King Lear

Coppelia Kahn raises an interesting point when he calls into question the absent mother and suppressed feminine of King Lear. William Shakespeare seems to have had a horrible relationship with his own mother because he leaves that presence out of many of his plays and when a mother is actually present she is usually evil or neglectful. The idea of King Lear's downfall being caused by a abandoned female side is an idea that I do not think Shakespeare originally intended for his play but I think if one were so inclined they could see the play in that light. Kahn obviously has taken his stance and while his argument is compelling I do not know if I completely agree. I think King Lear's problem does involve his feminine side but only because he does ignore it. I believe that there is masculine and feminine in everything and in everyone. It appears to me that King Lear is either afraid or is not willing to admit that he has an emotional or traditional female side to him and to me that does not make him a whole person. The fact that King Lear is not a complete person leads to his downfall in my mind. Lear makes snap decisions based on only half logic and he leads with a pig headed heart, this makes him a horrible king. Lear orders his daughters to tell him of their love for him. This seems to me that Lear does not have any self confidence that stems from anything other than his position as king. He makes people display their love while dangling something of high value in their faces and expects them to display an honest loyalty and love. King Lear does not display any of the qualities that makes a person complete because he seeks love in others but the only way he knows how to get the love he craves is by wielding his power. Kahn suggests that this is because Lear is refusing to use his feminine side which I suppose is plausible but then why is Lear so aggressive all the time? The last time I checked aggression was an emotion, albeit an emotion associated with males, but an emotion none the less. Perhaps Lear's outbursts and poor decisions come from a purely emotional place but he is overcompensating sending him into a patriarchal, testosterone driven mannerism. If this is the true motivation behind King Lear than Kahn has written about the wrong gender being forgotten in Lear. Perhaps all readers do have it wrong. Lear could easily be operating from a traditionally feminine place and he is only trying to compensate over a side that he deems as weak. As the play progresses King Lear descends into a madness that could actually be him finding the two pieces that make him up as a whole. This idea could be potentially earth shattering to him because of his long held facade and forcing himself into a particular box. In the end, Lear gives himself over to a purely feminine place and this is also not the right answer but it many ways it is better for King Lear and the people around him. Maybe Lear is overcompensating or maybe Lear is not a complete human being but in the end he is not allowing his feminine side to work properly and he in turn suffers.