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.