Radical Feminist Mythology

[Liberty]

I've studied mythology and ancient history, and it made me want to write my own system of mythology. So I asked myself, if the radical feminists of the 1960s and 1970s were to have their own system of mythology, complete with a creation story, etc, what would it be? And so, I wrote this.

I'd like your thoughts, and also advice about how I could improve it. I feel like it's still in a fairly rough form.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the story of the creation of the earth and the oppression of women. This story is remembered by the women of Aratha, and it is told in secret from mother to daughter.

In the beginning was the Great Mother. The Mother created a beautiful garden for herself, with many flowers and loving creatures. She also created women, who were like her in body and in mind, to be her companions. Together they sang songs, composed music, wrote poetry, painted landscapes, and wove tapestries. They dined on fruit, swam in lakes, and ran through fields. The women also conceived children like themselves, carried them in their wombs, and gave birth in fields of flowers. They raised their daughters like themselves, and they sat on the lap of the Mother and laughed and played at her feet.

Yet the Mother had given women the gift of free thought, and the ability to have their own desires and feelings. Some women, led by Allena, who was strong and talented, asked the Mother for separate homes and land, for a place of their own. The Mother was not upset. She loved the women she had created, and wanted them to have their own place if they so desired. So she created a new world, full of trees, plants, and beautiful lakes and rivers. She gave this new world, Aratha, to the women who wanted their own place, and she visited them often.

The women in Aratha soon found themselves faced with a difficulty. When they lived with the Mother, she lent her strength to building houses and moving water; alone, the women found that these tasks took up much of their time. To fix this problem, the Mother decided to make helpers for the women. She gave these helpers great strength, but she denied them the great power of reproduction. The women alone had the seed of life. The helpers were only to be the servants of the women. As she fashioned the helpers, the Mother’s hand slipped. Between their legs, the helpers now had a strange wound. The Mother left the wound, for she believed it would allow the women to more easily control the helpers. Yet the Great Mother made a mistake when she made the helpers. She should not have made them stronger than the women.

At first, all was well. Each woman chose a helper, and the helpers built houses and did other such labor; the women were once again able to devote themselves to music and art. Allena chose a helper named Timeno, and he cleaned her house and brought her food. Yet one day, Timeno had a terrible thought. He realized that he was stronger than Allena. He refused to bring her food or clean her house, and ordered her to do these things herself. He claimed her house as his own, and ordered her to do his bidding. Allena stood her ground and fought. Timeno and Allena fought for three days and three nights, but Timeno was stronger. The other helpers followed Timeno’s lead, and the women had no recourse.

The Mother saw the women’s pain, and she came to help her daughters. When she arrived, the helpers ran and hid. The women told the Mother what had happened, and her anger burned bright. “The helpers must perish,” she decreed. “I will remove them from Aratha immediately.” But there was a problem. The women had come to be fond of their individual helpers, in spite of their grievances. “No, no!” cried the women. “We do not want them to perish. We only want them to be our helpers again, so that we can paint and sing.” The Great Mother shook her head. “I see now that I have made a mistake in creating the helpers. I must do away with them and help you myself, when you need it. You do not need these cruel helpers.” But the women again cried out. The Mother responded at last: “You have a choice to make. I can do away with the helpers, or I can leave things as they are. You may choose subservience or freedom, but I cannot make that choice for you.” Allena stepped forward. “Timeno has been very cruel to me, but I choose to keep him rather than see him perish. Timeno cares for me, though he does not show it.” The Great Mother shook her head, and a tear ran down her cheek. “Then I must leave,” she said. “Any who want to come with me may. I cannot come back here openly as long as you allow the helpers to rule over you in this way, but I will hear you and help you if you truly call to me.”And so, the Great Mother left Aratha, never to return openly again.

The helpers called themselves men, and their control over the women grew. The men made strange movements, finding pleasure by pressing their wounds into the space where the women bore their children. Gradually, this space grew to accommodate the men’s wounds, and this oppression became common. Before, the women had brought pleasure to each other, but this time was at an end. Then came the ultimate defeat; the men stole the women’s seed and took it into themselves. Now, women could no longer conceive on their own, and their offspring was male as well as female.
And yet more changed when the helpers gained control. When Aratha was first created, the earth produced fruit voluntarily and the animals were kind, friendly, and helpful. Now, the men wanted more. They struck the earth, ordering it to produce more, and they killed the animals to eat them and take their flesh. Soon, the earth grew hostile, and it had to be farmed in great labor before it would yield fruit or grain. The animals grew shy and menacing, and they grew claws to defend themselves. The women soon came to see that the men had ruined Aratha.
And yet, the women did not reject the men and call on the Mother. They became complicit in their own oppression as they professed to love their oppressors. Art and music declined and poetry only survived as small lines whispered from one woman to another.

Over time, the men sought to control everything in Aratha even as they controlled the women. They made fires and grew crops. They built roads and cut down forests. Yet the men could never control the rainstorms, windstorms, and snowstorms, for it was in these that the Mother visited Aratha to view the condition of her daughters. She cries over what she sees, and she desperately desires to free her daughters from their oppressors.

From time to time, a woman declares her freedom for men. She fights against them, but though she occasionally has some success, her fight is futile until the majority of women band together to overthrow the men. It is only then that the Great Mother will come to aid her children, and overthrow the rule of men. Any individual woman who does what she can to free herself from men and declare her freedom and worth, however, is rewarded. Upon the death of such a woman, the Great Mother takes her up to live with her and her daughters in paradise, singing, painting, writing, and weaving in harmony, creativity, and selfless love. Let all who hear and understand this story work to overthrow the oppression of men: as individuals, they can live in paradise after death; and if they act in uniformity, they can restore paradise on earth. Let us remember, and not repeat, the mistake of our mother Allena.

[Pick]

If you don't mind me saying so, I think you need to read more radical feminist literature and operate less on caricatures from popular media. There was plenty of "far out" rhetoric being created in that era, but it's something I'm not getting the impression you wholly understand. I honestly think that if you wish to make a myth for a people, it's less important to understand "myths" than the viewpoint of the target group.

I recommend reading, for instance, Herland. Despite being written in 1915, it would provide you with some kind of grounding.

[Liberty]

If you don't mind my saying so, I was looking for instructive criticism. I am not claiming to be an expert on radical feminism. I'm only 22 years old for god's sake, I wasn't alive then! I was raised a fundamentalist and left that after a few years of college. Feminism fascinates me and I would call myself a feminist. I came up with the idea for this mythology while taking a class on the 1960s; I found myself enraged at the male gender and started thinking of what kind of a mythology would embody that rage and frustration. I wanted something that elevated women, because Christian mythology elevates man. I wanted to portray man as a mistake and woman as perfection - I mean, to be quite honest, that's not that far off from Christian mythology, only in reverse! I also wanted a feminine God, and some sort of frustrating situation with the option of fighting back, actively or passively.

I was not trying to, as expert or psychologist, get inside actual radical feminists' brains here, and I know "feminazi" is a stereotype - I just thought it made a catchy title for the thread!

So rather than just dismissing or dissing, give me actual productive criticism - as in, things you think would improve this. I'm not planning to publish it or anything, I just wrote it in the space of an hour or two, and I had fun doing it!

EDIT: I just noticed that you did give me an actual suggestion - reading a link. Thanks.

[Invictus ChiKen]

This is actually similar to the mythology of many radical Dianic Wiccan sects.

[weemadando]

While at uni I was frequently chastised by one of my lecturers for daring to point out that maybe, just maybe The Odyssey hadn't been written (well, spoken) as a feminist text.

People with an agenda will see what they want in anything.

[Spoonist]

Here you go, written by the 2007 litterature nobel prize winner. No kiddin. That is simply what it is. A feminist mythology.

Mind you I got it as a present, read the first chapter, did a doubletake. How could this author even by a nominee? Then had to keep skipping parts because of the repetetiveness of the text. Then skipped to the last chapter which confirmed my impression.
Since then I've been trying to give the book away without success. (Maybe I shouldn't be so honest about it). So if anyone wants to, you could be the proud owner of a nobel prize winning author's book. However you would have to PM a random dude on the interwebs your home adress.

But on a serious note, there are several norse "feminist" interpretations. You could probably find them if you google. Johanne Hildebrandt comes to mind.

[Bakustra]

While at uni I was frequently chastised by one of my lecturers for daring to point out that maybe, just maybe The Odyssey hadn't been written (well, spoken) as a feminist text.

People with an agenda will see what they want in anything.

That's because the foundation of the postmodernist school of literary theory and analysis is based around the idea of "the death of the author", a pretentious name for "shut up and focus on the story" (I refuse to use "text" because it equally applies to film) which means you can't use authorial intent. The central focus is on individual, or reader-based, interpretations of the story. You do this already, though subconsciously. It's highly doubtful Dickens intended to write dull books, but most people nowadays find his novels boring. This is a less controversial use of interpretation, but it applies equally to plot, theme, and characterization.

It's like walking into a group of historians and challenging the validity of archaeological evidence, by comparison, to declare that an individual interpretation is wrong based on intent in literary circles. No wonder your lecturer chastised you.

Now, this is fairly controversial, and many people still hold to author's intent as the critical means, but I find the conceit useful, because the author can be mistaken, or deliberately misleading, or joking, or lying, but the work is the work, disregarding typos and added material. See Starship Troopers, where the society in the book is either fascist or on the verge of becoming so. Heinlein later tried to, through his letters, alter the society because he was unaware of that while writing the book, and was justly horrified to find that he had created and somewhat glorified a potentially fascistic system. However, his errata regarding the book cannot actually override the text, though it can clarify if it doesn't conflict. I don't hold to a pure "death of the author" system myself, of course, but I am more in favor of it than of authorial intent.

I also believe that the "death of the author" improves the use and functionality of literary criticism, but that is a fairly controversial idea, particularly in my view of it, and would make this post far longer. However, if anybody wishes, I will elaborate on it further.

--------

Now then, an attempt at writing the world's shortest "radical feminist" story:

Two figures sat in a train compartment.

"It sure is nice since all the men died," said one.

"Indeed it is," said her companion. The conversation then turned to the weather.

[hongi]

"Indeed it is," said her companion. The conversation then turned to the weather.

You forgot the lesbian sex.

[Liberty]

Now then, an attempt at writing the world's shortest "radical feminist" story:

Two figures sat in a train compartment.

"It sure is nice since all the men died," said one.

"Indeed it is," said her companion. The conversation then turned to the weather.

You made me laugh!

[Bakustra]

"Indeed it is," said her companion. The conversation then turned to the weather.

You forgot the lesbian sex.

It's got to be general, old boy (or girl), general! Charlotte Perkins Gilman would not have descended to such depths of depravity as to acknowledge the concept of sexual orientation! Neither would Joanna Russ! If you like, "conversation turning to the weather" can be a euphemism for sex in the story. That's the best use of literary analysis in my book.

[weemadando]

While at uni I was frequently chastised by one of my lecturers for daring to point out that maybe, just maybe The Odyssey hadn't been written (well, spoken) as a feminist text.

People with an agenda will see what they want in anything.

That's because the foundation of the postmodernist school of literary theory and analysis is based around the idea of "the death of the author", a pretentious name for "shut up and focus on the story" (I refuse to use "text" because it equally applies to film) which means you can't use authorial intent. The central focus is on individual, or reader-based, interpretations of the story. You do this already, though subconsciously. It's highly doubtful Dickens intended to write dull books, but most people nowadays find his novels boring. This is a less controversial use of interpretation, but it applies equally to plot, theme, and characterization.

It's like walking into a group of historians and challenging the validity of archaeological evidence, by comparison, to declare that an individual interpretation is wrong based on intent in literary circles. No wonder your lecturer chastised you.

Now, this is fairly controversial, and many people still hold to author's intent as the critical means, but I find the conceit useful, because the author can be mistaken, or deliberately misleading, or joking, or lying, but the work is the work, disregarding typos and added material. See Starship Troopers, where the society in the book is either fascist or on the verge of becoming so. Heinlein later tried to, through his letters, alter the society because he was unaware of that while writing the book, and was justly horrified to find that he had created and somewhat glorified a potentially fascistic system. However, his errata regarding the book cannot actually override the text, though it can clarify if it doesn't conflict. I don't hold to a pure "death of the author" system myself, of course, but I am more in favor of it than of authorial intent.

I also believe that the "death of the author" improves the use and functionality of literary criticism, but that is a fairly controversial idea, particularly in my view of it, and would make this post far longer. However, if anybody wishes, I will elaborate on it further.

You see, that's all well and good, except for the fact that this was in an Ancient Civs/Classics course, where the rest of that faculty (and the history faculty in general) put massive stock in the idea that you can't just quote or reference a text, you have to look at who the author was, why they hold this opinion, how well informed they were and thus decide how much weight if should carry in favour or against your arguments.

[Bakustra]

You see, that's all well and good, except for the fact that this was in an Ancient Civs/Classics course, where the rest of that faculty (and the history faculty in general) put massive stock in the idea that you can't just quote or reference a text, you have to look at who the author was, why they hold this opinion, how well informed they were and thus decide how much weight if should carry in favour or against your arguments.

I agree totally that it's utterly inexcusable in a history course. I presumed that nobody would actually try to use literary theory outside of a literature class. Mea culpa.

[Pick]

I'm sorry that "research what you write" isn't considered constructive criticism any more.

[weemadando]

You see, that's all well and good, except for the fact that this was in an Ancient Civs/Classics course, where the rest of that faculty (and the history faculty in general) put massive stock in the idea that you can't just quote or reference a text, you have to look at who the author was, why they hold this opinion, how well informed they were and thus decide how much weight if should carry in favour or against your arguments.

I agree totally that it's utterly inexcusable in a history course. I presumed that nobody would actually try to use literary theory outside of a literature class. Mea culpa.

It was a Classics course as part of the Ancient Civs/Classics faculty, so it could be viewed as being a "literature based course".

My main issue was that this was in a tutorial setting and we were going around the room giving our opinions on the discussion thus far. My opinion was that Homer probably didn't do it with feminism in mind. Which was wrong, because apparently Homer is totally feminist. Of course, this was also first year uni, before I learnt the magic art of "write an essay saying exactly what your professor wants to hear in order to get better marks than if you write an essay that disagrees with any of their pet theories."

Say what you want about Arts courses, at least they teach you valuable life lessons.

[Ryushikaze]

While at uni I was frequently chastised by one of my lecturers for daring to point out that maybe, just maybe The Odyssey hadn't been written (well, spoken) as a feminist text.

People with an agenda will see what they want in anything.

That's because the foundation of the postmodernist school of literary theory and analysis is based around the idea of "the death of the author", a pretentious name for "shut up and focus on the story" (I refuse to use "text" because it equally applies to film) which means you can't use authorial intent. The central focus is on individual, or reader-based, interpretations of the story. You do this already, though subconsciously. It's highly doubtful Dickens intended to write dull books, but most people nowadays find his novels boring. This is a less controversial use of interpretation, but it applies equally to plot, theme, and characterization.

It's like walking into a group of historians and challenging the validity of archaeological evidence, by comparison, to declare that an individual interpretation is wrong based on intent in literary circles. No wonder your lecturer chastised you.

Now, this is fairly controversial, and many people still hold to author's intent as the critical means, but I find the conceit useful, because the author can be mistaken, or deliberately misleading, or joking, or lying, but the work is the work, disregarding typos and added material. See Starship Troopers, where the society in the book is either fascist or on the verge of becoming so. Heinlein later tried to, through his letters, alter the society because he was unaware of that while writing the book, and was justly horrified to find that he had created and somewhat glorified a potentially fascistic system. However, his errata regarding the book cannot actually override the text, though it can clarify if it doesn't conflict. I don't hold to a pure "death of the author" system myself, of course, but I am more in favor of it than of authorial intent.

I also believe that the "death of the author" improves the use and functionality of literary criticism, but that is a fairly controversial idea, particularly in my view of it, and would make this post far longer. However, if anybody wishes, I will elaborate on it further.

Pure story criticism definitely has its uses, but I feel that like a lot of Postmodernism, it's gotten too wrapped up in being the 'only thing'. What the author said on their work, what they were getting at IS important from an analytical standpoint, even if it's only to note where they went wrong. Plus, there does need to be some point where you can just go 'that's... that's just wrong' with a text, and a lot of postmodernists take the new criticism to the extent where any text says anything, and it's frankly irritating.

[ray245]

You see, that's all well and good, except for the fact that this was in an Ancient Civs/Classics course, where the rest of that faculty (and the history faculty in general) put massive stock in the idea that you can't just quote or reference a text, you have to look at who the author was, why they hold this opinion, how well informed they were and thus decide how much weight if should carry in favour or against your arguments.

I agree totally that it's utterly inexcusable in a history course. I presumed that nobody would actually try to use literary theory outside of a literature class. Mea culpa.

It was a Classics course as part of the Ancient Civs/Classics faculty, so it could be viewed as being a "literature based course".

My main issue was that this was in a tutorial setting and we were going around the room giving our opinions on the discussion thus far. My opinion was that Homer probably didn't do it with feminism in mind. Which was wrong, because apparently Homer is totally feminist. Of course, this was also first year uni, before I learnt the magic art of "write an essay saying exactly what your professor wants to hear in order to get better marks than if you write an essay that disagrees with any of their pet theories."

Say what you want about Arts courses, at least they teach you valuable life lessons.

Perhaps you might want to share with us why do you think that Homer didn't do it with feminism in mind?

[Formless]

It was a Classics course as part of the Ancient Civs/Classics faculty, so it could be viewed as being a "literature based course".

My main issue was that this was in a tutorial setting and we were going around the room giving our opinions on the discussion thus far. My opinion was that Homer probably didn't do it with feminism in mind. Which was wrong, because apparently Homer is totally feminist. Of course, this was also first year uni, before I learnt the magic art of "write an essay saying exactly what your professor wants to hear in order to get better marks than if you write an essay that disagrees with any of their pet theories."

Say what you want about Arts courses, at least they teach you valuable life lessons.

Perhaps you might want to share with us why do you think that Homer didn't do it with feminism in mind?

Because the ancient Greeks predate the feminists by several centuries and were a culture that considered women categorically inferior to men?

That should be a no brainier.

[ray245]

It was a Classics course as part of the Ancient Civs/Classics faculty, so it could be viewed as being a "literature based course".

My main issue was that this was in a tutorial setting and we were going around the room giving our opinions on the discussion thus far. My opinion was that Homer probably didn't do it with feminism in mind. Which was wrong, because apparently Homer is totally feminist. Of course, this was also first year uni, before I learnt the magic art of "write an essay saying exactly what your professor wants to hear in order to get better marks than if you write an essay that disagrees with any of their pet theories."

Say what you want about Arts courses, at least they teach you valuable life lessons.

Perhaps you might want to share with us why do you think that Homer didn't do it with feminism in mind?

Because the ancient Greeks predate the feminists by several centuries and were a culture that considered women categorically inferior to men?

That should be a no brainier.

Ignore my previous post. I've missed the explanation given by weemadando.

[Bakustra]

Pure story criticism definitely has its uses, but I feel that like a lot of Postmodernism, it's gotten too wrapped up in being the 'only thing'. What the author said on their work, what they were getting at IS important from an analytical standpoint, even if it's only to note where they went wrong. Plus, there does need to be some point where you can just go 'that's... that's just wrong' with a text, and a lot of postmodernists take the new criticism to the extent where any text says anything, and it's frankly irritating.

I agree, to an extent. I believe that one of the most important functions of literary analysis (perhaps the only "important" function) is its ability to analyze not only the cultural mores of the writer and the work, but also that of the analyst and her culture (which is often our own). So, to that end, the idea that any text can say anything is harmful mainly because people are conscious of this, and try to make themselves seem clever. Unfortunately for them, what this communicates about the analyst is that they're an idiot, and, as you said, it clogs legitimate analysis.

The problem, I think, is that the point where analysis departs from the actual work and moves into the ethereal realm of "hobbyhorse" is different for each person. I agree that I'd look cockeyed at any attempt to declare the Odyssey a feminist work, but there could, theoretically at least, be something to support that. Should the point be where the analyst begins to twist the facts of the story? On the other hand, that's somewhat beyond where most people would give up on the analysis.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Unfortunately the main problem I see is that mythology is a product of the society in which you are raised... And rarely are women so separate from men as that a truly female mythology would develop. This is not entirely true, of course; in some southeast Asian societies the separation of the sexes is rigid enough for separate mythological customs to develop, but on a very local level and not producing a true mytho-cultural millieu. In short if we're going to look at a female mythology we need, I think, to look at an all female society, as the idea of a parallel mythology in a semi-normal human society is deeply unlikely. Perhaps if an all-female nation had been conquered by a patriarchy, such a mythology would result, but it is unlikely in any other circumstance, so I'll consider the point, and idea, of an all-female society and how a mythology for it might develop:

Since a female society, as we understand women, would not exist absent of some prior biological bifurcation of genders, there will always be an element of a prior age which involved men in their religious mythology. Take for example my rather laborious construction of Kaetjhasti mythology for a society of parthenogenically reproducing females centred on the island of Zealandia. Of Balinese-Hindu origin in their dominant ethnic group, they had men in their society into the 15th century--historical time--before the spread of an M. wolbachia variant radically altered their reproduction to a clonal form. Nonetheless the social collapse after the plague, and recovery in the 17th century at the same time as European contact began to touch their shores, created a millieu in which prior elements were used, and inverted.

For instance there is a magnification of a female/male duality in all things so that old male gods are increasingly identified with female incarnations; the Brahmin priesthood understands that these deities are just manifestations of the feminine energy of the dual spirit of a god which is in turn encapsulated into the Great Gods/goddesses and then beyond them into Shakti--Lakshmi, Parvati and Saraswati in triune form--the divine mother of the universe. In this sense they would be frequently identified with Shaktivists in India but have major philosophical and ritual differences. But on the other hand, looking beyond that, mythology is an attempt by people to explain things in a way they can understand. The plague becomes a curse of Kali after a ship with a then-normative male crew landed on a far southern island and slew some cattle that were sacred to Kali; they carry a plague back to the lands from whence they had come which keeps children from being born, so as recounted in The Immolation of the Brahmin Purani, an act of self-immolation in dedication to the Goddess which caused Kali to relent in regard to the women only, but to demand a high price from them in their children, explaining the rather imperfect way the reproductive mechanism works, resulting in a high rate of miscarriage (and Purani herself thus becomes a Rakshasas in the service of Kali tasked with reaping the babies of Kaetjhasti women)--as does their need to engage in extensive physical activity.

That then is how we can trace the development and construction of a mythology. It is circumstantial and it will use preexisting elements, reinterpreting them to meet new circumstances. So before you can imagine the mythology of a people you certainly have to envision their circumstances and how their customs were driven by them pretty far into the distant past, or else use a pre-existing mythology and build forward from it.

Though I'll add in a gentle aside that it is kind of offensive to see the term feminazi, though considering your background I understand well how it would be used; I came from a not dissimilar background myself. Female separatism has always been an area of reoccurring fascination for me, and if you'd like to talk more about the structure and interconnections of a prospective society of women without men I'd love to engage in correspondence. Another thing to consider is that the utopian ideals of modern feminism for a purely female society are quite unlikely, unless that society exists in a perfect vacuum... And I seriously, seriously doubt it would be the case even then. But ultimately a society of women will like any society have its behaviour, outlook, and internal interactions governed by its environment, the prior cultural influences, and cross-cultural pollination, as well as reproductive mechanism (clonal stem families would tend to favour a pretty conservative society, actually, as enculturation would happen in naturally permanent very large extended families by the eldest women, and genetic similiarity and close proximity would combine to reinforce prior beliefs into the next generation, to provide an example).

[hongi]

My main issue was that this was in a tutorial setting and we were going around the room giving our opinions on the discussion thus far. My opinion was that Homer probably didn't do it with feminism in mind. Which was wrong, because apparently Homer is totally feminist. Of course, this was also first year uni, before I learnt the magic art of "write an essay saying exactly what your professor wants to hear in order to get better marks than if you write an essay that disagrees with any of their pet theories."

Say what you want about Arts courses, at least they teach you valuable life lessons.

To be fair, there's some speculation that Homer (if you accept the traditional account that it was one man behind the whole thing, and more about the man part later) was composing with female members of the audience in mind. Samuel Butler even proposed that a woman composed the Odyssey, not a male Homer.

[weemadando]

Oh yeah, there's absolutely no doubt that there are several strong female characters in The Odyssey. My issue was the fact that no other interpretation other than the feminist one was allowed in this class.

As for a woman composing the Odyssey. It would make a degree of sense as one of the main themes could be seen to be the wastefulness of hte male occupation of war. By the end of the story Odysseus has killed 2 generations of Ithacans through his adventures and then his revenge on the suitors.

[Eleas]

Poor teachers seem to have one thing in common, don't they? "Find out my thoughts on a topic, then repeat it back as if it were your own position."

Takes a special kind of hubris, that.

[Phantasee]

Poor teachers seem to have one thing in common, don't they? "Find out my thoughts on a topic, then repeat it back as if it were your own position."

Takes a special kind of hubris, that.

I believe it's called "tenure".