Just goes to show you I am not the only one who has muttered, “I’m going to kill that man.” Women have been thinking about killing their men or any man for centuries and leave it to the great artists in Western history to bring that reality to life. Seriously, the captions to these paintings in Gleeful Mobs of Women Murdering Men in Western Art History on the toast.net are the best part, unless you really do get off on cathartic dramatic renderings of raging women tearing men to pieces. Have a laugh and maybe pick up on technique 😉
In the gaze of the other 
In the name of fairness I eagerly anticipate tomorrow’s post by Gaze depicting similar paintings of scorned men tearing women apart.
Read the news daily for that, MPM.
(SMH) I would have thought Gaze was above such dismissive, derisive, condescending, cynical, and snarky sarcasm.
(In fairness though I do admit that my original comment is guilty of all of the above.)
However, given that all the great paintings shown were, ironically, painted by men, in my opinion it is nonetheless deplorable and reprehensible for Mallory Ortberg and Gaze to publish posts that seemingly portray a humorous, nudge-nudge, “You go, girl!” attitude about ANYONE brutally murdering ANYONE. And for Gaze to suggest even humorously that readers, “Have a laugh and maybe pick up on technique ;)” is nothing less than shocking, in my opinion, even if Gaze is referring to the captions as, “the best part”. As Gaze reminds us in her reply to my earlier comment, we read stories and see images daily that inform us of another brutal and senseless killing of someone against someone. What does it matter whether it is a story about a scorned woman OR man killing someone of the opposite gender in the name of righteous revenge for a lover’s deceit? Hasn’t murder been a crime for thousands of years regardless of a perpetrator’s rationalization postured as defense? What if these images were photographs capturing the depicted moments in the act of commission instead of paintings by renowned masters? Would they still be regarded as great works of art? If so, could we extend that to mean that paintings of Jeffery Dahmer eating one of his victims, or of Charles Manson slashing open the belly of a pregnant Sharon Tate, or of Aileen Wuornos carving up one of her johns would be considered great art? Are Ortberg and Gaze really suggesting that an image depicting a brutal and heinous act is legitimate fodder for snide humor because it is a painting and not a photograph?
Jesus Christ. I hope not. I would have been dead a long time ago.
Perhaps, MPM, you might look more closely at the humor in my write up as well as the author reviewing the paintings as ironic, a meaning opposite to the usual expectations. That’s irony. When someone suggests the opposite of what is expected, knowing that most will understand the humor as that which is not serious, it is ironic. You, who have been a devoted follower of my writings on this blog, surely understand the sarcasm and wry sense of humor embuing my work.
But wait, you’re being ironic, right? If serious, you missed the humor and will have to trust that neither I nor the art reviewer is serious.
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
You see?? This is what I’m talking about. This is what happens when you let women out of kitchens and bedrooms and allow them to vote and drive. Sheesh! Okay, you’ve had yer fun. Now get back in dere and make the bed, do the dishes and scrub the floors. Oh, and while yer in dere make me a samich and bring me a beer.
Yes, strange yet amusing as well as somewhat enlightening about historical viewpoints of male artists rendering female murder or mayhem against men. Are these empathic or fearful perspectives or neither or both and more?