The author of the article seeks to reveal the reasons for the loss of femininity by heroines’ suffering from the Medea complex. To this end, the author considers the various developments of the plot featuring a betrayed woman taking revenge on her husband to be found in mythology, Euripides’ tragedies, Jean Marie Lucien Pierre Anouilh’s dramas, Yuri Petrovich Lyubimov’s theatrical performances at the Taganka Theatre. The author demonstrates that the revenge of mythological Medea is extolled and sanctified by Helios. In «Medea» created in a patriarchy-dominated period, Euripides shows a different attitude: his sympathy for the heroine reveals itself in Medea’s monologue, however, his condemnation of children-destruction by Medea is evident through the chorus cues. The image of the heroine is still elevated and stirs up sympathy. Lyubimov theatrical performance is inspired by Euripides’ tragedy, but the director gives a broad hint at the Medea tragedy repeating itself in the contemporary context. Kama Ginkas’ theatrical performances, emphasis is laid on Medea’s villainy, rather than on a feat of love. The author of the article claims that the evolution of the interpretation of Medea’s image is in tune with the evolution of cultural values over time. The view of Medea as alien to femininity is related by the author to the dominance of patriarchy and Christianity, which the author is agreed with and concludes that currently the image of Medea is to be seen as a negative example which serves to demonstrate that revenge, murder, and lack of maternal duty are incompatible with the concept of femininity. The author proves that the Medea complex identification and its ethics- and aesthetics-informed interpretation are currently of utmost importance.