Introduction
I often hear this word bandied about. The word womanizer has become the quick and easy way to call a man “no good”. Calling a man a "womanizer" is a general statement that warns women to stay away; cautioning them to guard their most valuable of possessions.
Although I disagree with the use of the word, I usually accept the word and overlook its content because I understand context, (what the person using the word is attempting to convey), and I don’t find it necessary to interrupt the conversation just to interject my personal feelings in the proceedings. However, there are some very disturbing connotations in this word.
What’s Wrong With It?
The interesting thing about this word is that the user reinforces a stereotype that women have worked centuries to distance themselves from. Women have been objectified from inception of time. There have been numerous groups organized for the sole purpose of identifying when women are being objectified and then punishing the people who perform those objectifications. But no one pays attention to the very casual way we use this word in our everyday lexicon especially when stagnates the very movement that it attempts to advance.
Men and women both use the word womanizer liberally, but I can’t figure out, for the life of me, why any self-respecting woman would do so. The word implies that a woman is merely an object and has no voice to resist, and to that end, she is rendered defenseless against the irresistible womanizer. I just don’t understand it! This word says significantly more about a woman that it does about a man. SIGNIFICANTLY!!!
If someone wants to warn a woman about a man who leans, predominately on his base primal characteristics, the word philanderer is more appropriate because it expresses how the man feels about women. This word choice says more about the man than it does the woman. Philanderer is based in mans desire to have the women and so the philanderer will treat a woman badly because he actually sees her as a conquest. I understand this. This makes sense to me.
The word womanizer implies that the man has unbridled passion for women and can’t stop himself from pursing and subsequently conquering her. He loves them and then leaves them, not because he hates, but because he needs more. He has found a soft weak spot in all women and exploits it for his personal gain. The women that he pursues are rendered helpless to his advances, and can’t do anything but bend to his strength. Women are mere objects to a womanizer and her only chance to avoid being taken advantage of is to hope and pray that her path never crosses his. This thinking is disturbing and should be hated!
Best Practice
Women are not objects. So the word womanizer should be removed from our lexicon. In our society men pursue woman, and women pursue men. No gender has dominion. I know this doesn’t sound sexy, but the next time you decide to describe an amorous male looking to love and leave just say “he’s a man not apt to get involved in a relationship” and then the woman can decide for herself if she wants to engage.
