Throughout history, men and women have struggled to understand each other. Society has struggled to merge its complex differences while accepting the wonders of individuality. Biologists' attempt to explain why men and women are different and yet comes from a very similar genetic makeup. Psychologists have made great strides in understanding how the mind works in the dynamics of relationships between men and women. And in a society governed by economics, social status and money can often determine who one associates with. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Gender relations are currently defined in American society by historical classifications. Historical representations of gender roles have been carried over into today's culture. The original identities of men and women have remained almost unchanged over time. These are linked to the sexes in a very general way. Originally, men were dominant and women were subordinate. Men have always been ideally strong, passive, caring leaders and women. These roles have been modernized rather than modified over the years. These standard gender roles and relationships have survived because they continue to succeed in our culture by satisfying basic needs (Walsh, 1987, 11). Three men with great intellectual influence on our society today are Karl Marx, Charles Darwin and Sigmund Freud. In order to understand the combination of economics, biology, and psychology in sexual relationships, we will reference these three men and examine their expertise in each area. Few of us can deny the importance and power of money in our society. It's hard to think of issues that affect us every day that don't involve money. But where does this fixation on money come from? Is our obsession with dollar signs and the power of money a by-product of our society, or are our actions determined by our socialization to the power of money? Therefore, is it possible that the value of money has a deeper meaning, embedded in our individual personalities, transcending the boundaries of the state, setting parameters for individual actions within society? These questions not only go to the very core of our obsession with money, but they also go to the essence of who we are as individuals, how we act within society, and how the superstructure of society is shaped. and its impact is a dual process: we need to study the dynamics of money at the individual level, as well as the interaction and importance of money at the societal level. Traditionally, Marxist theory and Freudian psychoanalysis have been seen as polar opposites on the spectrum of political thought. Marxist exploration of economic life in capitalist society strives to define how our society is used by modes of production, confined within the confines of political economy. But while Marx explains a whole world of interests and failures of mutual recognition, he leaves little elaboration on family life – family recognition and interaction. Psychoanalysis, on the other hand, probes the realm of family experience, defining the origins of our desires – what factors are predisposed within our subconscious. By bringing together the two approaches, by analyzing Freud from a Marxist perspective and vice versa, adirect link will be established to explain “money” in the context of the two theories. “Class economy” is a fundamental category of Marxist social theory (Waldron, 1987, 67). Karl Marx argued that the economic structure of any society shapes all aspects of social life and that people's relationship to this structure determines their class, a group with a common relationship to the mode of production. between classes was antagonistic, marked by class struggle. Capitalism structures a fundamental opposition between the bourgeois and proletarian classes through which bourgeois exploitation occurs: accumulation of surplus values ​​from worker labor, commodification of social life, division between mental and manual labor, etc. Marx's concept contrasts sharply with Marx's. more mainstream sociological discussions of class that lose the Marxist idea of ​​class-based exploitation by defining class as a stratum marked by lifestyles, educational achievement, and income. Therefore, according to Marx's definition, men and women could never be in the same situation. class. Since social class is measured by productivity and statistically women do not produce exactly what men do in society nor are they paid equally with men, women belong to a lower class . This barrier may prevent the economically motivated man from rejecting a large portion of the female population in search of a partner who can achieve equal status to him. This perpetuates the stereotype that the man is the primary wage earner and producer, with the woman the secondary, less valued partner. Although Marxist, socialist, and liberationist feminists all drew inspiration from Marx's work, they emphasized that because the category The concept of class is based on the relationship to the mode of production, it cannot describe the role of women in reproduction. In fact, it also cannot explain why women earn less and work in lower-valued jobs than men of their social class. These feminists have proposed proposals revising class economics that range from asserting that women constitute their own class (however, positing women as a single class denies the differences among women emphasized by racial, ethnic, poor and working class) to the analysis of the complex relationship between capitalism and patriarchy. Additional work has been done to integrate race and imperialism into an evolving multidimensional analysis, essential to any feminist theological method seeking to clarify relationships of domination and oppression as part of a constructive project of social change. It should also be noted that Marx was supported by Darwin's theory of natural selection. Social Darwinism's parallels with the animal world accorded with prevailing racist arguments that human character was based on the measurement of men's skulls. Darwin explained that the evolution of life, with its rich and varied forms, was an inevitable consequence of the reproduction of life itself. First, the breeds are similar, with minor variations. But second, all organisms tend to produce more offspring than survive and reproduce. The offspring who have the greatest chance of survival are those who are best equipped to adapt to their environment and, in turn, their offspring will tend to be more like them. The characteristics of these populations will adapt, over time, more and more to their environment. In other words, the “fittest” survive andspread their preferred characteristics among populations. In nature, Darwinian evolution is a response to changing environments. Therefore, we can see how Darwin's theories inspired Marx to conclude that social status is the survival of the fittest, creating a sexual stereotype that women are the lesser of the sexes, since they cannot produce in any way equal or are not as “fit”. Darwin taught that differences between men and women were due largely to sexual selection. To pass on his genes, a man must prove himself physically and intellectually superior to other men in the competition for women, while a woman must only be superior in terms of sexual attractiveness. Darwin concluded that "sexual selection depended on two different intraspecific activities: the struggle of males with males for possession of females and the choice of the female over her mate." In Darwin's words, evolution depends on "a struggle of individuals of one sex, generally men, for possession of the other sex..." (Darwin, 1859, 55). Darwin used several other examples to illustrate the evolutionary forces that he believed produced men of superior physical and intellectual strength and docile, sexually timid women. Since humans evolved from animals and "no one disputes that the bull differs in temperament from the cow, the wild boar from the sow, the stallion from the mare and, as the keepers of menageries well know, the males of the greatest apes from females", Darwin argued that similar differences existed between humans. Therefore, he concluded that men are "more courageous, combative and energetic than women, and have a more inventive genius". Darwin did much harm to the society of his time, particularly to women's Victorian assumptions of woman's role as moral tutor and domestic nurturer and man's role as aggressive provider of liberty. and jealous patriarch were inevitable and right were enshrined in Darwin's reconstruction of human evolution Our female progenitors were maternal, sexually shy, tender and altruistic, while our male ancestors were "naturally" competitive, ambitious and selfish. A bit like Darwin himself who wrote in The Descent: “Man is the rival of other men; he likes competition. » This was the natural order of things, just as man was "naturally" more intelligent than woman, as Darwin demonstrated to his satisfaction by the lack of eminent intellectuals and professionals. "The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is demonstrated by the fact that man attains a higher eminence in all that he undertakes than women -- whether it be deep reflection, reason or imagination, or simply the use of the senses or the imagination" (Darwin, 1871, 102). one would think that time and science would have taken today's society far beyond thoughts of natural selection and survival of the fittest in the battle of the sexes. However, these premises still affect our culture and. taint the attitudes of men and women in their roles in society Men are still seen as the primary providers of families Furthermore, the “now widely accepted conclusion...that males of most species are less. selective and less shy in courtship because they invest less in offspring" is used to justify themale sexual promiscuity. In other words, male promiscuity is genetically determined because males benefit evolutionarily from frequent mating, and females do not. The more females a male mates with, the more offspring he produces, while a female only needs to mate with one male to become pregnant. Evolution would only progress if it selected the fittest man, which Darwin's theory of sexual selection predicted. For this reason, males have “an indiscriminate desire” to mate, females “a discriminating passivity” (Diamond, 1993, 220). Fox even claims that high pregnancy rates among unmarried teens are due to our “evolutionary heritage” that drives young girls to become pregnant. Therefore, cultural and religious prohibitions against unmarried teenage pregnancies are doomed to fail. To understand the psychology of this, we turn to Freud. With all its confusing contradictions, Freud's influences have had a profound and subversive effect on the thinking of our current age. It changed man's understanding of himself and his nature. This is perhaps the most critical influence Freud had on society. was his invention of a new determinism by which man does what he does and becomes what he becomes. He considered libido to be the main driving force. This legacy has brought sex into the streets, into our homes, into every nook and cranny of our lives. and also filled the sofas of our psychiatrists. Much 1970s feminism was virulently antipsychological, fearing that the investigation of motivations and inner worlds inevitably involved a strategy of divide and conquer: dividing women into their individual inner worlds in order to eliminate the possibility of their recognition of what was social and therefore common, in its ordinary banality, to all oppressed women. It was the rape, not the fantasy, that began to concern feminists; and, from the late 1970s, it was child sexual abuse, not the Oedipus complex, that became a new crusade for many feminists. Freud and all institutions of psychoanalysis became deeply suspect of having emphasized fantasy and desire, rather than raw reality and sexual exploitation. If someone like Freud were to consider gender roles today, he would connect the roots of gender roles to sexuality. Traditional roles materialized at the origin of sexual desire. Women are seen as sexual objects because that is what society desires. Men are seen as ideally masculine because society desires their masculinity. Almost everyone would like to succeed. Many men rely on a powerful personality to achieve their goals. This is a gender role that generally guarantees success. In many ways, society tells us that women can easily succeed because of their sexuality. Many women can rely solely on their appearance to succeed in life. This is evidenced by the media's use of gender and gender relations. Sex sells and entertains because it gives the consumer some pleasure beyond that of the product itself. Darwin, Marx and Freud mutually constitute each other. Darwin places historicity at the heart of the sciences linking life to the earth and our humanity to both. Teleological and anthropomorphic concepts are the basis of his concept of natural selection. Marx teaches us the historicity of all concepts – including scientific ones – and emphasizes that there is only one science, the science of history. Freud teaches us that all history and.