I would like to share a realization that came as the fruit of a secular discussion I had earlier this evening. I'll have to frame it a bit, so please excuse the introduction. I have to jump around a bit but I'll tie it all together, don't you worry. ^_~
Baptize - I'm pretty sure I don't have to define that one for you,....
Baptism - the process by which one is baptized.
From these two examples, one can hopefully observe that the Greek bapt - the word from which these terms are derived - refers to something of a sanctification.
-ism/-ize - different english conjugation based on greek origins, but not differentiating from the source word/concept.
Womanize - To make effeminate or to engage in habitual pursuit of women
That's what dictionary.com says. I say,....
To frequently engage in predatory, disingenuous, artificial, or otherwise self-gratifying behavior against women.
Womanism - believing in or acknowledging the viability, contribution, and requisite nature of the female (in a variety of forms)
Again, that's the dictionary response.
Yet - referring to the previous indication of suffixes - one would reasonably conclude that a womanist is comparable (but not identical) to a womanizer. Yet, contemporary experience AND cursory research indicates that there is a divide - antithetical even - between the terms.
NOW, if one were to observe the consistent linguistics, one might erroneously (but not surprisingly given the aggregate) assume that the act of engaging in predatory (etc.) behavior against a woman is part of the process of making 'a woman'.
Think about it. If bapt - ize means to cause to be santified (simplified), then doesn't woman - ize means to be made womanly? But - and I'm going off what I've observed - all the womanizers I've known or seen evidence of are either callous, dismissive, derisive, (et al) toward women. This implies that the process of being callous, etc. toward women makes a woman out of them. Is a woman a female who has been fooled, led, tricked, guided, etc. by a man (not exclusively, I'm sure there are lesbian 'womanizers', though I'd wager they're the gross minority compared to their masculine counterpart)?
This illustrates only one of the idiosyncrasy's of the english language, but it serves to indicate the value - if not the necessity - of becoming, if not a wordsmith than having the ability to break apart words and individually validate and/or qualify their meaning.
Using myself as an example - and I'm only stating this as an example, otherwise I wouldn't state - I cannot in all reason-ability continue to utilize the term 'womanize'. The word its self runs at cross purposes and sends mixed signals (and IMO none of them are conducive). The implication is that predation is a natural cause/catalyst for the flowering/maturity/development of a female graduating from 'young girl' to 'woman'.
Basically, the idea is that a 'woman' is a 'woman' when she has been taken advantage of,... or at least that is one extreme of the interpretive spectrum.
However,... looking at the animal kingdom (cats in particular since for me they are prevalent) I can't contest the validity of the idea! Male cats don't exactly ask for consent!
It goes both ways (interpretation and perception, not,... the previous implication), and one should be very careful that they observe that distinction.
And,... if anyone wants to know how that pertains to metaphysics, please let me know so I can bitch-slap the shit outta you.
Seriously, the Feminine and the Masculine,... the two that are one,... I'll assume (hope!) you know where I'm going with that one.
