I really want to leave a comment but I can’t decide whether it would be worth it. The icing on the cake is when the author invokes the ghost of fictional Anne Wetly, arguing that Shakespeare clearly loved her but was stuck marrying Anne Hathaway instead, and thus forever had a hatred of women that he vented in his plays. Which would be a valid point, except for that whole “she didn’t really exist” thing.
Personally I don’t love Shrew. It’s little more than slapstick to me. I really have no interest in debating the “wink” moment in the final scene, and what it really means. But I don’t know how you meaningfully write a piece that on the one hand points to Katherine as a poor weak creature cowering under her husband’s hand, while at the same time using Lady Macbeth as an example of the same point? Lady M clearly wears the pants in her family. Apparently the author’s point is that Shakespeare thinks that men want to … dominate women, be dominated by them, or, re: Gertrude, marry them. Yes, that makes a very consistent and logical point? I suppose perhaps we could take all the girls who dress up as boys and use that as evidence that Shakespeare was into transgender, too? And all the ones that kill themselves as evidence that Shakespeare wants all women dead?
It’ll make you laugh, if it doesn’t make you tear your hair out. Articles like this make you realize where the stereotype of feminists as man-haters comes from.