alma's+section+B)

= __King Lear Critic on Feminism: __ = ==
 * ==Summary:==

In this critic, Benjamín Donat Rubio compares contrasting views based on a feminist view of King Lear. This all leads back to the question he is trying to answer: are the female characters stereotyped in King Lear as demonised or sanctified women? Throughout the critic he mainly points out the different interpretations of Coppelia Kahn and McLuskie, two writers who have critiqued the play themselves. One one side, he has Kahn who believes women are seen as positive as opposed to demonised considering "Lear is redeemed by means of a loving non-patriarchal relationship with Cordelia." In other words, since Lear returns to good terms with Cordelia, Kahn sees this as a positive for women since Cordelia did not give in to the dominating patriarchal norms. McLuskie, on the other hand, sees this as a restoration of the patriarchy and thus the "old order" which is that women and daughters are supposed to be ruled over and commanded by men. She thinks that since Cordelia was being so kind and devoted to her father after all he had done she was being submissive and following that "old order." So, Rubio has Kahn who believes King Lear is not an anti-feminist play and McLuskie who completely sees the play as anti-feminist. The author himself, though, sides with McLuskie on this opinion and thinks King Lear is an anti-feminism play.

Hi Alma! Okay I commented on a similar post by Prabjit relating to the same topic. So I disagree with Rubio and McLuskie, but i don't think that signs of anti-feminism are totaly nonexistent throughout the play. I see how Goneril and Regan symbolize evil because afterall they're the reason everything doesn't end happily ever after. Now if King Lear had no good leading ladies, i would easily give in to this argument, but Cordelia represents pure goodness and that's why i feel that this play is not promoting or expressing misogyny. I think its just representing certain women as powerful, almost supernatural (i'm using that term very loosely) because their evil can go far, and thus women should never be underestimated. Also men are bad too... how about Edmund, okay he didn't go as he go far as the gruesome twosome, but he was pretty bad too. Case closed. (MISHA)

i would have to agree with McLuskie on the fact that it is a anti-feminist play. I have a similar excerpt on this topic and i believe that Cordelia's actions do not restore the patriarchy or old order because her actions depict the total opposite. A patriarchy is when the father or male figure has authority over the woman and by Cordelia not expressing her love to her father demonstrates that she isnt going to put on an extravagant show of love like her sisters just to get some of his land. she rather show him than tell him and he considers that disrespectful. Just by Cordelia not doing what her sisters did to get her fathers land shows that she was a "typical" woman of that time era. Yes, Cordelia represents "pure goodness" but she ends up being banished from her fathers kingdom for not doing what a traditional woman would've done in that time period which would be letting the man be in control. Instead she said what was truly on her mind and was punished for it. Cordelia was punished for stepping out of her traditional woman character and shows that this play does not promote feminist qualities.

-briana

I would have to side with Kahn. Although the women in the play ( for example Regan and Goneril ) do not do the right things by supporting their father in his time of need, they do portray dominance and power. Regan and Goneril break out of the norm by disreguarding the feelings of their father and not obeying him. The average woman at that time was supposed to obey males and obide to any male order. However Regan and Goneril disreguard the demands of their father, and act very careless all together toward him. As i said, although this was not the right thing to do in the situation, it proved female dominance and the power that women could actually provoke. In Alma's article, Kahn also believed that the play represented women in a positive way because she says that "Lear is redeemed by means of a loving non-patriarchal relationship with Cordelia." Kahn says that even though Cordelia did not give in to prominating norms, Lear still ended up connecting with her which proves that women do not need to fit the norm, they can prevail and be strong independent individuals. -Tori

Please include your name in the responses. With regard to the above, Cordelia may represent "pure goodness" but the criticism suggests that Cordelia helps restore the patriarchy and "old order". If this is so, then might this be an anti-feminist play? Alma, do you believe it to be anti-feminist or do you tend to side with Kahn? Please feel free to include quotes to support your positions/opinions. Thanks so much for your participation. Mrs. Moore Personally, I do not side with Kahn at all. I believe this play to be anti-feminist because there are rare signs of feminism in it. Mostly everyone who argues that it is not an anti-feminist play relies on figures like Goneril, Regan, and Cordelia to prove their point without taking into consideration the deeper detail on their so called power. Though Goneril and Regan gain power and would be assumed to be "independent," they really are not. The article puts it clear enough: "Gonerill and Regan are clearly represented as demons, monsters, anything but human. They are responsible for the chaos going on and of the disruption of the state." The fact that the kingdom came into madness after women took control is commonly overlooked. Thus, their so called power is just a cover up to say that "women at power can only bring disgrace." More often than never, Cordelia is the tool used to fight the feminist argument. Since she is considered a symbol of "pure goodness," people think it is not possible for the play to be anti-feminist. After all, why would anti-feminism portray a woman in a holy light? However, this too masks the truth. By remaining loyal and submissive to her father when she speaks to him again, she truly is returning to the "old order" of men above women. Despite the harshness of her father, she still stayed obedient considering she did not go against anything her father said but rather made up with him. It is clear to see that she would have done so even without the apology she so rightfully deserved since she did not even ask for one. Besides this, Cordelia's taking charge of the French army also seems to show the dominance of women. Again, people seem to forget that after she took over, the army lost the battle and she was taken prisoner. Of course, this clearly shows that women were seen as the weaker sex and that their control only leads to failure. Therefore, agree that //King Lear// is an anti-feminist play. There just is not enough evidence that proves this otherwise. -- Alma