Do you think Shakespeare's play, "Taming of the Shrew", represents misogyny, sexism, or anything else?

Question

I'm just curious to know what people think. Please be honest. thanks a million!

Answer 1

Not in the least. I think Kate's last speech is totally tongue in cheek and it is totally the other way around - she has tamed him. Pax - C.

Answer 2

Taming Of The Shrew Misogyny

Answer 3

Its a lesson in Honesty instead of game playing between men and women. Bianca and her Dad play games with men, Dad barters Kate. Kate at least is honest. Petruchio plays games, Kate forces him to be honest. I think its Shakespeares commentary on the game people play in love and as much as they all say they want honesty they do not. They want their husband and or wife to fit a mold, to do what they want them to do. Shakespeare laughingly shows us how silly that is.

Answer 4

I've always viewed that tale as a lesson in Respect. Oftentimes in female/male relationships, there's a "power struggle" between the sexes- until each realises a level of comfort with their partner (that failing- so does the relationship) based on mutual respect. That story is about that struggle.

Answer 5

The assumption, both spoken and unspoken, that the male was supposed to dominate the female as a prince dominates a subject, was widely assumed in that period of history as it is today among many people, mostly males. It is stated explicitly by Petrucchio in "The Taming Of The Shrew".

This attitude is called "sexism" now, but was then considered law. "Law" in this sense is simply that which people in a particular era regard as an established social reality based upon what people of that era perceive to be genuine differences in men's and women's abilities and "natural place" in society.

"Misogyny" is hatred of women in general, therefore, by definition at least, is not the same thing at all. But I think that, in reality, the distinctions were and are blurred, as the gender-based abuse and discrimination, regardless of motive or legal or philosophical justification, is undeniably harmful to women, hence harmful to society in general, as more than half of people are women, and forcing them into a servant role leads to a vast over-supply of servants and an incalculable loss of any other contributions that women might make if this discrimination did not exist.

Those who argue "social relativism" on this issue can with equal justification defend American slavery, the international slave trade, worldwide exploitation of woman and sexual enslavement of women and children even today, genocide of South American Indians in conjunction with despoiling of the Amazon rainforests, the actions of Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, Hitler, and any other evil perpetrated by any given society.

Am I wrong to lump all of these things together? It seems to me that men and women of good will have largely reached a rough consensus on what comprises "evil" and "good" politically and socially, though there are many issues such as abortion that still divide thinking people of good will. Maltreatment of any segment of society based upon religion, age, race or sex is now regarded by most people as evil, and I have never seen what I would regard as a valid argument in favor of any of these evils!

For what is "evil", if not to cause harm to a person or a group of people on the basis of sex, race, age, or creed, irrespective of whether or not they have done anything to hurt anyone else to justify harm being done to them? Such evils can poison society in general and end up doing all of us great harm. To each his/her own opinion, but I have found disagreements with this viewpoint to be the arguments of fools: shallow, glib, irrational, or short-sighted, or (usually) all of the above.