Disowning people because they don't love you as much? That's F-d up

Somewhere between working on a portfolio for my Creative writing class and napping was my response to this weeks blog, incase you haven’t guessed it yet the scene I am going to discuss takes place at the beginning of the play, when King Lear disowns his daughter because her declaration of love for him is not as heartfelt and profound as her other sisters. Found in ACT 1 SCENE 1
So I decided to do this as a feminist. I did it this way because its a good example of men and what happens when you don’t stroke their egos. I'm not going into a Freud thing here though I probably could. I decided to use the Ideas of Simone de Beauvior, with the idea of the "Eternal feminine" in mind his first two daughters that offer him praise and numerous reasons as to why they love him are given shares of his Kingdom, while the daughter that only seems to love him out of obligation because she is his daughter gets pawned off on other people. He understands that his two other daughters will never be queens but strips Cordellia of the ability to become that because she doesn’t love him the way he thinks se ought to. All women have inside of them the ability to either be the "saintly mother" or cruel stepmother" perhaps this was the authors way of showing the different facets of women at the time? On a more modern scale even today, women who suck up to men in powerful positions are more likely to get ahead, its extremely self defeating and sexist but it exists. de Beauvior says

The myth of women plays a considerable part in literature; but what is importance in daily life?To what extent does it affect the customs and conduct of individuals? In replying to this question it will be necessary to state precisely the relation this myth bares to reality

The myth is shown to exsist here because Cordiellia is written off as the immediate bad guy because she isnt like her sisters so she's basiay stripped of all worth and titles. She submits herself as the kings daughter to loving him out of obligation unlike her sisters as I mentioned earlier but the connection I wanted to make here was about that and de Beauvior's point that

Paternalism for hearth and home defines imminence and transcendence; when one offers the extent no ain or transcendence falls vainly into the past-that is to say, into imminence, This is the lot assigned to women in the patriarchate; but is in no way a vocation , anymore than slavery is a vocation of the slave

He try’s to pass her off to two people. The Duke of Burgundy and the king of France who only gets her by default. He banishes both her and Kent from his Kingdom because he argues that he has made a stupid decision in disinheriting Cordiellia, Keeping the earlier quotation in mind and the concept of vocational obligation of the slave, Cordiellia to me was not only indifferent to the situation because she felt this way, but because if she comes across feeling like this when asked to express her love for her father, what can he really do but renounce his loyalty to her? Realistically people arent always going to give you the response you want to hear. Social constructs leave all Lear’s daughters at his mercy, whereas he gets to decide what happens to them based on who he gives shares of his Kingdom to. This falls back into the idea that the man in the situation maintains "absolute rights" and imposes "categorical imperative" on the women. It is expected that the women in both this situation and any modern one similar to this simply take what they can get and be happy with that.