience that the show was written for; Women's Rights were still a few hundred years away at that point.
2006-11-24 05:24:59 · answer #5 · answered by hunter 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, very! But it's from back in the Elizabethan era, and life was pretty much sexist back then. Women were still considered property.
2006-11-21 09:37:13 · answer #6 · answered by Terisu 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Like any script, it depends on the interpretation. I've seen one version that was directed by a 'feminist'... it wasn't very 'funny' considering it's supposed to be a comedy... but it was thought provoking and entertaining. Words themselves are not racist... it's the intentions and message behind them. As a writer, Shakespeare himself was one of the first writers to create roles for women who were actually strong multidimensional roles... his attitude towards women and their role in society was far beyond the society he actually lived in. I believe the play itself pokes fun at 'male ego' more than it portrays women as 'Tameable'. I think a modern audience is probably a little more sensitive to the 'politically incorrect' satire of the play.
2006-11-21 09:56:28 · answer #7 · answered by markus 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Never read it. Saw it well acted, though. No I don't think it's sexist. Depends if you want to tie it up with a broad like that.
2006-11-21 09:37:16 · answer #8 · answered by vanamont7 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
In that the story was putting a woman in her place - yes. However, it was the society of the time.
2006-11-21 09:38:27 · answer #9 · answered by Sophist 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, I've seen the play, and I definitely got that impression.
2006-11-21 09:52:01 · answer #10 · answered by jennabeanski 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋