Women are naturally happier in a 1950s style household.

I will now start with rebuttals and then move into my own arguments. Rebuttals"Women enjoy giving up control to someone they trust. "Pro justifies his first claim by relying on history, essentially saying that this claim is valid because throughout history it's always been the man who carried the burden of choice/focusing on basic survival. This claim, however, lacks proof. Relying on what the norms could have *potentially* been during ancient times is not sufficient proof. Furthermore, this is essentially claiming that because it's been like this throughout history, it should remain so now in the present moment. If we carried this mentality and applied it to all aspects of life, we'd end up a stagnant species still living in caves with twigs for tools since "that's what it was like back in the day". A major error in Pro's logic is the assumption that our society is still amicable with the social norms of the 50's. The lack of proof continues further with his claim that "You can see this in the way women flocked to the 50 shades of grey book, the fact that women prefer males to choose where they go for dinner, or the way a women loves it when you pick her cloths out for a date. " How does women's preference in books serve as proof that women are naturally happier in a 1950s style household? Pro gives no reasoning to support this leap he makes. The same can be applied for "choosing women's clothes" or "choosing where to eat". Not only is there no proof given to support these claims, but additionally there is no reason to accept these reasons (if valid in the first place) as proof that women are naturally happier in a 1950's style household. "50s style relationship offers a lot of what a women is looking for, the control, the lightend responsibilities etc are all things that women want and need. "As Pro, my opponent has the burden of proof, that is, he must provide proof for each claim presented by him. Without such proof, there is no reason to accept what Pro presents as anything more than unproven opinions. So, in regards to Pro's second claim, I must simply say prove it, because so far Pro has lacked any and all valid proof for these claims. I, on the other hand, believe there are many more important things that women want and need from relationships. For instance, a study published in the Journal of Family Psychology shows that relationship satisfaction has a lot to do with the way partners are able to read and empathize with each other’s emotions. For women, that applies more to their negative emotions than their positive ones: women are happy when their boyfriend or partner understands they’re upset. [1]In another article published by ABCNews, it was shown that the Women’s top “must haves” in a relationship are the following:Treats me with respect - 84 percent. The person is someone I can trust and confide in - 77 percent. Has a sense of humor/makes me laugh - 58 percent. Shares the same values as I do - 47 percent. Is comfortable communicating his wants, needs and desires - 46 percent. [2]Nowhere does it mention what Pro's believes to be what women want and need the most. .. Since Pro has additionally placed the burden of having to show that a "vast majority" of women want what he believes they do, I leave the burden on Pro to uphold his end. "women's general level of happiness has been decreasing since the 70s, this could be put down to the feminist movement and all of the extra responsibility for women. "Pro claims this is backed by a study, but fails to provide the study itself for both myself and the audience to analyze as proof for the claim. Hopefully Pro includes the study itself in his next round. Pro will also need to show how the supposed decrease in happiness is related to the feminist movement and extra responsibility as well. If he fails to do so, this stands as nothing more than an unproven opinion. "this thirst for control can also be found in the bedroom with women enjoying activity which limit their control. "This was funny. .. Pro is using the sexual fetish known as bondage as supporting evidence for his position. Pro needs to show how a "vast majority" of women partake in this activity for it to even stand in the first place. I amusingly await such proof to be presented. ArgumentsI. The negative implications of reverting back to a 1950's style household. Reverting back to the social norms of the average 1950's household is nothing more than taking a step backwards. For instance, a US Census study out last year found that 4 in 10 American households with children under age 18 have a woman as either the primary or sole breadwinner — a huge jump from earlier decades (and quadruple the amount in 1960). [3] Since Pro took on the burden to show that a "vast majority" like giving up there control, I believe this study directly contradicts his stance on the matter. 6/10 is not a "vast majority". It's barely a majority, and seeing the obvious trend occurring here, it would not be far-stretched at all to argue that within our lifetimes women will be on equal grounds with men in terms of being the breadwinner in the relationship. Why would we go against a trend that allows women to rely on themselves? It makes no sense, nor has there been any justified reason given by Pro. II. Women don't need to rely on Men in our modern society. We need to keep in mind that during the 1950's women were still being paid less than men for doing the same job. It wasn't until 1963 that the Equal Pay Act was passed. In some states, women couldn't make contracts such as wills, and in almost every state men were allowed to have sex with their wives anytime they wanted to, with or without their consent. [4] [5] Pro is literally arguing that we should return to those standards. Pro must justify returning to each of those poor standards since they are indeed part of the 1950's style household. I can't wait to hear why men should be able to rape women just because they are their wife. Furthermore, in terms of "security" we now have defensive technology that empowers women to the point where they don't need to rely on a man for protection. It's as simply as that. A woman can freely purchase a gun for herself, a taser, pepper spray, etc. , all of which remove the necessity for a man to be around to serve as a protector. In closing, Pro has a massive task ahead of him. A majority of his claims lacked the necessary proof to validate those claims. Pro must also overcome each argument I raised in order to uphold his Burden of Proof and defeat my challenges. As it stands now, I've fully rebutted each point raised by Pro. I now return the floor to Pro. Thank you. Sources [1] . http://www.apa.org...[2] . http://abcnews.go.com...[3] . http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...[4] . http://www.ehow.com...[5] . http://faculty.atu.edu...