Every relationship on earth, whether it be among individuals of differing age,

race, gender, or entire groups such as the wealthy and poor, has one thing in common:
differences in power. The relationship between an oppressor and the oppressed is one of
the longest and most visible cornerstones of any society. But a less visible manifestation
of this struggle is in the often implicit, sometimes explicit, assumption of the male gender
as the norm. In our patriarchal society, its sometimes difficult to even detect this bias in
arguments. When examining Marxism and Freudianism, to wildly different degrees both
possess the idea of the male gender as normative. While Marxist theory in no way rests
on this assumption, however, Freudianism features the idea of male as norm as a
central tenet. However, both arguments can still generally work without this explicit or
implicit assumption.
Before analyzing the respective theories within the limiting viewpoint of the idea
of the male, we must first elucidate the central arguments of both, beginning with
Marxism. The theory of Marxism revolves around production. Both Karl Marx and
Friedrich Engel argued that the means, or type of technology used in production, and the
relation, or the human relationships within the production, constitute the substructure
(Kerbo, 122). The substructure is the material and economic base of society (Kerbo, 122).
This substructure defines the superstructure, which consists of all political organization,
religion, or ideologies and culture in the society (Kerbo, 122). This is a key idea in
Marxism; whoever has control over the substructure (who owns the means of production)
has control over the superstructure (all of politics and government) (Kerbo 123).
Besides applying to current society, Marxism also illuminates the history of class
struggle, and proposes a better alternative for the future: communism. Beginning with

what Engels and Marx identified as primitive communism, they argued that the first
social organization was a society without any class struggle (Kerbo, 124). Because there
was no idea of private property, no inequality of goods, and, therefore, power, could
exist (Kerbo, 124). However, the development of the concept of private property largely
defined the next 3 phases of history: primitive society, feudalism, and capitalism (Kerbo,
124). Marxism argues that capitalism possess an intrinsic contradiction; while workers
collectively produce goods in an industrial setting, the ownership of the means of
production remains privatized (Kerbo, 126). Marxist theory argues that the much larger
and, therefore, powerful working class (or proletariat) will inevitably realize that their
interests lie in collective ownership of the means of production (Kerbo, 126). When they
realize this, a revolution will take place, establishing communismthe collective
ownership of means of production (Kerbo, 125). When the substructure, or in this case,
the working class, changes, the superstructure must change alongside.
Though not explicitly, the idea of male as norm is implicit in certain aspects of
their argument. Marx and Engels do not utilize non-gendered pronouns in their argument,
exampled by fragments such as, the way in which men produce their means of
subsistence or man can be distinguished from animals by consciousness
(Kerbo,121). Marx and Engels go on to say, the nature of individuals thus depends on
the material conditions determining their production (Kerbo, 121). To specify
individuals instead of simply using man within the same paragraph shows that they
both understood and intended this distinction in their argument. Also, at points in their
argument, Marx and Engels hint at the idea of women being physically inferior to men
(Mitchell, 24).

Further, the central idea of Marxism, again, rests on production, and therefore
deals with the power relationship between workers, the proletariat, and the
administrators, the bourgeoisie. However, while women did work in industrial settings
(Marx & Engels, the Woman Question), the idea of a worker could still be largely linked
specifically to men. Therefore, when discussing the oppression of workers, readers could
interpret this as only applying to the plight of men, instead of all humankind.
However, this should not suggest a primarily sexist social theory. In fact, many
aspects of Marxism, other writings by Marx and Engels, and later writing specifically by
Engels in his book The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State illustrate
their view of the place of the woman in their idealized society. Much of their writing
focuses on the idea of the abolition of the family, arguing that the nuclear, monogamous
family is a social construction first necessitated because of its place as the economic unit
of society (Engels, 290). Engels argued that the first division of labor in history was that
of the differing roles of men and wives in raising children, and the first class oppression
was between men and women (Engels, 291). In this way, by identifying women as the
oppressed in their relationship with men, women can essentially be seen as the proletariat
in their struggle with the bourgeoisie.
Engels also argues that when society moves to communism, the family will no
longer be the economic unit of society as before (Engels 293), calling for the possible
abolishing of the family structure (Engels 294). Its not merely the bearing of children
that usurps womens power, although it certainly contributes (Mitchell, 46), but instead,
the concept of the familys place at the heart of economic society steals this power as well
(Leacock, 296). The abolition of the socially constructed family would lead to a lessening

of shame towards female sexuality and the supremacy of men over women (Engels 294),
while also allowing women the ability to contribute to production fully (Marx & Engels,
35). Because Marxism calls for a revolution for society into one where no class struggles
exist, overall, the central argument can survive without the few aspects of the idea of
male as normindeed, in the ideal communist state, there would be no family, and
women and men would have equal power (Mitchell, 45).
Further, the parallel drawn between the woman and the proletariat in terms of
positions of power shows that womens state of oppression is far from the norm. By
equating the woman to the proletariat, the idea of the proletariat overcoming the bondage
of the bourgeoisie can be related to the idea of women overcoming the oppression of
men. To be sure, society must change to do so (Mitchell, 24-25), but as with any other
social revolution, change is possible. In the end, the theory of Marxism after removing
the male as normative bias still stands.
Unlike the economic nature of Marxism, Freudianism is a theory involving the
analysis and workings of the human mind through psychoanalysis. Although his
techniques for treatment of patients have now been proved largely ineffective (Firestone,
51), Freuds influence lasts through psychology and many aspects of mainstream current
mainstream culture. However, unlike Marxism, Freudianism revolves around sexuality
(Firestone, 49), and thus the discussion of gender roles within his theory garners much
more importance.
Freud begins psychoanalysis and his discussion of sexuality at early childhood
from the perspective of a male child. Freud argues that when a male child is very young,
he has no sense that his genitalia differ from anyone elses. However, soon he realizes

that women are essentially men without penises, left with only the inferior clitoris
(Lehrman, 86). Conversely, Freud argues that when young girls first see male genitalia,
they respond with envy (Freud, 595). This idea of penis envy causes the young girl to
wish she were a boy (Freud, 595). However, once learning that to be impossible, she
copes with her envy by transferring that energy into a desire for a man, simply as a means
to a penis (Firestone, 85). This envy is further soothed by nature giving a woman the
ability to bear children as a substitute for a penis (Firestone, 85).
Lastly, central to Freudianism is the Oedipus complex. This theory essentially
asserts that every male child wants to have sexual intercourse with his mother, and kill
his father. The only solution is repression, by the father through invoking a fear of
castration in his son, (Firestone, 52), causing men to develop a castration complex
(Freud, 595).
Not surprisingly, the idea of the male as norm is explicit throughout Freudianism.
Simply by beginning his discussion of sexuality through the perspective of the male, he
implicitly suggests that men are important than women. Indeed, Firestone explains that
the order he presents his argument stems from the idea view our society possesses of the
greater importance of men (Firestone, Note on 52). However, the rest of his argument
becomes explicit with male as norm bias through his theories of the castration complex,
penis envy and the Oedipus complex. Even merely by terminology, the castration
complex implies that women are simply castrated men. More specifically, calling it a
castration complex implicitly suggests that women are an incomplete version of a man; a
male should fear losing his penis because with his penis comes any worth and power in
society. Similarly, the idea of penis envy suggests that women are lacking in some way;

that men are created normal and whole, with a penis, and women, without one, must
spend their lives seeking a replacement. The lack of a penis is essentially a wound to her
narcissism in the eyes of Freud, and requires that the women seek something to replace
the penis she lacks, usually through a husband and having a child (Lehrman, 85).
Finally, Freud demonstrated his own male-centered, normative view through
failing to address important issues relating to women in his writings. He barely discusses
abortion, menopause, childbirth, or menstruation at any point, which all constitutes
important parts of female sexuality (Lehrman, 87). Within Freudianism, the idea of the
male as the norm permeates his theory.
Because this assumption of male as norm is so central to Freudianism, the theory
would make little sense without it. However, by examining his theories less literally and
more metaphorically as Shulamith Firestone, in her book, The Dialectic of Sex, suggests,
Freudianism makes more sense and actually explains the foundation of the idea of men as
norm. This is accomplished by viewing the Oedipus complex in terms of power instead of
merely sexuality (Firestone, 53).
Similarly to Freud, she begins her analysis with that of a young male child. When
male children are born into a patriarchal, nuclear family, they are born into a system
where the man holds the power in his relationship with his wife. Although the male child
is also under his parents authority, he can sense that his mother is not the full authority
from an early age (Firestone, 55). Instead of viewing the Oedipus complex as a literal,
sexual desire between a son and his mother, to view it as a relationship based both on
unconditional love on the part of the mother (Firestone, 55), and an empathetic

understanding of the power they both lack on the part of the son (Firestone, 54) speaks to
the arbitrary social construction of this power struggle.
Further, penis envy could be explained not as a literal desire for a woman to have
a penis, but as a desire for power (Firestone, 60). As the girl grows older, she will
inevitably realize that she cannot possess the power she desireswithout revolution
(Firestone 76).
This suggests the idea that the Oedipus complex, penis envy, and the idea of the
male as the norm are dependent on the society. Thus, while usual Freudianism
interpretations fail to call for any social revolution or change, if the nuclear family
structure changed, the idea of the man as norm or even the establishment of patriarchal
society in general would change with it. Indeed, evidence suggests that in societies where
men lack power, the effects of the Oedipus complex decrease (Firestone, 53).
By instituting a metaphorical interpretation of Freuds theories, Freudianism can
be seen to somewhat still cohere even without the idea of the male as norm. By hinging
this assumption on the institution of a family, the idea of male as norm becomes less of a
tenet of Freudianism and more an unfortunate product of society, allowing his assertions
to still somewhat stand. This concept of the importance of the family relates back to
Marxism, with its calls for the abolition of the family, and afterwards a more egalitarian,
communistic society to reign. While in both theories the idea of the male as norm is
implicit, we have seen that through social change and the establishment of a less
patriarchal, perhaps fully communistic society, the pervasiveness of the male as norm
would lessen.