Take care before you accuse someone of using the wrong word


Merriam Dictionary: Revisionist: support of ideas and beliefs that differ from and try to change accepted ideas and beliefs especially in a way that is seen as wrong or dishonest

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Inigo Montoya. Princess Bride

Oxford Dictionary: Terrorist: A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.

The other day, a friend got a hold of me to ask a question. She had just finished reading an article titled, The Weaker Sex? Violence and the Suffragette Movement. Something had caused her to think she misunderstood the author’s point. That thing was the comment section.

The article’s author, Fern Riddle, walks her readers through the darker side of the Suffragette Movement, and questions why this aspect of the movement has been lost to the ages. In the opening paragraph Riddle illustrates that the movement was not as peaceful as we have been led to believe.

In the early hours of a mild November morning in 1913, a three-inch pipe was primed to explode later and destroy the multiple panels and ornate metal work that made the Glass House ‘one of the chief attractions’ of Alexandra Park in Manchester. A smouldering mass of twisted metal and broken glass was discovered and quickly attributed by the popular press to the wave of ‘suffragette outrages’ being committed across the country by the militant branch of the women’s rights movement. Kew Gardens had already suffered two attacks, on an orchid house and pavilion, and the campaign of arson and intimidation conducted by the militant wing of the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) and their supporters was reaching its height.

Riddle goes on to give other examples of extreme violence at the hands of militant Suffragettes. Riddle has done her homework. She cites court cases and press reaction to these acts of violence. Riddle is not attacking these women for their actions. The purpose of the article is to ask why historians continue to ignore them. Riddle calls the actions of these women, acts of terrorism, but does admit not everyone will agree.

While the majority of historians would baulk at describing any suffragette as a ‘terrorist’, most would accept that the actions of the militants could be viewed as a form of political extremism.

Riddle goes on to argue that after the horrors of World War I, the leaders of the movement sought to distance themselves from the agents of violence and because of this silence these women have been largely forgotten. Our unease with their tactics, leave us unable to come to term with their motives, as if they have no right to their feelings and frustration. It is a very good piece as it asks us to reevaluate the movement as a whole.

So, what’s the problem? Why was my friend confused? It turns out she wasn’t confused, it was the comment posters who were confused. Yeah, go figure.

The majority of the commenters were angry at Riddle over the use of the term terrorist when describing these agents of violence. One commenter thought Riddle was revising history by using a modern term (terrorism) when describing the events of the early 20th century (which, as far as I know, is still considered modern). Others agreed and continued to call Riddle a revisionist who uses a modern term to talk about (gasp) history!

The root of the word terrorism is taken from a Latin term that literally means “to frighten”. It became part of the phrase “terror cimbricus”, which was used by ancient Romans as far back as 105BC to describe the panic that ensued as they prepared for an attack by a fierce warrior tribe. The modern English word derives from the French term, Terreur , which was coined during the French Revolution. So no, the word is not modern, although we now reserve the use for war crimes or when groups attack nation-states.

Riddle is using the term correctly, but as stated before she concedes that historians might baulk at its use, but only because of the modern connotation. There are far worse terrorist out there and we could deem it inappropriate to group these ladies with modern terrorists. But to say the word does not apply would also be inappropriate, as by definition these ladies sought to strike fear and terror in the hearts and minds of those who opposed their political aims. Get over it people. You may feel uneasy with the term, but Riddle had every right to use it.

Riddle was not pushing any political agenda, nor was she revising history to make a point. Riddle is not placing these ladies on the same level as ISIS. The term terrorism is used to express the goal of the militant wing of the Suffragette Movement and the violent means by which these goals were to be met. In no way did Riddle color or revise the history of the movement. Even if she had used a modern term, this is not what it means to revise history anymore than using the word cancer to describe the medieval “wasting disease” revises history.

After reading the article, my friend and I agreed that the article illustrates just how hard women fought for equal rights and the right to vote. And, if schools would once again give these women a voice, we modern women might value what we have, instead of taking it for granted.


Taming of the Shrew – Does he or doesn’t he? Part 1

Shrew – Woman given to railing or scolding. Elizabethan definition. 

New American Shakespeare Theater Co.
New American Shakespeare Theater Co.

Have you had a chance to view PBS’s second season of “Uncovering Shakespeare” yet? I binged watched it Sunday. It was an ideal way to pass a rainy afternoon. Morgan Freeman hosted the episode on “Taming of the Shrew”. While I thought it offered some wonderful insight, I don’t think it answered the question: Did Petruchio tame the shrew? This is a debate scholars just can’t seem to agree upon.

For those of you unfamiliar with the play, the plot is one of Shakespeare’s simplest.

Minola Baptista is a wealthy man living in the fictitious city of Padua. Babtista has two daughters: the older opinionated shrewish Katherine, and the lovely young Bianca.

Bianca has two suitors while Katherine has none. Baptista refuses to let anyone court Bianca until Katherine is married. It was not uncommon in the Elizabethan era to refuse a younger sister’s hand until the older one was married. Petruchio, a brash retired military man, arrives in town looking to marry a woman with a large dowry. Bianca’s suitors talk him into wooing Katherine so that Bianca is free to wed.

Though not keen on marrying anyone, Katherine is quickly taken in by Petruchio’s banter and unorthodox manner. The two wed, leaving Bianca to choose between her two suitors. The loser ends up marrying a wealthy widow. Everyone seems happy, or are they? This is the beginning of the debate.

The scholarly debate does not start with the events leading up to Katherine and Petruchio’s wedding. It’s the events right after, and leading up to the end of the play that encourages so much debate It’s the treatment of Katherine by her new husband that is hotly debated. It starts with Petruchio’s embarrassing speech at their reception, to his cruel treatment of her at home. It’s his “taming of the shrew” that bothers a lot of scholars.

Over the years I’ve sat on the fence, wondering if this play should be treated as a beloved screwball comedy or a misogynist view of marriage. It wasn’t until I started looking at the play backwards, did it dawn on me, that no, Petruchio did not tame the shrew. I propose that the “shrew” learned that love and marriage is the most important aspect of life. By marrying a man that matched her wit, she found true happiness.

Let’s start with the very last speech of the play, given to us by Katherine. She has shocked her friends and family by allowing Petruchio to toss her hat way because he does not like how it looked on her. Petruchio then instructs Katherine to explain to the horrified women the duty they owe their husbands. Katherine complies:

Fie, fie! unknit that threatening unkind brow,
And dart not scornful glances from those eyes
To wound thy lord, thy king, thy governor.
It blots thy beauty as frosts do bite the meads,
Confounds thy fame as whirlwinds shake fair buds,
And in no sense is meet or amiable.
A woman mov’d is like a fountain troubled-
Muddy, ill-seeming, thick, bereft of beauty;
And while it is so, none so dry or thirsty
Will deign to sip or touch one drop of it.
Thy husband is thy lord, thy life, thy keeper,
Thy head, thy sovereign; one that cares for thee,
And for thy maintenance commits his body
To painful labour both by sea and land,
To watch the night in storms, the day in cold,
Whilst thou liest warm at home, secure and safe;
And craves no other tribute at thy hands
But love, fair looks, and true obedience-
Too little payment for so great a debt.
Such duty as the subject owes the prince,
Even such a woman oweth to her husband;
And when she is froward, peevish, sullen, sour,
And not obedient to his honest will,
What is she but a foul contending rebel
And graceless traitor to her loving lord?
I am asham’d that women are so simple
To offer war where they should kneel for peace;
Or seek for rule, supremacy, and sway,
When they are bound to serve, love, and obey.
Why are our bodies soft and weak and smooth,
Unapt to toil and trouble in the world,
But that our soft conditions and our hearts
Should well agree with our external parts?
Come, come, you forward and unable worms!
My mind hath been as big as one of yours,
My heart as great, my reason haply more,
To bandy word for word and frown for frown;
But now I see our lances are but straws,
Our strength as weak, our weakness past compare,
That seeming to be most which we indeed least are.
Then vail your stomachs, for it is no boot,
And place your hands below your husband’s foot;
In token of which duty, if he please,
My hand is ready, may it do him ease

Yes, I know, the speech is long, so let me break it down for you. Katherine is reminding married women that while their husbands are out toiling in the fields or away at sea, the woman are warm and dry (admittedly she is talking to wealthy women). All that their husbands ask in return is to be loved and obeyed. Arguing with their husbands is pointless and only makes for an unhappy home. Husbands have the final say, so why not submit instead of committing acts of rebellion by “banding word for word, and frown for frown”? In other words, Katherine is reminding married women, it is their job to keep the peace.

Now, before I lose my female readers who may feel this is absolutely unacceptable, let’s bear a few things in mind.

Shakespeare has given Katherine the final say. In fact, Katherine has many of the best lines, the longest lines. And keeping in mind the word, “shrew” as it was used in Shakespeare’s day, refers to a highly opinionated woman. One who is not afraid to express herself. By allowing Katherine to express her views on marriage Shakespeare is keeping true to her “shrewish” nature. There does not seem anything tame about her speech. She scolds the woman much as she did men before she was married.

Let’s also keep in mind that the vow of obedience is still uttered today, though most modern women will say this is a vow that is more bark than bite. Our vows come to us not from our secular worldview, but from the Christian worldview. Looking at the vow from this lens we begin to understand the words Katherine chooses. She reminds the women that their husbands are their lords and should be obeyed as such. Christians, obey and love their Lord. If you reverse this, Christians obey their Lord because the love him. Katherine is telling women they should obey their husband because they love him. And we have to ask, what does she mean by obey?

Much of her speech is centered on arguing. She says, “But now I see our lances are but straws, Our strength as weak, our weakness past compare, That seeming to be most which we indeed least are”. Keep that last line in mind. Katherine is telling the women they are not weak, yet fighting will get them nowhere. The lance of argument is but straw. It will do no harm to men, and only make women feel weak. The stronger woman know when to pick her battles, and knows that arguing for argument makes her a “graceless traitor to her loving lord”.

How do we know this is what Katherine means? Let’s jump to the scene between the newlyweds in which Petruchio tries to goad Katherine into an argument. Why he does this depends on the actor’s point of view. If done right, it seems to suggest Petruchio is testing Katherine’s tameness, and once tested, suggests he is happy to be outwitted.

On their way back to Katherine’s father’s house, Petruchio points to the sun and notes how “shiny the moon is”. Katherine replies that it is the sun. Petruchio declares they are turning around and going home since she wants to argue with him. Katherine realizes the game his is playing, so agrees it is the moon, only to have Petruchio declare it is the sun. Katherine then says:

Then God be blest, it is the blessed sun,
But the sun it is not, when you say it is not;
And the moon changes even as your mind.
What you will have it nam’d, even that it is,
And so it shall be so for Katherine.

Petruchio is at a loss for words. If this scene is played out correctly, both smile. Katherine has picked her battle and Petruchio knows he has just lost because of it.

Let’s look at this from a modern perspective. You and your husband are sitting out on the veranda, sharing an intimate moment. Maybe you are sharing a bottle of wine and good conversation. Suddenly your husband points to Venus and says, “My, that star sure is bright tonight”. You could argue that it is a planet, not a star, getting out your phone sky app to prove it, or you could just smile and agree. After all, you are having such a good time, who cares what he calls it? You might think to yourself, “I married an idiot,” but you don’t say anything because he is your idiot, you love him. Guess what, you just picked your battle. Does this make you tame? No, this makes you strong. You know it is better to enjoy your evening and by agreeing with your husband on these little things, you will ensure a happy marriage. Why offer war, when you can kneel for peace? This, I think is what Katherine is doing. She realizes that by allowing Petruchio to think he is right, she has the upper hand. She gets what she wants. They continue to her father’s house in good spirits. Petruchio knows his wife is not stupid and will speak her mind, but will not engage in an argument for argument sake. They are content with each other.

Next time we will look at the two scenes that bother scholars the most: Petruchio’s “rude” reception speech and his “cruel” treatment of Katherine once he gets her home. We will look at what John Wayne has in common with Petruchio.

Katherine’s speeches

Women’s Monologues in Shakespeare’s

The Taming of the Shrew