Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Although Chauvin was a real person.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 16:12, 3 December 2001

He was. I'll add some info. --Dmerrill

Who was he? Fellowscientist (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nicolas Chauvin. He appears to have been the Chuck Norris of 18th Century France. - Richfife (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I modified slightly the section mentioning male chauvinism, which as written implied that the word chauvinism now generally means male chauvinism. AFAIK the word still has its original political meanings; I hear it used often enough, and of course it's hyphenated umpteen different ways at the bottom there. Male chauvinism may be its most frequent contemporary usage, but always as modified by the world male, never just as 'chauvinism.' 22:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This is a new term I have recently heard. I think it is worth adding. It refers to the assumptions and oppression inherent in the language and behavior of heterosexual people without regard to homosexuals.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2004

A little humour for you:—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2005


Someone authorized to, please remove the inappropriate comment (and probably joke site also) as they are pretty clearly against WP:TPG. I'm not quite clear on the policy of deleting other people's comments on talk pages or I'd do it myself. 22:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed content, feminist b*[edit]

I removed this twice so far:

Women should avoid labeling their male partners as "chauvinist pigs" unless their male partners are truely derogatory towards women. The loose application of the term "chauvinist pig" may highly offend a non-chauvinist male and put the female in bad light. It may even cause the female appear to be an overbearing "feminist bitch".

This content is not encyclopedic. It reads as advice and isn't sourced. It doesn't help the reader understand the term any better. Any insult or pejoritive falls under this, so the information isn't unique either. This content needs to be refined and sourced if to have a chance at all in the article. Please explain these changes more here before editing further. Thanks.-Andrew c 17:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


'"The Old Guard dies but does not surrender!", implying blind and unquestioned zeal to one's country [or other group of reference]."

This seems to me to imply unconditional rather than "unquestioned" dedication.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 18:46, 12 August 2007.

Male vs. female[edit]

Can we discuss this on talk? Saying "I've heard of it" is not a valid reliable source on wikipedia. Making a bold edit is fine, but if it gets reverted, the best thing to do is to talk it out and reach a compromise, not to get into an edit war. If your issue is with saying the term is only used by misandric researchers, then we can adjust that, but I take issue with saying "female chauvinism" is a "Frequent contemporary uses of the term in English" on the same level as "male chauvinism". A third issue is the "female chauvinism" section discusses another use of the term, in that it is a woman who "replicate male chauvinism and sexist stereotypes about women".-Andrew c [talk] 14:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Andrew C. -- I appreciate your attempt to be diplomatic, but accusing me of starting an edit war seems to be the pot calling the kettle black. You reverted my edit without either first discussing it on the talk page or attempting to find some sort of compromise -- exactly what you accuse me of doing. I'm not trying to be stubborn, but as I've already explained, the sentence as it stood was misleading. Minaker 01:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've made an edit to try and address my concerns. What do you think?-Andrew c [talk] 01:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You've got me rolling my eyes in exasperation over here. For the record, I am not attempting to cite my own knowledge as a reliable source. My point is that I am not a misandry researcher, nor are any of the people I've ever heard discussing the topic, and before you jump on me about this, I KNOW that that would be considered original research -- I'm just trying to illustrate the fact that the term is not known only to "a few misandry researchers" as this article previously stated; I found that statement misleading, and in a rather absurd manner. Frankly, I think your most recent edit is much better than the article's previous diction, not because it's a compromise, but because it makes more sense than both the other version and my own edit. So kudos about that, definitely. By the way, regarding placement of new topics on talk pages (top versus bottom of the page)-- I have read directly conflicting rules on this (maybe people are editing rules pages with false information?), and by now I'm helplessly confused on this particular matter. It doesn't help my confusion that I've noticed people switching back and forth. Are you sure this is the rule, that new topics go on the bottom? Not that it's a big deal, but I would like a definitive answer. Minaker 11:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just backing up Andrew's statement - new conversations go on the bottom of the page. See WP:TALK#Layout--Cailil talk 17:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Female chauvinism[edit]

Hi all The term 'female chauvinism' is nonsensical in the manner in which it is used in this article. Whilst I'm sure Ariel Levy's book has sold well, and is being promoted throughout this article, it does not constitute common use. We should not perpetuate her misuse and misunderstanding of the term. 'Female chauvinist' either means a female who is biased against the other gender OR (more correctly) it means someone, almost by definition male, who is biased towards women and not the twisting of words and genders presented here. I've not read her book, but disagree with her justification of usage as heard in a radio interview. I'm sure it's interesting but please promote it elsewhere.

If I get no response, I'm happy to go through and remove/edit the references to make her usage a lesser point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not believe we are giving Levy's book undue weight. I would not want to see that section expanded (while other sections I could imagine being expanded). I have made one slight edit to the lead to hopefully address weight concerns.-Andrew c [talk] 15:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the problem with the weighting is that it's mentioned in the first paragraph at all. It really should be relegated to "Female Chauvinism" rather than implying her use is correct or common usage in the first paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am proposing an edit to the defintion of female chauvinism in the article. In the first paragraph, female chauvinism will not be mentioned as it is not in common enough usage to be given that weight.

In the section on female chauvinism the definition should be limited to "the unreasoned belief that women are superior to men," it's correct definition. Ms. Levy's book will be reserved for that section but will be used as an example of female chauvinism as it is properly defined.

Ms. Levy's use of the term presumes that females cannot be chauvanistic on their own account- essentially that true female chauvinism cannot exist. Her usage implies that only men can be chauvinistic in gender issues, and that women are only capable of chauvinism when they replicate male chauvinism. She is therefore arguing that women, if they are enlightened, are superior to men. And that's classical chauvinism.

Using her re-definition is improper, sexist and POV.

I've read the discussion history of this article and I want to make this abundantly clear; I don't intend to edit war on this and neither should anyone who disagrees with me. I won't be posting anything even remotely approaching Speedy Delete territory, so my edits should be allowed to stand pending an actaul debate of the issue, just as I'm allowing what I believe to be an incorrect and possibly POV article to stand to give you a chance to defend it. If you can clearly articulate why I'm wrong or a possible compromise edit, that's fine. I expect comments before I post the edits (in about 4 days) and that any edit to my edits be announced in advance allowing me sufficient time to respond. Simply editing or reverting without discusion is a sign of, at best, ideological bias.

Here are the proposed edits;

First paragraph:

Chauvinism /ˈʃvɪnɪzəm/ is extreme and unreasoning partisanship on behalf of a group to which one belongs, especially when the partisanship includes malice and hatred towards a rival group. Jingoism is a similar term of British derivation. A frequent[1] contemporary use of the term in English is male chauvinism, which refers to the belief that males are superior to females.


  1. ^ Columbia Encyclopedia defines Chauvinism as "fanatical, boastful, unreasoning patriotism' and by extension prejudiced belief or unreasoning pride in any group to which you belong[,]" but notes that "[l]ately, though, the compounds male chauvinism and male chauvinist have gained so much popularity that some users may no longer recall the patriotic and other more generalized meanings of the words." [1]


I believe that female chauvinism is not explained properly. Just pointing fingers at ONE second wave feminist (Betty Friedan) sounds to me as biased and defamatory. There were many, and there's no valid explanation given for this. Either we remove her reference in the article or add more names of FCPs and explain why they were considered so. That would sound more encyclopedic. Fellowscientist (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Female chauvinism 2[edit]

Female chauvinism refers to the unreasoned belief that females are superior to males. A recent example of female chauvinism is the usage of the term in the title of Ariel Levy's book, Female Chauvinist Pigs. In her book Ms. Levy uses the term, and particularly its derogatory form, to describe females who replicate male sexist stereotypes. This usage presumes, without a reasoned framework, that women are superior enough to men to not practice chauvinism on their own account. ref>Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture, Ariel Levy, 2006, ISBN 0743284283</ref>

According to Nathanson and Young, what they see as 'ideological' feminism is chauvinistic as well as misandric. They assert that many so-called 'ideological' feminists have claimed that "women are psychologically, morally, spiritually, intellectually, and biologically superior to men".[1] They also assert that these feminists consider knowledge created by women to be superior to that created by men.[2]

Wendy McElroy claims that in some gender feminist views, all men are considered irreconcilable rapists, wife-beating brutes, and useless as partners or fathers to women.[3] McElroy and Camille Paglia claim that gender feminists view women as innocent victims who never make irresponsible or morally questionable choices.[4] Other feminists such as Kate Fillion have questioned the idea that women are always innocent victims and men always the guilty victimizers when the interests of each collide with those of the other.[5]

the egoist


  1. ^ Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young, Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture, p.[specify]
  2. ^ Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young, Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination against Men, p.[specify]
  3. ^ Wendy McElroy, Sexual Correctness: The Gender-Feminist Attack on Women, p.[specify]
  4. ^ Guests: Camille Paglia & Christina Hoff Sommers Has Feminism Gone Too Far? Think Tank™ With Ben Wattenberg - aired: 4 Nov 1994 accessed 6 Jan 2006
  5. ^ Kate Fillion, Lip Service: The Truth About Women's Darker Side in Love, Sex and Friendship

In fiction[edit]

I removed the following:

  • Death Note A fictional story in which the protagonist is sexist to the extreme and manipulates several women. Also, the protagonist's girlfriend constantly summits to her beloved's will and dresses in a Lolita-style fashion. The antagonists are the ones who treat women more or less normally.
  • Leslie's Journal A girl writes in her journal about her abusive boyfriend who sees girls as sex toys. The boy in the story goes a far as killing one of the girls.
  • A Doll's House The men in this story treat a woman as a plaything and her husband asks her to do tricks for money. In the end, the husband tries to better himself, but is too late.
  • Saving Francesca A girl joins a newly-coed school along with about a dozen or so other girls.

We need a reliable source to cite that makes the claim that these works either depict chauvinism or are chauvinistic. I am also not sure if we need a list of works like this because it could be quite extensive and not encyclopedic (wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). But let's work on sourcing this content first. -Andrew c [talk] 01:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you're getting ahead of yourself. That list is flawed regardless of additional citation. The editor who added them is not addressing her or himself to the article at hand.

A better statement of policy is to enforce the actual definition of the term male chauvinism and not to let it be used interchangably with the term sexism. The works as described do not address the theme of male chauvinism but that of sexism. In none of the descriptions is any character credited with holding an unreasoned belief in male superiority. Instead the male characters are treating women badly for reasons unknown or for reasons far more complicated (psycho-sexually in at least three of these instances, involving extremely complex paraphelias such as sadism and latent pedophilia) than a simple ideological and unreasoned belief.

The difference between male chauvinism, sexism directed toward women and misogyny are very real and the issue needs to be clarified in this article. Being chauvinistic implies a belief system, sexism implies a pattern of behavior, misogyny implies an emotional reaction. Simply put a male chauvinist or even a misogynist can think or feel whatever he or she (yes a women can be a misoginist and no, she can't be a male chauvinist) want, but if they do not act upon those thoughts or feelings then they are not appropriately described as sexist.

This is an encyclopedia. When you are providing the meaning of a term, precision in language equals precision in thought.

the egoist —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Undue weight.[edit]

The "female chauvinism" section dwarfs the "male chauvinism" section, which seems odd and a case of undue weight. Is there some interest in flushing the section out, or trimming the "female chauvinism" section? Blackworm (talk) 06:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see the female section being too long as it is, so it seems like we should just expand the male section. I'll tag it as such. With regards to trimming, my only concern is if McElroy and Paglia actually use the term "chauvinism" or not in their criticism of "gender feminists". If not, it would be original research to place their criticism under the heading of "chauvinism". It appears Nathanson and Young do use the "ch-" word. -Andrew c [talk] 14:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. It's ludicrous that even that much has been written about a virtually unknown "phenomenon"--I've never even heard of the term "female chauvinist." Certainly it's not common usage--it reads like a pro forma attempt to counterbalance "male chauvinism" which is of course much more common. (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's some lovely bias you have there, you misandric, chauvinistic pig-dog — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Female chauvinism 3[edit]

The term female chauvinism seems to have some currency. It was mentioned in the LA Times in 1999, on iFeminists and in the Harvard Crimson in 2004, in the "fair and balanced" *cough* Fox News in 2005, etc. Ariel Levy published a book on the topic in 2005 which was reviewed in the New York Times. JCDenton2052 (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please add these citations to demonstrate the use of the term. LotLE×talk 20:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, these occasional usages still appear to be rare neologisms with conflicting meanings (mostly not the definition given in the body text). I'll restore the tag until/unless general usage is shown. LotLE×talk 20:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Take a look at modern definitions of chauvinism. Most include something along the lines of excessive or prejudiced loyalty to a particular gender, group, or cause or excessive or prejudiced support for one’s own cause, group, or sex. Only the definitions in older dictionaries specifically refer to the male sex/gender. JCDenton2052 (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand that the term "chauvinism" has a general meaning that can be understood if preceded by an adjective. I find it dubious that the compound term "female chauvinism" actually has widespread usage as opposed to being an occasional neologism. I could likewise understand the meanings of novel coinages like "Clown chauvinism" (dunno if it would be pro- or con-clowns), "Blue-Eyed Chauvinism", "Brand Chauvinism", or many others. While I would understand what some commentator might be getting at with a neologism, that doesn't make the usage notable automatically. LotLE×talk 20:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The phrase has 7500 hits on Google.[2] I'd call that widespread enough. Out of your three terms you suggest as appropriate analogies, two of them have ZERO entries on Google, and the last, "brand chauvinism," has 111 hits. These are clearly not on the same level of notability as "female chauvinism," thus your analogies fail. Blackworm (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm, I get 7440 for "female chauvinism" and 109,000 for "male chauvinism". Obviously, the clowns and stuff was merely meant as a structural analogy (I didn't know if there would be zero hits, but I definitely wouldn't expect many). As far as a couple things of more likely usage: "american chauvinism" (4060); "jewish chauvinism" (2610); "french chauvinism" (3440).
I wouldn't put too much weight on the "Google Test" either way, but it seems to suggest WP:UNDUE weight at least, for such a long discussion, even if not rule out the neologism. It doesn't look like the "female chauvinism" uses are very consistent in meaning though... the pattern for is pretty obvious (male->female), but that doesn't mean the variant has a general common meaning. LotLE×talk 21:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps you could point out two conflicting definitions of female chauvinism. And the only possible reason for it meeting WP:UNDUE is because the section on male chauvinism is too short. If you feel that strongly about it, you could consider expanding that section. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Take a look at the article body. Or also at the links you give at the beginning of this section. LotLE×talk 05:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FWIW, while articles need not be strictly about scholarly matters, Google Scholar (or citeseer, etc) often give a better sense of longer-term and more "serious" usage of terms or concepts than does regular Google and the changing blogosphere. There the skew between male/female chauvinism is much stronger: "male chauvinism" (4790); "female chauvinism" (169). Among the first few hits, the latter term often seems to occur in scare quotes; i.e. the author describes "female chauvinism" as hypothetical rather than the actual subject of writing. But there are definitely a few scholarly uses of the disquotational sense as well. It still makes me think of WP:WEIGHT though. LotLE×talk 21:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You haven't supported your claims of a "neologism" with any sources, so I'd ask you to stop repeating the claim. The phrase was used even in the 19th century.[3] Google Scholar does indicate a lop-sided usage of the phrase in academia, but then again Google Books notes 1076 hits for "male chauvinism"[4] and 527 hits for "female chauvinism."[5] The phrase is used in over 500 published books. It warrants mention. Blackworm (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Neologism" isn't a criticism, it just means that the term is new... which it is. Take a look at your link, BTW. It says that the journal, The Archictural Forum, was founded as a in 1892. It's hard to see the publication date of the article imaged, but the text you show mentions a 1969 event, so is at some point later than that (perhaps even in the last year or two).
Anyway, I haven't written that the phrase "female chauvinism" should not be mentioned in this article. I've suggested some WP:WEIGHT and WP:OR concerns, but that's a different thing. LotLE×talk 22:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More on generality of usage[edit]

Hmmm... trying some dictionaries, I see:

Neither has anything equivalent for "female chauvinism". I can find a few hits on '"female chauvinism" definition' (, etc.) but they all seem to be syndication of WP content... usually this very article. LotLE×talk 22:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, you repeat your assertion that it is a neologism, without any source to support your claim. I claim it is clearly not a neologism, having come into common and academic use around the same time "male chauvinism" did.[6] I therefore ask you again to stop referring to it as neologism, or provide sources claiming it is a neologism. Otherwise, it is YOU who are engaging in original research. You tagged the sentence: "Female chauvinism is a term used to describe the attitude that women are superior to men" first as "dubious," and now despite 500 books mentioning female chauvinism, you claim it WP:OR to acknowledge the phrase and how it's used? Blackworm (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure what your point is about the word "neologism"... you may have noticed that I linked above to the perfectly lovely neologism "blogosphere." I've also coined a fair number in my own writings (none that entered widespread usage yet, sadly :-)). However, it does look like your link has some academic uses in the 1970s, which is earlier than I would have expected. Moreover, I'm convinced that the definition given in the article is not dubious, but I still feel in needs a citation (hence the current tag). My WP:OR concern, and more importantly WP:UNDUE, isn't really about the definition alone, but rather about the overly long section devoted to it, that tries to pull together a variety of rather different uses and almost dominates the article (same sentiment you expressed on this page a couple months ago, actually). LotLE×talk 22:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[Edit conflict.] My point was only that it doesn't apply, not whether the description is good or bad. I'm only concerned that someone may see the "citation needed" tag and remove the entire section believing it to be based on nothing. That said, I'm satisfied that you don't seem to want that, and we pretty much agree on the weight. Perhaps you could try editing the section to address your weight concerns? Blackworm (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at the earlier discussion, I think you misunderstood my use of the "N word" there. JCDenton2052 had given several links to newspapers that used the terms "female chauvinism". However, each of them used it somewhat differently, and each seemed to be a sense coined by that specific author. I don't see the N word as having any relevance in article space (for this article anyway), so concerns about WP:OR around it are a bit misplaced. LotLE×talk 22:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The word "neologism" has been wrongly used in my interactions with editors in the past to claim that a common phrase is not encyclopedic, or not notable. Then, like now, the claim of a neologism was false. Blackworm (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So what your saying is that only males are sexist and all males are sexist? That just proves that all feminist are misandric subjugaters. -- (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chauvinism as language[edit]

An editor posted the below addition. I think it points at an important area for discussion that is worth including in this article. However, as written it is a very impressionistic description of one (interesting, but not general) example of linguistic chauvinism. Also, the tone and wording is very awkward and unencyclopedic.

I think that in its existing form, it does more harm than good to put on the article, but hopefully we can tighten it up and include some discussion of the concept of linguistic chauvinism. LotLE×talk 03:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In multiracial countries Singapore and Malaysia, langauge can be a sensitive issue. Someone studied at Chinese school is expected to be insulted by someone studied at English schools, as "Chinese chauvinist". Associate Professor Chew Cheng Hai, tutor of Singapore Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew in Chinese language for the past 24 years said he does not see himself as either a Chinese chauvinist or a racist. "I don't think today there are any extreme elements left among the Chinese-educated. I am more concerned about chauvinism among the English-educated. We should all put the interests of Singapore first." He disagrees with sentiments that there is an over-emphasis on the Chinese language, which might undermine the Singapore identity, with English as the neutral, common language. [7]


If jingoism is going to be given as a parallel for chauvinism, some attribution is required - most would argue that jingoism refers solely to ideas of nation, whilst chauvinism, whilst similar as an idea in origin, has come to have a broader application. OED definition cited, when I looked it up says -

extreme patriotism, especially in the form of aggressive or warlike foreign policy.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Female chauvinism, unverified information[edit]

In middle of the last paragraph in the section "Chauvinism as sexism," there appears following:

"Female chauvinism was found to represent an attempt to ward off anxiety and shame arising from one or more of four prime sources: unresolved infantile strivings and regressive wishes, hostile envy of men, and power and dependency conflicts related to feminine self-esteem. Fathers were more important than mothers in the development of female chauvinism, and resolution was sometimes associated with decompensation in husbands."

This information is not cited, and appears to be a verbatim quote from research cited earlier in the article regarding male chauvinism, with only the gender in question switched. I highly doubt the veracity of these sentences; they seem fabricated. Could someone please either a) cite a source, or b) remove those sentences? I would remove it myself, but thought it best to ask for sources first...

Jthechemist (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EDIT: On second thought, I will remove the aforementioned sentences. Bullshit smells like bullshit. You are all invited to prove me wrong with a revert + citation.

Jthechemist (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All feminist groups are hate groups do your research of feminism both for it and against it. I've been doing it for four years now and I have concluded none of them believe in equality only supremacy. -- (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To say that only men can show an attitude of gender superiority is gender bias. It does clearly illustrate, however, the one-sided nature of feminism, so I'm not sure we should go digging up citations from any book that talks about it. IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Male chauvinism in the home[edit]

The information in this paragraph turns very negative when discussing so-called chauvinistic traditions in abrahamic religions. Disturbing blanket accusations for billions of people? While i understand that they may be true in some cases the exception is not the norm, even if the article claims or can be perceived as claiming that. Suggest removal or rewording at the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The quote below I believe is not a good illustration of sexism. It assumes that men were inconsiderate to women and their condition (diabetes) because they are women but it could be that in fact men our more selfish than women and if men treat other men the same way then the behavior would not be sexist but selfish.

Now if the study showed that men were more considerate to other men however were less considerate to other women then it would have a point but it seems to only show that women are probably more considerate than men. I will remove it from the article unless someone has a compelling reason not to.

"An observational study of diabetics and their spouses also found that if the husband was diabetic, the wife tended to support his particular dietary needs while the converse was true for marriages where the wife was diabetic. In the latter case, husbands were often unsupportive and preferred to eat meals to their own taste." --Kibbled bits (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The citation reference number 9 reference to book by Korda, Michael is invalid as it implying the statement that Chauvinist men will bully the women irrespective of his nature. But chauvinism is a superiority complex in both genders and it is not necessary to be bullied to opposite gender. --Abhilashkrishn (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed the line as per above description. Abhilashkrishn (talk) 08:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My statement that not all men are sexist from birth shouldn't of been deleted as this page is created to be a flame magnet.-- (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should it be said in the article that not all men think women should work at home?-- (talk) 10:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Put details of "male chauvinism" and other specific types into one or more separate articles.[edit]

For a general article on chauvinism, this has far too many specifics on "male chauvinism", "female chauvinism" and other types. This is confusing and distracting. The term has been in use for about 200 years. The vast majority of that time it was used without "male" or any other adjective.

I first heard the word used in the 1960s, years before "male chauvinism" had entered the public's working vocabulary. It would be unfortunate to obscure the generality of the word by emphasizing any one type of chauvinism. Dratman (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think this is necessary. The section on male chauvinism is short, this article overall is not long, so I don't see why we should split them. While I agree the male chauvinism section does dominate the article a bit, that's merely because we don't go into the other types. I really think it's a bad idea to encourage every kind of chauvinism to have its own little article. It is probably much easier for these topics to be NPOV and verifiability compliant if they all sit in one place where many eyes view them (and many eyes with different POVs). The only reason we would have for splitting would be if a single article was getting too long (and even then only if it was too long because it was full of NPOV, verifiable information) but this article is no where near that point.-- (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any Linking or similarities with Machismo[edit]

Just a questions if this could or should be connected with the Machismo article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Male Chauvinism[edit]

I think this should have its own article, and include citations for male chauvinist pig. the idea of men as pigs was a very common meme starting in the 60s. heres an image poking fun at it:

Carnaval des Femmes 2014 - P1260333

which might be nice in the article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Self Identified male chauvinist groups?[edit]

I'm curious if there are any notable groups that historically self identified as male chauvinists or if it is exclusively used as a derogatory word against men. Seems the article needs to make this clear.

One of the tenents of the Proud Boys is "Venerating the Housewife." I'd say that comes pretty close to "self identified as male chauvinists". Carptrash (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply][edit]

Removed as it is not a reliable source. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 23:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply] has been around since 1953. It was created by William F Buckley Jr. who founded the National Review. Just because something is conservative does not make it unreliable. It even runs a school/program whose graduates include: Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, and PayPal founder Peter Thiel. If it is reliable, why? Deleting and stating unreliable without stating why is confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PPE (ISI's school) studies are thriving today. More than 70 programs exist in America, with roots tracing back one hundred years ago to Oxford University in 1920 (BUT PPE HAS EXISTED SINCE 1953). IT LOOKS LIKE IT MIGHT BE AND SOMEONE DOESN'T LIKE THEIR POLITICS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Irrationality of chauvinism[edit]

Chauvinism is by definition irrational. See dictionary definition for sources given (Palgrave Macmillan Global Politics): "An irrational belief in the superiority or dominance of one's own group of people". Johncdraper (talk) 09:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Derek Chauvin he Chauvinized George Floyd.. he was irrational and he showed Superiority and dominance over Floyd and it was police thank god Derek Chauvin the Racist chauvinist is now behind bars the world is now safer , the cops should not be chauvinists and exert dominance and superiority over the people 2600:1700:9EF0:56E0:DD9A:4439:8AC7:3FB7 (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Irrational keeps being added back to the introduction as “chauvinism is the irrational belief...”. The given source does not mention irrational in the definition of chauvinism and therefore this violates Wikipedia policy on bias. Andrew30126 (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I quote the given source above. Your statement is counter factual, i.e., incorrect, i.e., wrong. There is a good reason for this. All beliefs in the inherent supremacy of one people over another are irrational. See e.g., The Race Question. Promoting racial supremacy on Wikipedia can and will get you banned. Johncdraper (talk) 08:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nowhere else in the article is the word "irrational" used. It should be clear to any person that ideologies supporting racial discrimination are evil. However, these beliefs have historically been supported by kinds of reasoning and science so this belief should not be considered irrational in the sense of lacking reason or logic. This only hinders the neutrality of the article.
Thanks for pointing this out. I've now amended the article accordingly. Add: I'm not sure what "kinds of reasoning and science" are relevant in the 21st century to justifying inherent racial superiority now that bonkers science like phrenology and various theories of inherent racial superiority (via primitivism) have been entirely succeeded within anthropology. Perhaps you could explain below and then add a paragraph on how chauvinism by people like the Nazis was justified up until their theories of innate superiority were proven wrong? Johncdraper (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Nazis justified their racism through scientific racism. They believed that inherent biological differences between the races means that there is a man with superior genes and intellect because of evolution. This is based off of the mechanism of natural selection. It seems we have a different definitions of the word "irrational". What is your definition? The belief of Chauvinism does not seem to fall under the definition of irrational in the oxford dictionary. I still believe the word irrational should be removed from the opening paragraph. Similar articles do not have the word irrational or similar words in the their meanings. Please see articles on Racism and Antisemitism. I believe this harms the neutrality of the article.
I think your point is that the Nazis did not think theories of racial superiority were irrational. My point is that Wikipedia should, if the source so indicates, state that bonkers racial theories are irrational. My definition of irrational is thus the same as the source's. I suggest you write to the source and complain. Johncdraper (talk) 08:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I'm trying to communicate to you is that I do not believe that the belief of Chauvinism should be called irrational based on the the definition of irrational, and I'm trying to communicate that I believe this is harming the neutrality of the article. Even though the source says this, I think it is perfectly fine to omit that word and simply say "Chauvinism is the belief..." just as it does in the rest of the article and in similar articles. If you are concerned about precisely representing cited sources, I think using a more neutral definition from another source would be satisfactory, just as others have suggested. Additionally, I saw your edit to the article on racism and it seems you understand irrational to mean the same as "scientifically false". I am letting you know that this does not have the same meaning as irrational, and you may be getting confused. PawPatrolFan456 (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What you or I believe is irrelevant. I am glad you saw the racism edit, as it follows an authoritative source. That is the point, not what I believe to be the point. On Chauvinism, I am also following the source, which is a professional academic encyclopedia-like one. Because Wikipedia is a volunteer and almost by definition amateur endeavor, it follows other sources. It is as simple as that. Add: Irrational is in fact synonymous with 'scientifically false'. 'Rational' is derived from the same origin as 'reason', i.e., the ability to think or argue in a logical manner, that is, by using conclusions and judgments using inferences from facts or premises, which in turn, through the Greek logica, is the basis of the scientific method. Johncdraper (talk) 07:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since I am too lazy to find a credible source with a more neutral definition of Chauvinism, you win this time. (P.S. but I still believe that irrational ("Irrational"?Carptrash (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC) (Thanks for pointing that out. I fixed it. PawPatrolFan456 (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC))) and scientifically false are not the same. If you want I can post about it on your talk page.) PawPatrolFan456 (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Add (Originally by User:Volteer1 in an edit summary to the article page: "seems tertiary sources prefer the adjective "unreasonable", not too important though as they are I guess synonyms ( (". I'm happy with 'unreasonable', so I will hold the line with that. Johncdraper (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said in the edit summary it probably doesn't matter too much which word we go for, but broadly speaking tertiary sources are a good way of establishing WP:WEIGHT and providing a general overview/summary of existing sources (which is what we want for an opening sentence like this) so IMO it makes the most sense to follow them here. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know I'm late to the party, but I'm just adding my voice to support the use of "unreasonable". I would also be fine with "irrational", or "prejudiced", or similar descriptors. I don't see many definitions that don't include some mention of the negative connotation of the term. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Introduction needs attention[edit]

It appers that someone has edited the second sentence of the introduction rather clumsily, if anyone can figure out what should be there, please improve it. Darkman101 (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nicolas Chauvin[edit]

This article should contain a reference to the eponymous Nicolas Chauvin Dcprevere (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The word "unreasonable" seems very biased. Why isn't for instance Misandry defined as "the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against men" instead of "unreasonable hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against men"? (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See above section 'Irrationality of chauvinism'. I will try to simplify this for you, as you don't seem to get the above arguments. At the time, Chauvin was viewed by the French Right s being so extremely Ultra Far Right that he was insane. Utterly, completely, on all fours barking and trying to chase his own tail insane. Now, it is possible to be Right and be sane. It is possible to be Far Right and at least have some kind of plan rational according to its own logic, like exterminating the Jews because your plan is to create an internal enemy so as to make yourself leader of a new empire. But, it is not possible to be Ultra Far Right barking mad and be viewed as sane or in any way as rational, even by your Right and Far Right peers. Hence, in his own time, the French Right determined he was barking mad, as in "Woof woof, where's my tail gone?", and it has been part of the definition ever since. Is that now clear? Johncdraper (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Barking mad or not, you think Hitler was okay inside his head? No he wasn't. And even if he was, his ideas were also completly insane, eugenics, scientific racism, the whole making up of the aryan race, antisemitism etc. Yet, these beliefs are still not described as "unreasonable" on wikipedia. Your arguments don't make much sense. They don't change the fact that chauvinism is as of right now being labeled as unreasonable by wikipedia meanwhike things like antisemitism etc. are not. If you specify one idea as unreasonable and leave out the others, it's as if you're labeling them as reasonable, sane, understandable. (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's no reason that our treatment of chauvinism needs to be the same as misandry, or Nazism, or any other prejudice, belief, or ideology. "Unreasonable" is part of the definition of chauvinism in a way that it is not a part of the definition of many other terms. A better comparison would be to something like cognitive distortion. Why do we describe cognitive distortion as irrational? Because it's part of the definition of the term. If the pride in one's nation weren't unreasonable, or if the thought pattern weren't irrational, we wouldn't rightly use the terms "chauvinism" or "cognitive distortion" to label them. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I don't. But tens of millions of Germans did think Hitler was a jolly fine leader. However, you are missing the point. You still don't understand that the definition of unreasonable is not ours, but theirs, i.e., those on the French Right and Far Right who defined 'chauvinism' at the time. Are you able to process that concept, i.e., the temporal baking in of the concept of chauvinism being barking woof woof mad at point of definition? If not, there is no hope for your understanding the definition of chauvinism. In that case, all I would ask you to do is to focus on the fact that Wikipedia is merely copying definitions from other authoratitive secondary sources, which do use 'irrational' or 'uncreasonable', and for for this reason alone, we just follow them, and in your case, I regret that apparently it will have to be blindly so. Johncdraper (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]