Are men who are chauvinists considered jerks? What is chauvinism? What does it mean to be a chauvinist ?

And…. Does being a chauvinist mean love for one’s country, or could it mean superiority in being a man as well.. ?

noun
1. a person who is aggressively and blindly patriotic, especially one devoted to military glory.
2. a person who believes one gender is superior to the other, as a male chauvinist or a female chauvinist .

That was easy, what do you think? :)

Chauvinism is a wild claim of superiority for whatever group one may belong to, which usually also manifests as a strong animosity toward other groups. So to assert that men are vastly superior to women is male chauvinism; to assert that America has God on its side is nationalistic chauvinism.

@Blackberry – Thanks!! Yeah it was…. another question, are guys who are chauvinistic considered assholes… ? Or….. ?

Ok I see, got it, thanks. So is this more of a bad/negative quality for someone to have ??

For example this guy is a chauvinist right >>> ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0xoKiH8JJM

A man that calls a woman that wants birth control to be paid for via her medical insurance a slut is a prime example of a chauvinistic pig.

A “male chauvinist” is one who believes women are inferior and should be in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant. At least that was the 1970’s characterization. At the time the phrase was widespread in the language, it also ended with the word “pig”, and there was no such thing as a “female chauvinist”, and in general use was shortened to just “chauvinist”.

A prick who is firmly stuck in the 70’s & believes implicitly that women, by their very nature, are inferior to men.

Patriotism = chauvinism, no?

[fill in the blank] pride = chauvinism, no?

“I’m a Mac”, “I’m a PC” = chauvinism, no?

@partyrock Yes. How would they not be considered assholes? I didn’t think this was a difficult question lol.

@Blackberry – It’s not !! I just like to analyze stuff and make sure I know and understand it :)

My generation often used the phrase “male chauvinst pig.” It was to describe a man who was of the mindset that men are superior to women. There are lots of ways to be an asshole, but this phrase is talking about specifically looking down on women as a whole.

Male chauvinists were called pigs (and today would be considered assholes) because they do not take women seriously. They think women are good for little except fucking. They do not want to talk to women except to talk them into bed. They assume that all women want their dicks. They never think a woman could say anything intelligent, and so they simply won’t hear her.

A woman might date a chauvinist because they can take advantage of them. If a chauvinist has enough money, the woman could act like a ditz, but then take him for all he’s worth.

Some chauvinists might even be nice people outside of their abhorrent view of women. So a woman might like to listen to him. He might be funny and warm and caring, even if he doesn’t listen.

@partyrock I agree, there’s nothing wrong with that :)

Would any women here ever date a man who was a chauvinist ???

Could a man be a “chauvinist” but still be…... nice, or kind…... ?

@partyrock It is possible for a sexist or nationalist to be nice, but a long term relationship wouldn’t be plausible, because you would be expected to have certain roles in the relationship, whether you wanted them or not. Or, you would have to listen to their racist and/or nationalist opinions, lol.

@partyrock I would not. A male chauvinist can never emotionally bond with a woman. Read @wundayatta ‘s description above. I know guys who would get out of a warm bed and drive through a blizzard in the middle of the night for a male friend who needed a ride or bailed out of jail, but wouldn’t get up and get a glass of water for his wife. This is the kind of guy who sees women as only good for sex and to wait on him, and usually dumps them after he gets her into bed, and goes off to the next conquest.

He might even go through the motions of saying and doing things to make his spouse or girlfriend think he cares, but it doesn’t take long for the woman to feel that there is something very critical missing in the relationship.

@partyrock Yes, I’ve dated some men who were chauvinists, known many more. Yes, it’s a term of derision, yeah, it makes you an asshole, but… Just because a man is a chauvinist doesn’t mean he can’t also be nice and kind. Like, helping in a soup kitchen, giving charity to the poor, being really anti-racist – these things don’t mean a man is automatically Not A Chauvinist. Hell, being involved with feminism doesn’t involve a man from being a chauvinist if he always seems to think his and other men’s opinions and knowledge are a bit more valid than that espoused by women. You can be a good guy on a lot of different things, and then an asshole when it comes to women, or even a good guy with women on some things, and then not on others.

Could a chauvinist still be kind or nice? Of course. He’s just ignorant, not necessarily evil, cruel or mean intentionally.

I think you’d be hard-pressed to find an elderly man that wasn’t a tinge chauvinistic.

“Women stay home and raise babies, clean the house, daughters should get married and have kids instead of being “spinsters”, etc

Hell, I’m hard-pressed to find a young man that isn’t a tinge chauvinistic…

I know, right! ;)

My husband and I were both mildly male chauvinistic when we met. We’ve both seen the error of our ways and don’t think or feel that any more. Why would I be a male chauvinist? My upbringing. My father made me feel that way. My mom was very subservient and I thought that was the way things should be. That was a long time ago.

@Sunny2 Yeah, I met a woman the other day that thought women should cook in a relationship. She was only 21, so I’m sure she’ll be changing that outlook sooner or later.

@Blackberry , @Sunny2 I think that is taking things a bit far. There is a difference between being a male chauvinistic pig, and a man and woman who assume their natural roles in life. In my generation, all of the young married women would cook, clean, do laundry, take care of the kids and usually also work full time. I know I did. My husband would work, do the lawns, tend the garden, fix cars and appliances and do home maintenance. He would also help with the kids and sometimes cook if I was sick, or if he had a day off that day. There is nothing wrong with that.

You can make a case that men (and women!) who believe in “traditional” marriages (where the man makes the decisions and earns the family’s income) are male chauvinists. They think that men are more capable than women, or that women need protection against the vagaries of the world.

You can also make the case, that this lifestyle pays greater respect to the biological role of women – putting first the requirement of offspring. It probably made sense when most work was physical and kids to maturity often required birthing a Santorum of them.

@Sunny2 No, there kind of isn’t. Partly because they aren’t “natural” roles (there’s no such thing), but there are traditional roles. And partly because this woman @Blackberry mentions seems to have been telling other women what they should do, not deciding that she herself wanted traditional roles in her relationships. That’s chauvinism right there.

Ok, that should have been addressed to @Skaggfacemutt not @Sunny2.

@Aethelflaed You are right – I should have used the word “traditional” instead of “natural”. I don’t think it is chauvinistic if both parties want a traditional role in their relationship.

Men who are chauvinists are either power hungry or not intelligent enough to be able to grasp the intelligence of women.

Here is a prime example of chauvinism. And it made me laugh out loud because it’s so dumb! But there was a time (and maybe for some, still is) when that would have been a serious statement. How could anyone who could actually be that shallow be anything BUT an asshole?

OMG! @Dutchess_III. I get that it’s humor, but I don’t find that funny. “Give it to your woman”???!!!

I rolled, @SpatzieLover! I just busted out laughing when I read it! I seem to be in the minority though, and I’m not sure why….?

I think it’s cute! If there was a label inside the trunk of a car, with instructions to change a flat, followed by “or go tell your guy to do it” I would find that funny, too. I guess I just don’t have a problem with male/female traditional roles.

@Skaggfacemutt Supposedly traditional roles! And I have never had to change my own tire. I certainly know how to do it, but always, ALWAYS some Prince Charming happens by, sees the Damsel in Distress and jumps in to rescue her. One time the kid was about 15. I had to instruct him, Lol! He was a sweetheart!

seems a bit one sided here, so I will try to fill in the opposing perspective to some degree.

I was born in 1975 (so really grew up in the eighties). At that time, and still today, I understood some of theses terms differently.

First a pig meant you sought the attention of girls for the single purpose of sex almost if not totally exclusively. And you did this as often as possible… hence the cliches about all men being pigs (since most of them do that at least from their teens into their twenties).

A slut was the female version of a pig, plain and simple. Then all females wanted males to accept that they too have the freedom, right, or whatever to pursue sex… just like us… hence the common use of the term slut by older men. By our definition women wanted to do what pigs do, be sluts. And now they do that openly.

The definition I used for both pig and slut (remember they are the same thing here, just different genders) was anyone who had carnal relations with more partners than half their age. Needless to say, that makes most men pigs until they reach their thirties if not sixties, and most women now sluts to whatever age. Society would argue that this definition, or any like it, be changed to match ‘the times’; to wit, since it is accepted today that women engage in just as many sexual relations as men, they should not be referred to as sluts for this. The older crowd asks, why not? We still consider the men pigs. Women wanted the freedom to pursue the activity, but unlike males who had no problem with the fact that they were pigs, women didn’t want to have to wear the label as their male counterparts did. Once this started coming out, it changed to an argument that none should have to wear a label for pursuing sexual relations, especially one with a negative connotation. And since the terms were nay say-ed for ten or so years, to utter them today will get you the brand chauvinist.

I have difficulties with the concept of gender superiority insofar as, on what scale? First one would have to decide which was superior to which. Is being physically stronger superior to being physically weaker? And to try and answer this as if there is an objective truth to it poses a few problems, BUT to answer this subjectively only poses problems for those that take issue with it.

For instance, someone hiring a person to move by hand large volumes of weight might very well favor a candidate that is physically superior, since they can move more in less time.

My issue is with objective measure of superior and inferior in regards to a person’s overall value. I can’t find one, only subjective measures.

But I also do not judge others or try to stop others from applying their subjective measures. I have no problem if I am passed over for a job because I weigh all of 120 pounds, and another candidate is a muscular paragon of 180, same height. I prefer freedom for the decision maker to make their decision based on whatever they so desire. Why? Because every single one of us is one of those decision makers, and If I am not superior to you, then how can I say that you should decide based on what I think you should base your decision on?

I do not consider women inferior; in fact, the judgment as a whole seems a bit absurd. Value, as I have come to understand it, is strictly applied by others (subjective). I can choose to consider myself of whatever value I want, but it’s what value I am to you that will cause effects, get me chosen by you for a job, attract your attention, so on and so forth. And with this understanding, I try to make myself of value to others in the ways I choose, not carry my pride (high self value) and expect others to value me as I value myself (I’m not a big fan of pride).

Now to the gritty stuff. I also don’t have a problem with any male or female setting (value) standards of any sort they see fit when making decisions for themselves and what is theirs (e.g. their business). If you want to apply a standard (let’s say for potential life companions) that they have to be vegetarians, then should you not be free to choose based on that standard? But likewise, if a chauvinist sets standards that his future companion will only be a woman that does not attempt to rival his dominance, then I leave him to it just the same. Both will reap the rewards and suffer the consequences.
Today, that chauvinist better be prepared to remain alone or search abroad for one that meets his standard. He has limited (intentionally) the pool, just as the one seeking a vegetarian has done.
Chauvinists, and I match this particular definition by the way, were men that refused to settle for less than their standard, and refused to relinquish any of their freedoms for any significant other (think: I wear the pants, or I am the king of my castle). One of the first things I told my girlfriend (now of seven years) that I do not compromise. It was one of the first things I told her, because I am very big on forthright honesty. I was also very content alone, and can still be now. I do love her. I do not want her to leave, nor do I want to leave her. But my principles come before any single person, because they are what establish my value to more than just that one person. However, I have absolutely no problem with women doing the exact same thing. In fact, I would encourage it, principles, standards, and refusal to compromise them… but you have to be content being totally independent for the rest of your life, because it just might happen.

As for traditional roles, I think people have more judgments about them than understanding of why men and women chose/choose them. I see a lot of negative judgments of gender roles on Fluther, but preaching that gender roles are bad is like preaching that gender roles should be enforced… it’s pontificating, it’s preaching subjective judgments as if they’re objective truths.

Hope that offers some of the contrary, perhaps chauvinist supporters’, perspective. I withheld all the personal stuff that simply agrees with what has already been written in the string, seeing as everyone already agrees and is aware of those portions of the entire perspective.