Throughout history, men and women have struggled to understand each other. Society has struggled to blend their complex differences while embracing the wonder of individuality. The biologists' attempt to explain why men and women are different despite deriving 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, the sphere of social status and money can often determine who one mates with. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayGender relations are currently defined in American society by historical classifications. Historical representations of gender roles have been transferred to today's culture. The original identities of men and women have survived almost unchanged over time. These are related to genders in a very general way. Men were originally dominant and women subordinate. Men have always been ideally strong, passive and caring leaders and women. These roles have been modernized rather than changed over the years. These standard gender roles and relationships have survived because they continue to be successful in our culture by satisfying basic needs (Walsh,1987,11). Three men of great intellectual influence on our society today are Karl Marx, Charles Darwin, and Sigmund Freud. To understand the association between economics, biology, and psychology in sexual relationships, we will refer to these three men and examine their expertise in each area. Few of us can deny the importance and power that money has in our society. It's hard to think about issues that affect us on a daily basis 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 derivative of our society, or are our actions determined by our socialization to the power of money? Consequently, is it possible that the value of money has a deeper meaning, embedded in our individual personalities, that transcends the limits of the state, setting parameters for individual actions within society? These questions go to the heart of not only our obsession with money, but also strike at the essence of who we are as individuals, how we act within society, and how the superstructure of society is shaped. Forming an analysis of money and its impact is a two-fold process: we must investigate the dynamics of money at the individual level, and also the interaction and importance of money at the societal level. Traditionally, Marxist theory and Freudian psychoanalysis have been seen as opposites on the spectrum of political thought. The Marxist exploration of economic life in capitalist society strives to define how our society is used by modes of production, constrained within the confines of political economy. But while Marx explains a world of interests and failures in mutual recognition, he leaves little in the way of clarification of family life – family recognition and interaction. Psychoanalysis, on the other hand, probes into the realm of familiar experience, defining the origins of our desires – what factors are predisposed in our subconscious. By bringing the two approaches together, analyzing Freud in a Marxist perspective and vice versa, a direct link will be created to explain "money" in the context of both theories. “Class economics” is a fundamental category of Marxist social theory (Waldron, 1987, 67). Karl Marxargued 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. Furthermore, in all eras of history the relationship between classes was antagonistic, marked by class struggle. Capitalism structures a fundamental opposition between the bourgeois class and the proletarian class through which bourgeois exploitation occurs: the accumulation of the surplus value of workers' labor, the commodification of social life, the division between mental and manual labor, etc. Marx's concept stands in stark contrast to more dominant sociological discussions of class which miss the Marxist idea of ​​class-based exploitation by defining class as a stratum characterized by lifestyles, educational attainment and income. Therefore, according to Marx's definition, men and women could never be in the same class. Since class is measured by productivity and, statistically, women do not produce nearly as much as men do in society, nor are they compensated equally with men, women belong to a lower class. This barrier may prevent the economically driven male from rejecting much of the female population in search of a mate who can achieve equal status with him. It perpetuates the stereotype of the male as the primary wage earner and producer, while the woman is the secondary and least valuable partner. Although Marxist, socialist, and liberationist feminists have all drawn on Marx's work, they have emphasized that because the category The concept of class is based on the relationship to the mode of production, it cannot describe women's role in reproduction. Nor, in fact, can it explain why women earn less and hold lower status jobs than men of their class. These feminists have offered proposals for revision of class economics ranging from the assertion that women are their own class (however, positing women as a class denies the differences between women emphasized by racially ethnic, poor, class worker) to the analysis of the complex relationship between capitalism and patriarchy. Further work has been done to integrate race and imperialism into an evolving multidimensional analysis, which is essential to any feminist theological method that seeks to clarify relationships of domination and oppression as part of a constructive project of social change. supported by Darwin's theory of natural selection. The Social Darwinian's parallels to 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, similar breeds, with small variations. But secondly, all organisms tend to produce more offspring than survive and reproduce. The descendants who have the best chance of survival are those best equipped to adapt to their surroundings and, in turn, their descendants will tend to be more similar to them. The characteristics of these populations, over time, will increasingly adapt to their environment. In other words, the “fittest” survive and spread their preferred characteristics throughout populations. In nature, Darwinian evolution is a response to environmental changes. Therefore, we can see how Darwin's theories inspired Marx to conclude that social status is the survival of the fittest, creating the sexual stereotype of women being the inferior sex, as they cannot produce equally or are not as "in form".Darwin taught it. the differences between men and women were largely due to sexual selection. To pass on his genes, a male must demonstrate that he is physically and intellectually superior to other men in competition for females, while a woman must be superior only in sexual attraction. Darwin concluded that "sexual selection depended on two different intraspecific activities: male struggle with males for the possession of females and female mate choice." In Darwin's words, evolution depends on "a struggle between individuals of one sex, generally males, for the possession of the other sex..." (Darwin, 1859, 55) Darwin used many other examples to illustrate evolutionary forces which he believed produced men of superior physical and intellectual strength and docile, sexually shy women. Since human beings evolved from animals and "no one disputes that the bull differs in nature from the cow, the boar from the sow, the stallion from the mare and, as the keepers of menageries well know, the males of the largest animals" monkeys with females,” Darwin argued that similar differences existed among humans as well. As a result, he concluded that men are “more courageous, combative and energetic than women and have a more inventive genius.” Darwin did much to damage the society of his time , women in particular. The Victorian assumptions of the inevitability and rightness of woman's role as domestic moral preceptor and nurturer and man's role as aggressive free supporter and jealous patriarch were enshrined in Darwin's reconstruction of human evolution I Our female ancestors were maternal, sexually shy, tender and altruistic, while our male ancestors were "naturally" competitive, ambitious and selfish. Not unlike Darwin himself who wrote in The Descent: "Man is the rival of other men; he delights in competition." It was the natural order of things, just as man was "naturally" more intelligent than woman, as Darwin demonstrated with satisfaction through the scarcity of eminent intellectuals and professional women. "The chief distinction between the intellectual faculties of the two sexes is demonstrated by the fact that man attains greater eminence in whatever he undertakes, than that of women, whether it requires deep thought, reason or imagination, or simply the use of senses or hands" (Darwin, 1871, 102). It is quite clear that in his time Darwin perpetuated stereotypes and created conflicts between the sexes. You might think that time and science 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 influence our culture today and contaminate 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 coy in courtship because they make less investment in their offspring" is used to justify male sexual promiscuity. Male promiscuity is, in other words, genetically determined because males profit, evolutionarily speaking, 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 she selected the fittest male, which is what 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 the high pregnancy rates amongunmarried teenagers are due to our "evolutionary inheritance" that pushes girls to get pregnant. As a result, cultural and religious prohibitions against unwed teenage pregnancy are doomed to fail. Let's turn to Freud. With all his 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. Perhaps the most critical influence Freud had on society was his invention of a new determinism whereby man does what he does and becomes what he becomes. He saw libido as the prime mover. This legacy has dragged sex into the streets, into our homes, into every corner of our lives. and it has also filled the couches of our psychiatrists. Much 1970s feminism was virulently antipsychological, fearing that inquiry into motivations and inner worlds would inevitably involve a divide-and-conquer strategy: dividing women into their individual inner worlds so as to eliminate the possibility of their recognition of what was social and therefore common, in its banal ordinariness, for every oppressed woman. It was the rape, not the fantasy, that began to worry feminists; and, from the late 1970s onwards, it was child sexual abuse, not the Oedipus complex, that became a new crusade for many feminists. Freud and all psychoanalytic institutions became deeply suspect of having emphasized fantasy and desire, rather than brute reality and sexual exploitation. If someone else like Freud were to consider gender roles today, he would connect the roots of gender roles to sexuality. Traditional roles originally materialized from sexual desire. Women are considered sexual objects because that is what society wants. Men are seen as ideally masculine because society desires their masculinity. Almost everyone would like to achieve success. Many men rely on a powerful personality to achieve their goals. This is a gender role that usually guarantees success. In many ways, society tells us that women can easily succeed through their sexuality. Many women rely solely on their appearance to lead a successful life. This is demonstrated through the media's use of gender and gender relations. Sex sells and entertains because it provides the consumer with some pleasure beyond that of the actual product. Darwin, Marx and Freud are mutually constitutive. Darwin brings historicity to the heart of the sciences by connecting life to the earth and our humanity to both. Teleological and anthropomorphic concepts underlie 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 culture continue to be mediated by fundamental human drives and that no matter how far we get into abstractions, our thinking remains rooted in primitive psychic mechanisms. It would seem, then, that our conception of a human science We must always draw on these three dimensions of what Marx calls the being of our species. The resulting historical, conceptual and practical tasks will certainly occupy everyone at least until retirement age. In these three thinkers we have - at first glance - biology, economics and the psyche, but looked at more closely each of them takes us to history and historicity, to culture and its roots and to the question of the nature and role of man and woman in it. Each offers a conception of the disciplined study of humanity that always maintains a notion of human values ​​in.