Monthly Archives: February 2012

I was on facebook the other day and I saw this photo. This is photo that a friend posted having to do with hiv/aids. I was shocked at the idea of facebook icons being used as a way to state who had been with this girl and the fact that she may or may not have hiv/aids or the people that she was with had it.

Then the idea of how it posted to the right of the picture of the young woman who had “checked in” at her vagina. I found this a very disgusting way to “advertise” for this disease and for female sexuality.

In last weeks article, I wrote about the implications of gendered language. It seems that the next logical step in this examination of feminist issues is the spelling of the word womyn. Zora Neal Hurston writes,

“Anyone who is literate, can see from the spelling that the word ‘man’ is present in ‘woman.’ Once again ‘man’ has found a way to make its presence known. In order to completely emancipate themselves from the other sex, womyn should try to make the alternative spelling change permanent.”[1]

Just as gendered language is an attempt to blur womyn into the background, some feminists argue that the traditional spelling of the word women is yet another insidious extension of patriarchy.  Sue Moore writes, “The ‘wo’ in women comes from the Greek or Latin meaning ‘lesser’. ‘Women – woman’ is by traditional definition the ‘wife of man’, ‘woe of man’, ‘female-man’ or ‘womb-man.’”[2] Hurston goes on to write, “To some it may seem quite trivial and pointless, but that is due to their lack of understanding about the great struggles that womyn have overcome throughout history. It is a way of combating patriarchy. Believe it or not, it is a way for womyn to assert their independence and strengthen their unity!”[3]   Read more... (428 words, estimated 1:43 mins reading time)