Medusa, Feminists, and Womynists

So I read a great article for my women of color in the us class. The authoress said that her nickname was Medusa and then she proceeded to go into the mythology of Medusa and what she symbolizes and represents now and in mythology.  What I am posting is my response to a fellow classmate's thoughts on that section of the article.  

I absolutely loved the section about Medusa because, one i love mythology, and two because people usually don't think to put the two together.  But I think that is one of the beauties of Feminism.  That feminists can be all these different, sometimes opposite or conflicting things, at once and how amazing that is.  I think Medusa is the perfect symbol of Feminists and Womynists because as the article says "shes volatile yet feminine" that, in and of itself, says so much because most people think that if you are a feminist or womynist you are just an ugly, angry, lesbian, who doesn't wear make up or shave and who hates men.  But Feminists and womynists are like Medusa in that they are, or can be, everything all at once, even things that may seem to contradict themselves.  It shows that we can take gendered attributes like strength (masculine) and beauty (feminine) and see them in ourselves and others as feminists and womynists because we are strong and independent and powerful yet beautiful, kind, and caring.  Its like all the things that have negative or scary connotations that describe Medusa, are they really bad or is it just bad to those who find these attributes threatening to their power??  Are all the positively connotative attributes positive because of the negatively connotative ones? What I mean by that is, for example, in the article it says "She is both beautiful and terrifying...Astonishing and petrifying."  Is she beautiful and astonishing because she is terrifying and petrifying? I would argue that she is because anyone who has all these strong qualities who does what she wants, who, as the article quotes, "you can cut off her head yet neither her nor her voice will be silenced."  To those who are trying to silence her she could be seen as all the negatively connotative attributes such as terrifying or petrifying.  but to those who want her voice to be heard and who want to follow in her footsteps, so to speak, she could be seen as beautiful and astonishing because of her dedication and perseverance and strength.  

You may notice that in the above words there is a term Womynist.  This is not a typo or misspell. It is purposeful by the authoress and now, myself.  In class we talked about the prefixes, or titles of women.  There is Miss, Ms., and Mrs.  We may think nothing of them because we are used to them.  In fact, most women are excited when they turn from a miss to mrs because it now means they are married, and is the us currently, to a man.  But the prefix or title of Mr. does not hold any other meaning than man.  Miss is a younger, unmarried woman, Ms. is an older unmarried woman or perhaps an older woman who is divorced.  Mrs. is an adult woman who is married.  All of these titles revolve around a man, either you have one or you don't, your old or your young.  Mr is just a man, young or old, married or single.  Why so women have to be titled by their relationship to men? Why can't we stand independent like men do? 

Similarly, the word woman is tied directly to men: woMEN. same thing with male and female: feMALE.  Again, i ask, why must we be linked to men.  Why can't we stand alone unconnected to men?? 

Which brings me to my point of bringing that to attention.  Those who consider themselves womynists use that spelling for a reason, to disconnect from men, to be separate and independent from men and from here on out I will use that spelling for the same reason and purpose.