What women's dreams foretell

Feminine groups around the world seem to develop organically, and rather like Nature, lack definitive organization. Any exercise to discover the trends finds more diversity. But where they are similar is in dreams. Women’s nighttime experiences are universally vivid and memorable. I imagine dreams are the unconscious confirmation that, beneath diverse surfaces, women are the same.

Everett reports that dream episodes display distinct gender differences. She writes: 

I often dream I'm searching for something in an old, crumbling house, or discovering abandoned rooms in my childhood home. Occasionally, the dreams will become nightmares, featuring bereavement, murder or terrifying chases up spiral staircases. By contrast, my husband tends to have dreams so dull he either doesn’t remember them, or recounts such gems as: ‘I was waiting to buy a new printer cartridge and the receptionist told me to take a seat.' 

Some authors pin women’s remembering dreams on their gender training. Women are taught from childhood to be emotionally attentive, because the maintenance of relationships depends on them. They may thus continue to hone soft skills during sleep, which they recall during wakefulness.

Some other studies seek to explain dreams as the nature of women, the product of the genetic makeup. They are perceived the result of periods of heightened hormonal activity and body temperature. Hence, female hormones contribute to the extreme action categories, the most aggressive dreams appearing in the premenstrual period and in pregnancy.

In my view, and because menopausal women also report similar dreams, rising tides of female hormones during the menstrual cycle may not be solely responsible for nightmares. Instead, violent dreams could stem directly from unresolved stress carried over into sleep states. Thence, they are normal in stressful environments, for women of all ages. Especially in Asia and Africa, where traditions impose on them a secondary status, education is denied them, and female infanticide gets tacit social support. The female gender must serve and obey, while men take all decisions, and boys as young as ten police sisters and mothers.

This uncertainty of being itself would naturally disturb sleep patterns far beyond hormonal biorhythms and learning of gender roles. Their constant need for vigilance would take toll on mind and body, preventing the women from relaxing even at nighttime. Because of the dominations they are constantly subjected to, dreams amongst women trapped in traditions, would be no more than reality revisited.

Across the world, post-feminist women are able to exercise personal choice similar to men. These women have distanced from the choices of their mothers in relationships. They have equated the institution of marriage with gender discriminations of the past. They have sought to be in charge of their own lives, and to negate traditional social learning with liberal new outlooks of self-reliance.

Greenfield writes:

My parents had a terrible marriage, with my father working away a lot and my mother at home with six children, growing increasingly resentful. … it has made me reluctant not just to marry, but to commit fully to a relationship. I’ve always kept a bit back, never daring to make myself financially or emotionally vulnerable.

The women have rendered the marital piece of paper redundant for their chosen lifestyle, investing instead in the lifelong commitment to a shared future. They have preferred to pour energies into having a lovely home, good friends and happy children with their partners, eschewing legalities.

It would then seem logical to assume that liberal environments would largely diminish the dreams, because the extreme stresses ease. Women that have resolved gender issues, and gained equality in the social interface, should also experience male-type change in their dream sequences.

However, in any part of the world, and at any age, women’s continue to dream vividly. Why? I should think that, rather like old wine in a new bottle, the perceived social change remains superficial. Women wanting to escape from the pains of the past have been unable to adequately define equality. The choices taken, based on faulty conceptualization, do little to alleviate traditional fears of vulnerability. And thus generate the unconscious stresses that continue to express in terrifying dreams.

For instance, although Greenfield chooses to live radically different from her mother, her life pans out similar. She becomes precisely what she had sought to avoid – the single parent saddled with child responsibilities. The woman is now left unsupported, while the father of her children, and her soulmate of so many years walks out on the family, citing her lack of respect for him as his reason for doing so.

With the wisdom of hindsight, Greenfield writes:

One thing I do know is this: it’s far easier to separate when you are not married than it is if you are. For a start, there are no lawyers involved. All you have to do is say ‘I want out’, and off you go, which is surely the main reason co-habiting couples are more likely to split up than those who are married.

Many Western women that likewise free themselves of social weddings find out too late that cohabitation does not change mindsets. Their familial responsibilities do not reduce; in the absence of marriage, the increase is manifold. Surveys confirm that the incidence of “divorce” is more than twice higher amongst cohabitating couples when compared with those legally married. 

Post-feminist women may be missing the forest for the trees in their evaluations. The haste to achieve "gender equality" actually hurts women in the future. They appear more focused on the exercise of choice, than to think through all its possible outcomes. Like, its effect on their partners. When the public affirmation of marriage vows is omitted from the equation, men are provided convenient windows of escape as the novelty of the partnerships wane. It is clear that all parties are not on the same page - the men do not perceive oral agreements of long-term commitments as binding.

Firstly, because men are brought up to identify with organization, women’s decisions to step outside of it earn neither respect nor compliance. Secondly, in an organized society, the institution of marriage needs to be appropriately organized too. Rather than demolish the institution of marriage itself, women need to push for changes in legislation that support them. Finally, social ceremonies confirm the social contract; else the individual becomes isolated, outside the social purview. Errant partners are far more likely to conform with pressure from the collective, than to respond to the entreaties of individual women.

Perhaps the point expressed in dreams is that for the women, the habits of dependence persist despite the modern notions of equality. Women have wanted others to be different, but within their self, attitudes resist change. Women anywhere in the world are yet to centre in their universe. Despite “equality”, they continue to perceive themselves as satellites, nurturers and caregivers romantically awaiting rescue from their own decisions while suffering the extreme stress their dreams foretell, just as their sisters under the skin do elsewhere.

References for this post:

1. Everett, Flic. “Why women's dreams are much wilder than men's... who often don't remember them because they are so dull” dailymail.co.uk. Mail Online. 14th September 2011. 
2. Greenfield, Louise. “Like many co-habitees, Louise dismissed marriage as 'just a piece of paper'. Now she admits it would've kept her family from falling apart” dailymail.co.uk. Mail Online. 15^th September 2011.