Leftist Hate for Rachel Dolezal Sounds Like When Feminists Used to Hate Trans People

Posted in Politics
Tue, Jun 16 - 9:00 am EDT | 3 years ago by
Comments: 36
Be Sociable, Share!
Use Arrow Keys (← →) to Browse

Riposte Modernism - Rachel Dolezal

Do you remember back when the great icons of the feminist movement all hated transgender women like Caitlyn Jenner? You probably don’t. The progressive movement has made a lot of effort to hide that part of their past, and that even today some of the aging icons of the ’60s radical feminism still hate trans women.

Of course, this is ancient history, even if some outdated relics still cling to their old views. Most feminists and progressives today fully support transgender rights. So why bring it up now?

Because of Rachel Dolezal. the Spokane NAACP leader who turned out to be from a white family and with apparently no recent black ancestry, has drawn the anger of progressives everywhere, partly in response to how some conservative writers have been suggesting that Dolezal’s case proves something about Caitlyn Jenner.

Well, it’s proved that leftist-progressives are hypocrites about their liberal social values. There’s been a string of attacks on Dolezal, outrage, denunciations and most importantly lots of explanations about why it’s okay to accept someone born a biological man who identifies as a woman but totally wrong to accept someone who was born… what? Born white?

Scientifically, that’s not even a thing. Let’s say: Born into a family mostly of European descent but choosing to identify as black. And that’s exactly what Dolezal has now said. I quote from a recent interview: “I do consider myself to be black and that’s because, you know, that’s how I identify.”

So why does the left now say that’s not acceptable but Caitlyn Jenner identifying as a woman is okay? Why are they saying that Caitlyn really is a woman but Dolezal is not really black? I personally agree that Caitlyn Jenner is a woman; she’s gone to great lengths to have her life match her identity at this point. But so has Dolezal! Some leftists have claimed it’s not the same because she’s “just pretending to be black.”

Now, if I were to put on a pair of lederhosen and speak in a silly accent, you could accuse me of pretending to be German. But Dolezal has spent almost all of her adult life living as a black woman. She has black children. She went to a traditionally black college. She’s dedicated her life’s work to the NAACP. That’s a heck of a lot of pretending!

The progressives are all tangled in knots trying to denounce Dolezal but embrace Jenner. HuffPo writer Zeba Blay said “transracial identity is NOT a thing.” She talks about “cultural appropriation” and how outrageous it was that Dolezal dared to take up “spaces specifically designated for members of a marginalized group.” She said how it “disrupts the discussions” that the left is trying to have about race and gender identity. She said how it’s “skin color that primarily determines racial privilege.” Wow, where does that leave light-skinned black folk? Are they just pretending too?

And she said that the idea of “transracial identity” is something that would just “allow white people to indulge in blackness as a commodity” but they’re not really engaging “with every facet of what being black entails.” She thinks that they couldn’t possibly relate to the oppression of black people. That as a “white woman” (note Blay refusing to recognize Dolezal by her chosen identity), she could just “take out the box braids and strip off the self-tanner” and go back to “not being black” at any time. In other words, she thinks Dolezal is faking it.

Dana Beyer does the same thing, doubling down on how Jenner is definitely not pretending to be a woman but somehow Dolezal’s 15-plus years of living as a black person is definitely just pretending.

Beyer gets so confused that her own argument falls apart when she desperately tries to make some point about how race is not actually genetic (which is true) but gender somehow is biological, only it’s not either. Darn, being a total hypocrite on identity issues must be tough sometimes.

Here’s where we get back to the old trans-hating feminists. All those arguments above? Those arguments were exactly what the leaders of the feminist movement were saying right through the 1970s and most of the 1980s about transgender women – and some of them still say it today. Not just some random weirdos on the outskirts, I’m talking about the most famous leaders of the feminist movement.

In 1977, Gloria Steinem said that transsexuals just “mutilate their own bodies” to “conform to gender roles” that feminists totally rejected back then. Janice Raymond in her book The Transsexual Empire said that transsexuals are just part of “patriarchal myths,” and that in the way trans women acted they were just trying be like “women according to man’s image” of what women are. In other words, transgender women were faking it because they act too feminine! She went on to say transsexuals are just a patriarchal plot to “colonize” feminist spaces and culture.

Sheila Jeffries wrote that “transsexualism should be seen as a violation of human rights” (that is, of the rights of women to their own spaces). Germaine Greer also supports the transgender as Patriarchal Conspiracy idea, writing in 1999 that “governments that consist of very few women have hurried to recognize as women men who believe they are women and have had themselves castrated to prove it.”

Today, people like Blay and Beyer (and many, many more) are saying about Dolezal exactly the same things that Steinem and Greer and company used to say about transgender women: That they’re just fakers. That they’re just offensively acting out some kind of patriarchal stereotype. That they’re unfairly invading the culture and safe spaces while appropriating the struggle of the people they’re just pretending to be. That what they’re doing is an aggressive invasion. That they’re being used by conservative forces in society to create a distraction from the vital narrative that the special elite in charge of the progressive movement want to push forward.

You can’t have it both ways. For my part, I feel everyone has a right to define their own bodies and their own identity. That means I have to support both Jenner’s identity and Dolezal’s identity. There’s one important difference between the two: Dolezal may have lied to people – and that’s ethically wrong. Some of it might even be legally fraud. If you want to condemn her for that, I’ll agree with you. But that has nothing to do with what she defines as her identity.

Some other conservative writers, like Kira Davis, reject the idea of a person having a right to define their own identity. So Davis seems to think that both Jenner and Dolezal are in some way faking it. I strongly disagree but at least people who think that way are being logically consistent, thus I could have a reasoned debate with them.

But the progressive left aren’t making any sense right now. You can’t be for one and against the other. You can believe that both Jenner and Dolezal have a right to express the identity they feel inside, or you can believe that neither of them have that right to their own body and self. But you can’t embrace one because it fits your politics and reject the other because it’s not convenient. I mean, not unless you don’t really care about the truth.

Kasimir Urbanski doesn’t write on a specific subject; he’s EveryJoe’s resident maniac-at-large. A recovering Humanities academic and world-traveler, he now lives in South America and is a researcher of fringe religion, eastern philosophy, and esoteric consciousness-expansion. In his spare time he writes tabletop RPGs, and blogs about them at therpgpundit.blogspot.com.

Read more from Urbanski by clicking through the gallery below.

Gun Control

Read about what other countries can teach us about the gun control debate.

Photo by Elrepho385/Getty Images

Election 2016

Find out about how Trump's fake Christianity might help him win the election.

Photo by Branden Camp/Getty Images


Believe it or not, millennials are begging the government to censor them, and all of us.

Photo by Ferenc Gerak / Getty Images

Climate Change

Find out more about the history of climate change and what you can REALLY learn from it.

Photo by Getty Images


A primer on how to rate your socialist craphole.

Photo by Jean Catuffe/Getty Images

Right vs Left

Never mind why the Right stands up against censorship, why doesn't the Left?

Photo by Nomadsoul1 / Getty Images


Fundamentally, the claim that only government can censor is a cheap way to weasel out of admitting that you’re pro-censorship.

Photo by StockWithMe / Getty Images


Liberals claim they are funnier than their conservative counterparts, but is that really true?

Photo by Brad Barket / Getty Images

Election 2016

Could Bernie Sanders really be President? Sure, if he runs against Alf.

The Left

Kasimir Urbanski explores why the Left likes to make up conservatives.


Urbanski discusses the game-changer that could make the left-right fights meaningless.

The Future

What will the robot-driven future economy mean for you?

Religious Offense

Urbanski sounds off about the hypocrisy of the New York Times.

Personal Rights

Urbanski asks the question, Who do you think should be in charge of your own body and mind?

University Censorship

The next generation of academics, and journalists, are being indoctrinated into not even knowing what free speech means.

U.S. Conservatism Needs a Divorce

Read Part I, Part II and Part III of this series addressing the need for free-thinking conservatives to split from the politicized Religious Right.

Urbanski Explains Islam

When it comes to understanding Islam, the Left and the Right both get it wrong.

Free Speech

Kasimir Urbanski discusses why it has to be free speech, every time.

Looking Ahead

The new year is upon us. Will 2015 look to the stars, or back to the cave?

Urbanski Saves Christmas

Christmastime comes with all the usual seasonal zaniness of the Culture Wars, but Kasimir Urbanski is here to save the holiday and unite us all.

The Infection of Postmodernism

In his first "Riposte Modernism" column, Kasimir Urbanski talks about the nemesis of modern civilization.
Use Arrow Keys (← →) to Browse

Be Sociable, Share!

Related Posts

  • Bill Primostaff

    I agree on the logical part of, if you accept one, then we need to accept the other, and the fact that lying about it is inappropriate.

    Yet for me this trans-add whatever you want here- is getting a little bit silly, I get it that some people have whatever you wanna call it feeling and that O-Kay… but come one, how far are we taking this?

    Next thing might be that some say: I’m trans-native american- therefore the tribe -the one I fee like it- should provide me with all the same benefits, or why not, I’m trans-veteran so I should get all the benefits of a guy that actually went to war and took a bullet for it, and I can modify my body to make it look like I have a bullet wound.

    Just wondering how far this trans fad will go.

    BTW for transgender I personally use IT, as they are chromosomally one thing but mentally another. I would welcome a new pronoun to refer to them, you know a trans-pronoun of the sorts ;)

    • Kasimir Urbanski

      I use the pronoun they would like me to use. That’s called basic courtesy.

    • Bill Primostaff

      I get that, basic courtesy, but why not come up with a new pronoun that would define them better, I believe that would be a nice gesture of inclusion in the language.

      I’m happy to have new words and have the language add new stuff that might be more useful than urban dictionary references. At least we can better know what they are when engaging in a conversation and avoid misunderstandings.

      He / She / It / New Pronoun

      I’m not the creative type, you guys can surely come up with something fancy.

    • Kasimir Urbanski

      But that’s not a ‘gesture of inclusion’ because most trans people WANT to be described by the gender they identify to. They don’t want to be an ‘it’, or to have some other special pronoun, they want to be referred to by the gender they feel they are. That’s the only ‘gesture of inclusion’ here.

    • Bill Primostaff

      I get that too but I’m trying to see how to fit them in a group of their own so they can have their own space in sports, bathrooms, etc… Just thinking about non transgender who might not WANT to have a transgender share their intimate spaces like gym showers, someone might feel vulnerable too on their side.

      Might be getting off topic and this could go on the other article about Caitlyn, on sports, where do transgender compete, would it be fair for a woman to compete against a hypothetical transgender SHE Usain Bolt in let’s say 100m dash.

      Now thinking, if we need to update the records on names, would updating the gender back to when Jenner set some records displace the female records of the time, do we need to resign the medals to the other competitor in female or male divisions? Do we apply changes from now forth?

      Same goes for Rachel I guess, fine you identify as black, then good, but don’t change the past, makes little change, accept you you were and that it might have driven you to be what you are identifying yourself with, cool with that, wanna be identified as a Wookiee, hell yeah, go for it, just don’t claim privileges from another group, like the trans-body folk.

      Just to clarify, I would not have any issue sharing spaces, I’m OK with mixed everything as long as it does not generate any discomfort or unfair advantage.

    • Kasimir Urbanski

      Feeling ‘discomfort’ is not the right standard here. The right standard here should be the regular rule of law.

      Let’s say a man comes into the men’s bathroom and does something inappropriate to another man there. What do we do?
      We prosecute him for the act.
      Let’s say a woman went into a woman’s bathroom and did something inappropriate to another woman? Same thing.

      So the whole ‘bathroom/locker-room/showers’ argument is nonsensical. It could be theoretically possible that a trans person (since they’re pretty much like anyone else in terms of the potential for good or bad behavior) might do something inappropriate in a bathroom. That’s what our current rules are for. We don’t need any other special protection.

      Feeling ‘grossed out’ is not a valid argument for denying someone the same rights as everyone else.

    • Bill Primostaff

      I agree here too, I’m asking the question that might be asked and that I may have asked myself too. Everyone has indeed potential for good or bad, still there are separate bathrooms for men and women, and it’s acceptable to go covered head to toes, but not naked.

      Sports and historical record are still something to figure out.

  • Montanaboyssareeasy

    Kasimir, do you think cultural appropriation has anything to do with this situation? I totally agree there are a good deal of similarities between these two instances, but there are certainly differences as well. I think appropriation may have a hand there. What do you think?

    • Kasimir Urbanski

      “Appropriation” usually involves a remaking of a cultural element for self-serving purposes. For example, the way certain New Agers take little snippets of Native American culture and religion, rip them completely out of context, add in a bunch of stuff that’s from other (western, or just made up) sources, and then call themselves “Shamans”. A white suburbanite with ‘spirit feathers’ and ‘incan moonstones’ and ‘crystal healing drum kits’ is not a shaman, much less a native american, and she’s guilty of cultural misappropriation.
      But that’s not what Rachel Dolezal was doing. She integrated so much into the culture of the race she identifies as that _none of her black colleagues could even realize_ that she wasn’t born black. She wasn’t just playing dressup, she spent years and years living in the culture and championing its cause through the NAACP.

      Anyways, if you look at what the old-school feminists use to say to trans women (and what some of the radfems still say!), they claim its ‘appropriation’ too.

    • Bill Primostaff

      Just trying to get and idea here of how this works, because if we go with the shaman principle, Rachel is more appropriate to call herself black, and Caitlyn is maybe doing a type of appropriation.

      Getting cosmetics and the feeling of female all her life, might just grasps a small amount / snippets of the experience of being female.

      Is the a defined percentage of how much one must transform oneself, know of the topic, experience the life, feel like?

    • kmansfield

      I think you have that backwards. Rachel is privileged and she chose to be black and then opportunistically took scholarships meant for a black person, who, by the way, can’t choose to be white. It’s fraud. She lied about her origins. And sadly, it was unnecessary.

      Caitlyn is not appropriating culture, she isn’t putting on a mask, she’s becoming more authentic.

    • Kasimir Urbanski

      Your account of the ‘scholarship’ incident are not really accurate: Dolezal applied for a scholarship based on art she made that was thematic of African American culture. She was accepted on that basis, and the administration of the (traditionally black) college realized after granting her the scholarship that she was (apparently) white; but in spite of being aware of this did not take back the scholarship, as there was actually no racial quota or condition attached to it.

      On the other hand, some of the things she did later may be definable as fraud.

    • JennyS

      Gender/Identity politics is all BS and you know it. It’s unscientific nonsense wrapped up in academic claptrap and the people trying to normalize mental health issues like transgenderism are in it for the money.

  • kmansfield

    It would be helpful if you distinguished between groups on “the left” or so-called progressives and various factions of feminists,
    There is no group called “the left” or “the progressives” and there’s no unified voice, so it’s no wonder you think they are Hypocrites.

    Second wave (Gloria Steinem, Greer) is gone and the only remnant are Rad fem Terfs, so this is a temporal confusion of yours.

    We are in third wave period of femism, and will grow and mature. Today it’s weak, fractured, and somewhat incoherent. The only gains today (Lilly Ledbetter) are by elite women for the elite women, I guess we could put Jenner here. She’s no hero like Chelsea Manning.
    We have only tokens like Hilary Clinton (and Barack Obama), their personal achievements of attaining power and riches don’t do any thing for the peons. for them it’s me, me, me.

    Some feminists– mostly rad fems, are known as Terfs (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist.) IMO rad fems are probably right wing.

    Comparing Dolezal with transgenders is problematic. There is biological sex but gender is in the mind. Dolezal can identify with blacks, and live within a black centered culture, marry a black man and have black kids.
    Portraying herself AS black and Indian, and fabricating her history is where this begins to slip off the rails.
    The problem i had sympathizing with her, is when I learned she was targeting blacks for behaving not-black-enough, and she claimed that Latinos don’t belong within the black lives matter movement (which is about economic class, justice and civic issues that we all should be concerned with). If it were just personal issues, then it’s no big deal, but she’s impersonating a generic black person for personal opportunism and causing harm in general.

    There are some infantile claims about appropriation of culture and there has been some push back within the left. As long as you respect the origins of the cultural tradition, don’t create a parody &/or commercialize an icon (Redskins, sambos restaurants, sanitize MLKs radicalism, etc) or claim it as your own (Israeli falafel, hummus), it’s fine. It’s also natural. We all do it.

    The problem is that there are opportunists (#GiveYourMoneyToWomen) within the identitarians, and they are the loudest (derisively called SJWs). They are also subject of some scorn and ridicule within the left. Some have said that socialism or talking about class is a conspiracy against them.

    Matt Bruenig is probably the best writer on leftish class and Identity insights.
    freddie deboer is smart and more raw http://fredrikdeboer.com/

    • Kasimir Urbanski

      I’m aware of the different branches of feminism: http://www.everyjoe.com/2015/01/27/politics/mens-studies-not-synonymous-with-history/#1

      I just couldn’t go into them here in any detail for length reasons.
      I don’t need to cover a whole blanket spectrum of “the left” to find hypocrisy: I pointed out specific cases of people who were defending the right of Caitlyn Jenner to define her identity while denying Rachel Dolezal the right to define hers.

      Again, there are MANY specifics of Dolezal’s actions which can most definitely be criticized, some of which may even be actionable in a legal sense, but that’s a different issue than the question of self-definition.

      As far as sex being biological; sure, to a certain extent. There’s a spectrum even there, at the strictly biological level. But “gender” is very much a social construct as is race. There’s not really such a thing, from a biological point of view as the “white race” or “black race” in the ways we define these things culturally. There’s more range of genetic difference within people generally considered ‘white’ than there is difference between them and people generally considered ‘black’.

    • kmansfield

      Can you point out the special elite in charge of the progressives?

    • Kasimir Urbanski

      The group of largely-College-based self-styled “intellectuals” that establish the buzz-words in the progressive movement. Most of them, ironically, very white and very middle-class.

    • Delphi

      If you think those persons speak for everyone, clearly you don’t even know what leftist ideology is.

    • Kasimir Urbanski

      And yet, there is very clearly a narrative, there are very clearly talking points, and the Dolezal case makes it very clear how pissed of the leftist media get when something ‘disrupts’ that narrative.

    • Delphi

      I insist. If the college liberals are the elite of the leftist movement, isn’t Bill O’Reilly and the Christian Whackos the elite of the Conservative movement? Please, do answer that question.

    • Kasimir Urbanski

      There are collectivists on the right as much as on the left. I would say that the collectivist-elites on the right would be the right-wing news-media. Witness how Fox News has gone out of its way to try to downplay Rand Paul’s campaign, and promote Jeb Bush, for example.

    • Kasimir Urbanski

      The difference is that the right has been on the losing side of the culture war for quite some time, whereas the college-leftist elites have been incredibly effective in the last few years in trying to control social media to impose their agenda, up to and including destroying lives and careers for daring to oppose their narrative (or even just for accidentally getting in the way of it).

    • Delphi

      Great! You said specifically that “The group of largely-College-based self-styled “intellectuals” that establish the buzz-words in the progressive movement. ” were the elite in charge of the progressive movement. Clearly, since you’re telling us that Mr Bill O Reilly and his whackos are NOT representatives of what Conservative Ideology is, just merly collectivists of the right, then we can conclude that college liberals are also NOT the representatives of the Progressive ideology, just merely collectivists of the left.

      If this is the case then, why do you attack progressive ideology by strawmaning it as if the left was represented by snob college liberals?

    • Kasimir Urbanski

      I think you misread me. The right (note: in the U.S.) is largely represented by fox-news idealogues, in that they are currently the ones setting the tone for the right; likewise, the college critical-theory postmodernists are setting the tone for the left. I only stated that the difference is that the left has (lately) been far more effective in having its whackos actually implement ideas that have a detrimental effect on society than the right’s whackos have with their dangerous ideas. We’re not at any risk of having Islam banned in America or of public policy come to reflect that rock and roll music is a tool of satan. We ARE under risk of having fast food banned (the poor? Let them buy Organic Produce at Whole Foods like the rest of us!), or of having genius scientists have their careers ruined because they wore the wrong shirt.

    • Delphi

      It’s like saying Bill O Reilly and the crazy christians is the elite of the conservative movement.

  • guest

    The Left wanted to tear down identity as part of their campaign of cultural Bolshevism. Why aren’t they enjoying their wallow in what they’ve created?

    Also, is this woman at all related to Navin R. Johnston?


  • Brian Boru

    Some feminists still hate trans people. See TERFs.

    • Kasimir Urbanski

      Yes, I did point that out. But it’s fair to say they’re in a minority, and a rapidly-aging one since they’re mostly the old 1960′s bra-burning variety.

  • josh

    So how does this end?

    Do leftists say that they were wrong, that race really is real; or do they accept Rachel Dolezal, maintaining that race is nothing more than a social construct?

    They will do neither. They will continue to assert that race is a social construct while simultaneously asserting that one cannot be trans black.


    The reason is that the left only says “race is a social construct” to deny white people white identity. They want to destroy white people and white culture.

    Blue pilled conservatives ought to realise this.

    • Kasimir Urbanski

      I’m sorry, but race absolutely IS a social construct. And I don’t see how that fact denies any sense of cultural identity, be it white, brown, black or miscellaneous.

    • guest

      There are a lot of things you don’t appear to see. How’s that cognitive dissonance treating you?

  • QA_NJ

    The Emperor’s New Clothes

    by Hans Christian Andersen

    Many years ago there was an Emperor so exceedingly fond of new clothes that he spent all his money on being well dressed. He cared nothing about reviewing his soldiers, going to the theatre, or going for a ride in his carriage, except to show off his new clothes. He had a coat for every hour of the day, and instead of saying, as one might, about any other ruler, “The King’s in council,” here they always said. “The Emperor’s in his dressing room.”

    In the great city where he lived, life was always gay. Every day many strangers came to town, and among them one day came two swindlers. They let it be known they were weavers, and they said they could weave the most magnificent fabrics imaginable. Not only were their colors and patterns uncommonly fine, but clothes made of this cloth had a wonderful way of becoming invisible to anyone who was unfit for his office, or who was unusually stupid.

    “Those would be just the clothes for me,” thought the Emperor. “If I wore them I would be able to discover which men in my empire are unfit for their posts. And I could tell the wise men from the fools. Yes, I certainly must get some of the stuff woven for me right away.” He paid the two swindlers a large sum of money to start work at once.

    They set up two looms and pretended to weave, though there was nothing on the looms. All the finest silk and the purest old thread which they demanded went into their traveling bags, while they worked the empty looms far into the night.

    “I’d like to know how those weavers are getting on with the cloth,” the Emperor thought, but he felt slightly uncomfortable when he remembered that those who were unfit for their position would not be able to see the fabric. It couldn’t have been that he doubted himself, yet he thought he’d rather send someone else to see how things were going. The whole town knew about the cloth’s peculiar power, and all were impatient to find out how stupid their neighbors were.

    “I’ll send my honest old minister to the weavers,” the Emperor decided. “He’ll be the best one to tell me how the material looks, for he’s a sensible man and no one does his duty better.”

    So the honest old minister went to the room where the two swindlers sat working away at their empty looms.

    “Heaven help me,” he thought as his eyes flew wide open, “I can’t see anything at all”. But he did not say so.

    Both the swindlers begged him to be so kind as to come near to approve the excellent pattern, the beautiful colors. They pointed to the empty looms, and the poor old minister stared as hard as he dared. He couldn’t see anything, because there was nothing to see. “Heaven have mercy,” he thought. “Can it be that I’m a fool? I’d have never guessed it, and not a soul must know. Am I unfit to be the minister? It would never do to let on that I can’t see the cloth.”

    “Don’t hesitate to tell us what you think of it,” said one of the weavers.

    “Oh, it’s beautiful -it’s enchanting.” The old minister peered through his spectacles. “Such a pattern, what colors!” I’ll be sure to tell the Emperor how delighted I am with it.”

    “We’re pleased to hear that,” the swindlers said. They proceeded to name all the colors and to explain the intricate pattern. The old minister paid the closest attention, so that he could tell it all to the Emperor. And so he did.

    The swindlers at once asked for more money, more silk and gold thread, to get on with the weaving. But it all went into their pockets. Not a thread went into the looms, though they worked at their weaving as hard as ever.

    The Emperor presently sent another trustworthy official to see how the work progressed and how soon it would be ready. The same thing happened to him that had happened to the minister. He looked and he looked, but as there was nothing to see in the looms he couldn’t see anything.

    “Isn’t it a beautiful piece of goods?” the swindlers asked him, as they displayed and described their imaginary pattern.

    “I know I’m not stupid,” the man thought, “so it must be that I’m unworthy of my good office. That’s strange. I mustn’t let anyone find it out, though.” So he praised the material he did not see. He declared he was delighted with the beautiful colors and the exquisite pattern. To the Emperor he said, “It held me spellbound.”

    All the town was talking of this splendid cloth, and the Emperor wanted to see it for himself while it was still in the looms. Attended by a band of chosen men, among whom were his two old trusted officials-the ones who had been to the weavers-he set out to see the two swindlers. He found them weaving with might and main, but without a thread in their looms.

    “Magnificent,” said the two officials already duped. “Just look, Your Majesty, what colors! What a design!” They pointed to the empty looms, each supposing that the others could see the stuff.

    “What’s this?” thought the Emperor. “I can’t see anything. This is terrible!

    Am I a fool? Am I unfit to be the Emperor? What a thing to happen to me of all people! – Oh! It’s very pretty,” he said. “It has my highest approval.” And he nodded approbation at the empty loom. Nothing could make him say that he couldn’t see anything.

    His whole retinue stared and stared. One saw no more than another, but they all joined the Emperor in exclaiming, “Oh! It’s very pretty,” and they advised him to wear clothes made of this wonderful cloth especially for the great procession he was soon to lead. “Magnificent! Excellent! Unsurpassed!” were bandied from mouth to mouth, and everyone did his best to seem well pleased. The Emperor gave each of the swindlers a cross to wear in his buttonhole, and the title of “Sir Weaver.”

    Before the procession the swindlers sat up all night and burned more than six candles, to show how busy they were finishing the Emperor’s new clothes. They pretended to take the cloth off the loom. They made cuts in the air with huge scissors. And at last they said, “Now the Emperor’s new clothes are ready for him.”

    Then the Emperor himself came with his noblest noblemen, and the swindlers each raised an arm as if they were holding something. They said, “These are the trousers, here’s the coat, and this is the mantle,” naming each garment. “All of them are as light as a spider web. One would almost think he had nothing on, but that’s what makes them so fine.”

    “Exactly,” all the noblemen agreed, though they could see nothing, for there was nothing to see.

    “If Your Imperial Majesty will condescend to take your clothes off,” said the swindlers, “we will help you on with your new ones here in front of the long mirror.”

    The Emperor undressed, and the swindlers pretended to put his new clothes on him, one garment after another. They took him around the waist and seemed to be fastening something – that was his train-as the Emperor turned round and round before the looking glass.

    “How well Your Majesty’s new clothes look. Aren’t they becoming!” He heard on all sides, “That pattern, so perfect! Those colors, so suitable! It is a magnificent outfit.”

    Then the minister of public processions announced: “Your Majesty’s canopy is waiting outside.”

    “Well, I’m supposed to be ready,” the Emperor said, and turned again for one last look in the mirror. “It is a remarkable fit, isn’t it?” He seemed to regard his costume with the greatest interest.

    The noblemen who were to carry his train stooped low and reached for the floor as if they were picking up his mantle. Then they pretended to lift and hold it high. They didn’t dare admit they had nothing to hold.

    So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the streets and the windows said, “Oh, how fine are the Emperor’s new clothes! Don’t they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!” Nobody would confess that he couldn’t see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success.

    “But he hasn’t got anything on,” a little child said.

    “Did you ever hear such innocent prattle?” said its father. And one person whispered to another what the child had said, “He hasn’t anything on. A child says he hasn’t anything on.”

    “But he hasn’t got anything on!” the whole town cried out at last.

    The Emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right. But he thought, “This procession has got to go on.” So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn’t there at all.

    (From: http://www.andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/TheEmperorsNewClothes_e.html )

  • Jefferson

    This is the first coherent and non-hypocritical assessment that I’ve read on this issue and has really helped me to make up my mind. Thank you.

    • Kasimir Urbanski

      Thanks! Please reshare the article if you found it useful.

  • Bordeaux Vixen

    anybody read black like me?

  • #GermaGerd

    One might argue that feminism never been much more than a thinly veiled hate movement, so no big surprises there.

Be Sociable, Share!