“The Taming of the Shrew” by William Shakespeare

 To analyze the play by Shakespeare regarding the specific topic of gender and misogyny, one should provide a definition for both terms. Oxford Dictionary states that gender is “the fact or condition of belonging to or identifying with a particular gender” (“Gender”). Misogyny is defined as “dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women” (“Misogyny”). The reason why The Taming of the Shrew is viewed as a controversial play on the topic of gender and misogyny nature is the evolvement of the feminist movement and reconsideration of women’s essence in the modern world.

As the perception of women’s state changes through time, the play becomes even more interesting for scholars, readers, and analysts who argue about the interpretation of motives and themes presented in Shakespeare’s work. The rationale behind the research of the play is based on the opportunity to analyze the transformation of former and newer views on gender and misogyny. This paper will present the discussion of the gender and misogyny themes in Shakespeare’s play, a review of the literature on the same topic, and a different interpretation of the work that the author will introduce.

Review of the Literature
The controversy of Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew lies in the area of female submission to the patriarchy that rules the society of the sixteenth century when the work was written. The question of women’s surrender to male power shows the discrepancies of gender politics in love relations that the main characters, Petruchio and Katherine, are involved in. From the point of view of former academics, the “tamer” tries to humiliate wildcat Katherine and oppress her female state. If the reader focuses on the main story and forgets about the comedy’s subplot that shows how several men are trying to court Katherine, it might be stated that the play is ambiguous. It is indicated by various scholars and critics of the past century that the work of Shakespeare is misogynistic, brutal, and offensive (Costa). Modern society has tried to re-evaluate the position of former academics.

In 2016, two adaptations of The Taming of the Shrew appeared, whose directors and screenwriters tried to adjust the play and make it more acceptable by the public in the twenty-first century. Both creations that were introduced for the Hogarth Shakespeare series and the Shakespeare in the Park event took a different path in the analysis of the initial work. One of the plays was aimed to avoid the humiliation of the main character, while the other adhered to the misogyny that was seen in the original work. After the release of both plays, journalists suggested that the combination of gender issues, hate of women, and violence is what makes the play so appealing and ambiguous at the same time (Grady). This controversy provides space for different interpretations that any director, scholar, or reader can imagine.

The discussion around the play is explained by the timelessness of the topics raised by Shakespeare that draw the attention of the contemporary public. The gender roles that are shown in The Taming of the Shrew scold the audience’s perceptions of gender politics. Gündüz suggests that “it must be admitted that uneasiness about what are seen as the play’s gender assumptions goes back a long way” (p. 833). However, others claim that the role of the male gender in the play is direct and depicts the power a man has due to a social hierarchy that gives him the authority to humiliate a woman (Wachter). This position is defined by the language used in the play, for instance, when Baptista, the father of Katherine, tells men that he can “court [Katherina] at [his] pleasure” (Shakespeare 1.1.54–55). The agreement on the issue in the general public might never be found.

As the changes in gender politics evolve, society tries to transform the theme of gender in The Taming of the Shrew. It is argued that the central issue of the twentieth century was the situation when “the personal is political” (Hanisch). Journalists nowadays suggest that contemporary feminist movements cannot admit that in the Shakespeare’s play, the personal situation is personal (Costa). When Katherine in the final speech says that she is willing to place a hand beneath her husband’s foot, it is her statement that does not claim her surrender to a male. The culmination of the play shows that Katherine, who was seemingly humiliated and hated, demolishes Petruchio and pulls him down to her level (Wachter). It might be stated that the play itself provides opportunities for different interpretations and construction of various scenes when analyzing it.