What is the deal with the word “womanizer”? I have always thought it was a totally ridiculous word. I’m not talking about the word’s meaning, I am talking about the actual structure of the word. Why do we refer to a man who leads a sexually promiscuous lifestyle as a “woman - izer”? What’s the deal with the “izer” part?
A meat tenderizer makes meat tender. A pulverizer makes something into powder (pulver is German for powder.) Okay. So a womanizer…turns something into a woman? Going by the logic of other “izer” words, that would be the assumption.
That’s only a problem if you’re not named Martin, or if you’re really in a hurry.
Now “philanderer” is another interesting word. “Phil” is Greek/Latin for “love” (compare “philosophy”, love of wisdom); “andr” is Greek/Latin for man (compare “android”), plus we have the “er” ending, meaning “one who performs the named action”. Logically, then, a “philanderer” loves men, and a “womanizer” loves women.
Both words are grossly misleading. I don’t like the word “womanizer” any more than the OP. Except for the cases where people are in open relationships, we’re really talking about cheating and marriage fraud.
Well, does “womanizer” inherently imply that the man is married and cheating on his wife? Or can an unattached man be a “womanizer”? If so, then I don’t see how it is necessarily cheating or “marriage fraud.”
I’m with you. When I hear the term “womanizer” I simply take it to mean that the man sleeps or tries to sleep with lots of women, period, the male equivalent of a “slut” (in quotes because I don’t actually use either term to label anyone). If he happens to be in a relationship, then, yes, he would be cheating/frauding.
Good question. I usually see it in the context of cheating on a spouse, but I suppose it could be used of a single person… though in that context I’d be more likely to use the word “playa” (not the landform).
You see, I’d just categorize that as a playa or player. Womanizer has an extra connotation–that the guy pretends to want a relationship. A player is usually honest about their desire to play the field.
A long, long time ago, a man who had sex with a lot of girls ws a stud (positive) and a girl who had sex with a lot of men was a slut (negative). When the language chaned l, we needed terms to equalize the terms.
Stud became “womanizer,” but oddly “manizer” never became popular.
I’m pretty sure the logical conclusion is “philgynerer”
As for womanizer, I’ve always felt like the word came about by confusing the -ize meaning of “to make/convert/subject” with “to use”. The ideas aren’t that far apart, though womanizer is obviously not the correct usage.
A womanizer, then, uses women for his pleasure (whether he does it openly or not, or honestly or not, his primary goal is self-centered - especially in the context of a culture that considered all sex wrong if it’s not procreative and within marriage).