Robot 6

Rees & Kupperman comic ‘too sensitive’ for New York Times?

see-something-cropped

“See Something, Say Something,” the biweekly comic by David Rees and Michael Kupperman, was missing Sunday from The New York Times’ Week in Review because, Kupperman says, editors deemed its subject matter “too sensitive.”

The strip, titled “Testosterone Entitlement Theatre Presents the Man Babies in ‘Hashtag Harassment,’” addresses specifically critics of the recent “#YesAllWomen” Twitter hashtag, and more broadly male entitlement.

“I disagree very strongly with that decision, because I feel David was making a point that deserves to be made,” Kupperman wrote on his blog, under the headline “The Comic Not Fit to Print. “So I went ahead and completed the script as written; here it is, see for yourselves.”

Rees (Get Your War On) and Kupperman (Tales Designed to Thrizzle) debuted their Week in Review comic in January.

see something say something

(via Death and Taxes)

News From Our Partners

Comments

11 Comments

Is this supposed to be clever? It looks ugly, and is just so ham fisted, it’s like something a 12 year old would do, and think it’d be seen as edgy.

Maybe the editors were being nice, blaming the subject rather than the script/art because this comic just sucks. Though the point that it is making is a very important issue to be addressed… but this is just dumb.

Hilarious! And very appropriate…

Lolololol the most truthful comic I’ve read all year

That comic doesn’t coincide with my extremely refined aesthetic sensibilities so I’m just gonna ionore it’s message and write mean shit about it on the internet because I’m a well-adjusted and open-minded individual with profound things to say. What inferiority complex?

It looks like it was done on Paint in a single afternoon. Yes men are entitled and are hating on #yesallwomen and acting like children, doesn’t stop the comic from being crap.

Well, except for a very few restricted subjects, like child custody, where they might have a legitimate grievance, this comic describes masculinists perfectly.

It’s hard not to think of big babies when guys whine on the Internet because someone dared say unfavorable things about the 357 variant Playboy covers at DC comics. (“Everything is allowed nowadays, except for guys to have the chance to look at some hot women!” Cries the persecuted guy who has only 357 variant “hot” DC covers to choose from, my heart goes to him!).

The extreme selfishness ot those guys seems impossible, except in 2-year olds.

Wow, you must be on some next-level art appreciation shit, Drew, because I always thought that art can’t be empirically crap. It can only just not work for some people. Show’s what I know.

I’m sure there are people out there who find the Fantastic Four movies, for example, to be a hella good time. Just because you don’t like something doesn’t make it “crap”. You can say “Wow, that strip really doesn’t do it for me. I think it looks like crap” but you can’t say ‘this strip is empirically and inherently ugly in perpetuity throughout all known universes forever and ever”. Why? Well because: a) beauty is in the eye of the beholder and b) even though you may be the living embodiment of crappiness, that hardly makes you the ultimate arbiter of it.

Do you take this much offense every time someone states opinion as fact?

It’s still a draft. These are professionals with a high quality track record…Rees & Kupperman are what we call Professional Cartoonists. This is simply a case of great work, being to right on point for editorial to take a risk on. For fear of upsetting the status quo. This is what our society has come too. The fearful controlling the purse and the bullhorn.

I have to agree, this is a very valid, on-target critique that is unfortunately let down by some rather lackluster artwork.

Leave a Comment

 


Browse the Robot 6 Archives