A gender-bending reading of King Lear

I find Coppelia Kahn’s argument that King Lear showcases the title character’s discovery of his inner woman to be very intriguing and enlightening, but I did have some trouble completely agreeing with it at first. It is no doubt that in the play, Lear’s pride and self-assurance lead to his demise (not the mention the demise of many others) and at the end of the story he understands the error of his ways and becomes a more remorseful person, but can this be classified as womanly when two (out of three) female characters in the play are volatile and corrupt? I am speaking of Regan and Goneril, who both show extreme cruelty and manipulation towards others, just like their male counterparts. As for caring, guiding, and “motherly” characters in the play, Cordelia and two other male characters (The Fool and Kent) fill this role. I was confused as to how a gender specific characteristic could be applied to a play which seems to have no regard for them. What would be regarded as motherly and wholesome is exhibited by both male and female characters, as what is “manly” and stern is blurred between the sexes. So, to me, the gender classification of King Lear did not seem to work. But alas, I started to see how I might be wrong, as I was equating “father” with “evil/power hungry/ arrogant” and “mother” with “love/goodness/sympathy”. I now know that Kahn is not saying Lear must recognize the “woman” inside of him so he can become “good”, but rather to balance out his masculine reign. I may have missed this detail, and I blame my reluctance towards Shakespeare’s writing style for it, but where was the Queen? (If this is disclosed in the story, please enlighten me.) Where was Lear’s “better half” as some would call it? Lear does not possess the balancing and rationality that a companion as close as a romantic partner would bring to him. The ideal leader would be able to conjure up that other half within himself and use both sides to rule, but as we can see in the story, King Lear has a rough road ahead of him until that revelation occurs. Perhaps at the end of the story, his tears and remorse come from his realization that he is missing that critical element (whether internally or externally) that would make him the great leader he only pretends (and forces others to pretend) that he is. This may be what Kahn is leading us to believe with her argument, but personally I do not believe assigning gender roles/stereotypes to the argument is the best way to go, especially if this criticism is recent, as gender roles are becoming more and more obscured in modern society. This is probably what lead to my original confusion with the topic, as I am not a fan of gender stereotypes. But looking past the actual wording of the argument helped me gain a greater understanding of what she might be saying. She sees King Lear a tale of self-discovery in that no one is without fault and that we each require the love of someone close. I would also like to point out Regan, Goneril, and Edmund and ask where these characters fit in this reading of the novel. Are they on the same path of self-discovery? Do they reach their goal? If not, what is blocking their way? Is it similar to what is happening to Lear?