(Continued from Part 3.)
I asked the guides to be more precise on the matter of the split they’d referred to earlier. They replied:
“Yes, the meaning here is about the set of rules that are laid out which are different for men than they are for women. This goes further than the realm of [sexuality] and is for the most part unexamined. This goes, not only for Steve, but for most of the human collective as well.”
They wouldn’t simply hand me the information on a silver platter.
“Our suggestion to Steve is for him to examine this for himself, as he is the one to know the details of this. We might list them, but this isn’t the same as him making this discovery for himself.
“Listing them for him invites thoughts of hierarchy and judgment, and self examination invites him to know for himself what springs from alignment with his deepest and most cherished ideals, and what is just in the way of realizing them.”
They then returned to the “split.”
“We can only observe that there is a split, and that this split is interfering in his ability to relate to each entity equally and with the same value system regardless of gender. This is happening under his own radar and without his intent, yet it is there for his discovery if he will look for it.
“For clarification, it’s our observation that this is happening in a wide-spread fashion in the human kingdom all over Gaia, for both genders, so the fact that Steve carries it in his field is not a surprise.
“It is, however, among the possibilities present that he may be one of the forerunners in bringing these issues up for examination and for being a major player in the resolution of them, the setting of a new template for beingness between genders.”
This is one of the places in which they appear to challenge me to make these matters public: “bringing these issues up for examination.”
They then return to the discussion of all gender relationships. And now they actually do make a list, which they add to later.
“We would ask, what are the differences in personal relations with men compared to women? One could make a list.
“Being very honest, where does the most trust lie? Which is more intelligent and kind and nurturing and fill in this blank? Why is this believed to be so. and is it actually so, or is it simply a misinterpretation of past experience?
“All these sorts of questions reveal in their answers basic beliefs which rarely or never get the benefit of conscious awareness, and this is the issue we’re pointing at. …
“There is a split in this spot and therefore, there is a split in what is available for and from Steve in intimate relations with women. This is due to experience and a time when boundaries weren’t respected, but to carry it on into all future relations is not productive and will limit what the potential of the relations are. This is only dancing at the edge of what this sort of inquiry will bring up.”
They then add more questions to the list.
“What types of interchange are reserved only for men? If there are such areas,why is this so? These are the inquiries for Steve to look into, if he wishes to pursue this and understand what operates under his own radar in terms of determining for himself the Value, the Quality, and the Meaning of his relations. There is an imbalance and this is what we suggest he look into for his own benefit and for the benefit of his mission for gender equality.”
In many workshops we made similar lists of our beliefs and it always proved illuminating.
Tomorrow we’ll look at how they see people relating the minute a man or a woman meets someone from the opposite gender.