“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

What you think of as (underlined) male ego-oriented characteristics are simply those human attributes that the species encouraged, brought into the foreground, and stressed. Using those actually as guidelines, you have so far viewed your world and formed your cultures. There are some exceptions of note, but here I am speaking historically of the Western world with its Roman and Greek heritage. Your gods became masculine then; competitive. You saw the species pitted against nature, and man pitted against man. You consider the Greek tragedies great because they echo so firmly your own beliefs. Man is seen in opposition in the most immediate fashion with his own father. Family relationships become a mirror of those beliefs, which are then of course taken as statements of fact concerning the human condition. You thus have a very polarized male-female concept.

(Pause at 9:34.) It was seeking for a multiplication of consciousness, forming new offshoots from its own source. It had to pretend to dislike and disown that source in the same way that an adolescent may momentarily turn aside from its parents in order to encourage independence. Before the so-called flowering of Greek and Roman cultures, consciousness had not as yet made that specialization. There were gods and goddesses galore, and deities in whose natures the feminine and masculine characteristics merged. There were deities part human and part animal. The species, then, had not yet taken up the theme that has been predominant in Western culture.

There seems to be a division between science and religion, for even organized religion has an intuitive basis. The male scientist is often ashamed of using his intuitions, for not only do they appear to be unscientific, but female as well. It is what others will think about his masculinity that such a man is concerned with. To be “illogical” is a scientific “crime” — not so much because it is an unscientific attribute, but because it is considered a feminine one. Science has followed the male orientation and become its epitome. Up until the present, science has consistently tried to do without the so-called feminine qualities. It has divorced knowledge from emotion, understanding from identification, and stressed sexuality over personhood.

[...] In that context, the day hours and waking consciousness are thought of as masculine, along with the sun — while the nighttime, the moon, and the dreaming consciousness are considered feminine or passive. [...]

There would have been no question of men performing so-called feminine tasks, or of women performing so-called masculine tasks, for there no leeway for that kind of individual action would have existed.

[...] Women who possess characteristics that are thought to be masculine have the same problem on the other side.

[...] Some women display what you think of as masculine characteristics, growing hair about their faces, speaking with heavier voices, or becoming angular; while some men speak with lighter, gentler tones than ever before, and their faces grow smoother, and the contours of their bodies soften.

Women taught to be frightened of the “masculine” sides of their nature cannot be expected to love men, either, and the same kind of behavior results.

[...] These sexual beliefs are also far more important in national relationships than you realize, for you attempt to take what you think of as a masculine stance as a nation. [...]

[...] Those same abilities are natural characteristics of people in each race, of course, yet you have consistently made the same kind of distinctions in racial terms as you have in sexual ones, so that certain races appear as feminine or masculine to you. [...]