Was R. Crumb’s Rejected New Yorker Cover Transphobic Or Just Classic Crumb?
THE SHOT - R. Crumb’s proposed cover for the June 2009 issue of The New Yorker, rejected by editor David Remnick (presumably for the gender inspection sign, though Crumb says that Remnick never offered him any explanation). Gawker’s Seth Abramovitch points out:
“…millions of gays and lesbians who would have undoubtedly felt marginalized and stereotyped by the depiction. On the other hand, you need to put the illustration in the context of the illustrator: Crumb’s entire career was built on his hypersexualized images of hulking women with lumberjack legs and the scrawny she-men who fawn over them. The picture was celebrating gender-defiance, not mocking it.”
Though the illustration has a definite transgressive quality, we know men and women who look like all three of the people pictured—life imitates art imitates life?
@Giovannidude: You call it transphobic without the context of familiarizing yourself with the Crumb’s previous work.
· Flag
If you’ve done R.Crumb and done The New Yorker, you can only laugh at Crumb’s audacity for offering this splendid take on social norms. I find it baffling that the New Yorker wouldn’t leap at an ironic opportunity like this. Nothing transphobic here unless you’re totally paranoid.
· Flag
No. 9 – transgendered people care about transphobia, as do the cisgendered people who consider transgendered people amongst the folk they love.
Anyway, it could be transphobic, but as others have said, considering Crumb’s love of the larger lass, it isn’t necessarily.
· Flag
The cartoon is a provocative criticism at traditional marriage laws, but it doesn’t surprise me that Queerty would consider it having a 50/50 shot at being transphobic. Thanks for being consistent Queerty!