Introduction
The paper critically analyzes the various ideas put together by Freud on what essentially classifies and outlines the personality and nature of men and women and accordingly the relations between them (Engler and Barbara 23). The paper also discusses how the characteristics exhibited at the diverse levels of social utilitarian engagements bringing out the relation to Freud’s view of the potential between the men and women independently as well as in social context. The paper also examines the Freud’s views in light of Marx’s discussion of the relation between the potential of men and women. In the conclusion of the paper the author outlines his views with regard to the Freud’s views and also explains the various difficulties encountered when compiling the information.
Sigmund Freud is one of the renowned psychologists that ever existed in the 20th Century. The enduring legacy of Freud has provided directions to how parents bring up their children and even the relationship between men and women in the society today. He immensely contributed to the field of psychology, literature and even art (Levy 74). He was a proponent of one of the theories that are application in psychology and as such much credit need to be given where it belongs. It is fundamental for us to have an understanding of who Freud was before looking at some of the ideas that he put across in the field of psychology (Engler, Barbara 25). He is considered to be the initiator of psychodynamics approach to the field of psychology. This is an approach that aims at a keen analysis into some of the unconscious ways that tend to drive people towards behavior or action.
Basically there is the fundamental difference that exists between men and women. The difference comes in in the nature, character and how they relate to one another (Paul 23). Looking at the difference existing in the male and female gender, there is some element of attraction that female gender tend to always have on their fathers. This is psychological, because in most cases, girls love their fathers as opposed to their mothers (Levy 78). They develop a liking for their fathers because the man is from the opposite sex. The male gender develops some liking towards the mother. The same we could say is psychologically related (Robert 34). As we are all aware, nature is inborn while character can be developed over time.
The explanations that were made by Freud qualify substantially based on the psychological holding on the nature and character of different sexes as viewed by most of the psychologists (Engler, Barbara 33). Nature is subject to the biological composition of an individual. The biological composition of men as we all know is quite different from that of men. This qualifies as the first point of difference that exists in the genders. Character is subject to a lot of controversy as character is primarily determined by an individual’s habits. However, character does not primarily define who we are but it is the nature that is considered when defining an individual.
Freud in his early theories advanced the view on male sexuality to that of women. He had the view of women as men who lacked penises. Freud substantially marginalized the female sexuality as opposed to the view that he had for male sexuality. The male perspective that Freud held based on sexuality was understandable. Until the phallic stage, Freud argued that both male and female sexuality was the same (Engler, Barbara 34). This is based on the Freudian theory.
The fact that women (little girls) do not have penises makes them have envy towards their fathers and resentment for their mothers. The main reason as to why little girls always switch affection and attention to their fathers is the fact that they attempt to gain a penis. This defines the nature of women as having the desire to have a penis or rather penis envy (Beth 26). It is for this reason that women tend to seek male children because they have realized that they cannot find have a penis of their own. However this definition of the nature of women was quite limited because it was basically phallic-centered and did not look into other factors that always come into play in the definition of sexuality. Freudian theory was criticized by many psychologists as lacking credibility because he was just so much into the phallic stage of development rather than giving it a holistic approach.
The relationship between a man and a woman is defined by how close or distant they are. According to psychological analysis that was provided by Freud, the relationship is governed by the extent to which the members of these opposite genders have known each other (Seelig 32).
The phallic stage governs the extent to which relationships could be manifested. When a woman and man are very intimate, the extent of their relationship will be more than just the casual thing that we may think of. However, when there is no intimacy between a man and a woman, then the relationship might not be as warm as one may deem the relationship to be because breaking the ice and creation of a rapport will be quite an issue.
The nature and character of men and women as explained by Freud are all subjects of understanding of the personality traits that exist between men and women. The relationship in the members of the two genders is greatly defined by personality of an individual. Personality is basically what defines how we think about one person or the other (Seelig 41). Freud argues that the nature of humanity is very different from the false ego. He again clarifies the fact that false ego is basically an obsession by the nature of an individual. Men generally have an ego that is inbuilt. As we all are aware from the biblical stories, men traditionally and even presently are the head of the house. As such they must possess an ego so that they can be in a position to adequately manage the family affairs. The nature of women is basically to be submissive.
The nature of both men and women is in most cases always inherited from the generations back. It may be the parents, grandparents or great grandparents. Getting rid of one’s nature is like something that is close to impossibility because nature is inbuilt.
Character can always be changed but nature cannot (Beth 29). It is for this reason that men have a nature in them that they always have to be the head of homes rather than the woman. This is a fact that one gets to know from the time they are born. The character of women is always gossiping. Women generally love gossiping. This is a thing that is in women but it can be changed. Character is a behavior that gets to develop in one over time due to the kind of relations that one keeps. However, the prescribed codes of behavior can be changed with time.
Looking at the institutional arrangements, when women are heads, they tend to become very bossy. They delegate duties to the subordinates and tend to direct a particular chain of command. Based on the psychoanalysis that was presented by Freud, the fact that a woman heads an institution makes her feel like she has now possessed the position of a man and as such is in a position of development of policies that will only favor women and not men (Sigmund and Strachey 21). This takes us back to the Freudian theory where we found out that women attempt to find comfort by looking for penises. As such they are bitter with any man with a penis because they believe that this particular man took a penis that actually belonged to her. Psychologists have always argued that social set-ups are institutions that are set up to be manipulatively explored and that the social responsibility of bringing up the children is the sole responsibility of women. It is for this same reason that most psychologists hold the belief that the performance of the basic functions in the social setup is a woman’s role (Sigmund and Strachey 27).
Freud also argues that the girl-child blames the mother because of her lack of the penis. After the girl discovers that her mother does not have a penis too, the girl becomes more hostile towards her mother because according to Freud she feels cheated and this is the reason that now makes the girl more attracted to her father as compared to her mother. She shows more love towards her father because after all he has the penis that she has always longed for (Oliver, Kelly 26).
Freud further explained that in the course of a girl-child’s development into a normal woman her clitoral masturbations always come in the same span of time that the girl turns to her father and apathy has an upper hand. Freud explains that the girl-child’s wish for a penis culminates in another desire. A girl now replaces their wish to have a penis with some longing or desires to have a baby. The frustration for a penis is now substituted with the wish for a baby; according to Freud a baby is symbolic and equivalent to the penis (Oliver, Kelly 26).
Freud also maintains that the girl’s oedipal complex does little or no harm to the girl if at all she maintains her feminine. The girl has nothing to lose; on the contrary she has everything that is there to gain, by only imagining that they are lovers with her father. The girl resolves to discontinuing masturbation because of the fact that it only ends up reminding her that she have inferior genitals. This is where the girl now decides to wait until the appropriate time when she can choose the husband of her dream (Beth 46).
At this juncture the girl is now ready to fully recognize and respect her husband’s authority as well as to extend the love that she has for the penis the very same way that she extended her love for her mother’s breast. Freud maintains that at this point and time the girl is ready to recognize the bearer of the penis same way she recognized the bearer of the breast. At this time the girl has to wait for that time that she is grown where she will then substitute her father with another man (husband) from whom she will get the satisfaction (Oliver, Kelly 28).
Marx stated that from the man-woman relationship "you canjudge man's entire degree of developmentthe relation of a man to a woman is the easiest relation of individual to another individual. It therefore uncovers the degree to which man's natural tendencies has become real human. The women's liberation movements has provided adequate evidence showing that inside our society this romantic relationship is one characterized by inequality, one where the woman can be used as an subject, and the one that will not bring much satisfaction to either ongoing get together (Slipp, Samuel 41).
As predicted, these same qualities can be viewed throughout capitalist life. Inequality, people dealing with the other person as items, as cases of a sort (not putting another's unique, personalizing characteristics into consideration), and the overall frustration that fallouts details are actually the major characteristics in the alienation defined by Marx.
Freud’s Views in Light of Marx’s Discussion
Freud being an atheist considered himself as a technical materialist. He explored a theory to illustrate the irrational behavior of men and women. This by fact was in conjunction with Marx’s discussion of the two sexes. As a doctor specializing in mental ailments and a pioneer in this particular area, he was so entitled to project the hypothesis that mental ailments were considerately linked to sexual repression in men and women (Slipp, Samuel 51). Additionally he was equally needed to project a technique as too how this occurred. His mentioned materialist illustration was that there was in humans a particular type of instinctual energy or power, sexual power, to which he provide the name libido. That particular word gave other scientists like Marx something to go on, something to search for in the physiology of human beings.
The only challenge with this kind of ideologies is that no particular instinctual sexual energy has ever been realized. Men and women are both considered by the two psychologists to be weak and no either of them is capable of initiating the energy. Freud has, nevertheless, been proved correct that what occurs in early childhood of both men and women is of significant value to the development of the adult personality (Slipp, Samuel 47).
Additional theorists have also demonstrated that this is the duration of impartially rapid learning. But there exists no given reason to assume that this is all in relation to sex. Sexual orientation and preferences are considered as some of the major lessons learnt during this particular period. Additionally, it also appears to be true that persons [men and women] as mentioned by Freud, have been educated [more during the past that it happens today] concerning irrational notions and attitudes of sex.
This has had a harsh impact on their adult sex life and, in worse scenarios, on their mental health. Freud’s knockers do not deny this but say that he was wrong to want to minimize everything to the repression or expression or diversion of some given instinctual sexual power. This therefore proves that the potential of men and women socially relies on their sexual power and belief of oneself.
Conclusion
In conclusion I think everything that all what the great psychologists said as far as the nature and characteristics of men and women makes a lot of sense, especially taking into consideration the fact that he talks of all the levels or stages that are relevant in explaining why men and women relate and behave the way that they always do. It is a true observation that generally the female tend to envy the men in some way (Tanaka, Lidia 47). When women are heads, they tend to become very bossy. They delegate duties to the subordinates and tend to direct a particular chain of command.
Based on the psychoanalysis that was presented by Freud, the fact that a woman heads an institution makes her feel like she has now possessed the position of a man and as such is in a position of development of policies that will only favor women and not men. This takes us back to the Freudian theory where we found out that women attempt to find comfort by looking for penises (Tanaka, Lidia 57). As such they are bitter with any man with a penis because they believe that this particular man took a penis that actually belonged to her. Psychologists have always argued that social set-ups are institutions that are set up to be manipulatively explored and that the social responsibility of bringing up the children is the sole responsibility of women. It is for this same reason that most psychologists hold the belief that the performance of the basic functions in the social setup is a woman’s role (Tanaka, Lidia 42).
The only question that I still wish would be answered is whether the women truly admire men’s penises. I also wonder whether the true reason that the women feel inferior to men is because they do not have penises. The only thing I observed is that a lot of the statements made by Freud were made on some in correct information. I also tend to think that Freud has been unfairly maligned his discussions on women. For example when Freud says that the clitoris is an immature penis I do not think that this is correct information, It is not based on biological explanation (Tanaka, Lidia 57). The difficulties that I encountered when writing this thesis were quite many, because Freud has written so much in the field of psychology and getting the right material that answers the questions correctly was quite a challenge.
References
Engler, Barbara. Personality Theories: An Introduction. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2008. Print.
Freud, Sigmund, and James Strachey. Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality. Mansfield Centre, Conn: Martino Publishing, 2011. Print.
Seelig, Beth J, Robert A. Paul, and Carol B. Levy. Constructing and Deconstructing Women's Power. London: Karnac, 2002. Print.
Slipp, Samuel. Freudian Mystique: Freud, Women, and Feminism. New York: New York Univ Press, 1995. Print.
Tanaka, Lidia. Gender, Language and Culture: A Study of Japanese Television Interview Discource. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004. Print.
Oliver, Kelly. Reading Kristeva: Unraveling the Double-Bind. Bloomington u.a: Indiana Univ. Press, 1993. Print.
