... to wonder if these pictures are offensive?

[MrsPeacockInTheLibrary]

There were shared by an artist on a Facebook group. I think they seem offensive in some sense - but then I have also been told I am too sensitive and overthink everything. I also wonder if the original intention of the author matters, or the geographical origin of the pictures in relation to what is the style of humour captured.

I am trying to be more aware of when to "get over myself" so I would be interested to see what others think.

YABU - they are not offensive at all
YANBU - I can see what you mean

They're not particularly aesthetically-beautifully done, but I think that's the point, isn't it? To reflect the reality of the time rather than to make everything look chocolate-box pretty?

I'd say they're much closer to the Lucie Atwell end of the spectrum than the Donald McGill end. It's very easy to portray happy, cute and beautiful and in so doing completely miss the reality of what you're trying to depict. In the same way as Enid Blyton's characters led such charmed lives of adventure and prosperity whilst the working-class live-in staff who enabled them were ignored but for the most cursory of mentions, and even those only insofar as they related to the important rich people. There was never a chapter about Sarah the cook or the apparently nameless Governess - apparently, their lives and feelings didn't matter at all as they were just servants and not actual people.

They're naff but not sure they're offensive. They look like old seaside postcards. I can't imagine why anyone with buy this sort of thing.

@TARSCOUT

The artist was trying to captures memories his childhood in a mining village. If my GG was alive (apart from the fact she never smoked), they'd probably remind her of the 'good old days'. The only one in the series I don't like is Pinnie Hinnies Nettie but apart from that they are absolutely harmless and totally unoffensive. I am most interested in why you picked those four to portray the series and not, for example the coal images which, should you wish to be fair in asking for opinions, truly encapsulated life as it was. Nothing wrong with memories and that was life for the majority of people, it shouldn't be swept under the carpet never to be seen again and indeed the strength and tenaciousness of these women really should be celebrated.

There is an unexciting answer to that question I am afraid - my basic computer skills. The artist posted those four together like that in this Facebook tourism/ travelling group I am part of. I screen captured them like that using the scissors tool. The artist posted those four images, not me.

I only discovered the link afterwards and I suppose I wanted people to see them as I had with no wider information first.

My first impression was that the artist enjoyed painting the woman very much
It's certainly not a depiction of her from a child's perspective!

I can see why the pictures made you uncomfortable OP.

To clarify: he chose those four images as a post to advertise his work along with the blurb I have posted. That was under a tab as was the link to his website.

The juxtaposition of the sexualised woman in a pretty depressing lifestyle seems very wrong.

I think they are offensive. The woman has large breasts and very prominent nipples, and is shown in quite a "degrading" way. Dirty , untidy, doing menial jobs... especially the one where she is walking while the man sits on the cart resting.

There is something quite unpleasant going on here.

Looks rather like what I used to see as a child, and yes we did have the bath in front of the fire shared by me and my sis!.

A lot of the women around had their hair rolled up in a scarf and the fag on the go my dear old mum used to look like that!

And all that cleaning out the coal fire and the man on the flat cart with the horse delivering the coal, then he got a lorry..

They're bloody awful, but I'm not offended by them.

However they didnt have to fart on the fire to make it go! that was done by holding a newspaper over it to make it draw!

Not my taste, but only because they're "common" (!)

You could always report them for having naked children in if you're bothered!

He's an older man who's sexualising women in a slightly slutty style and apparently, from what I can see, always in menial or traditional women's roles (cleaning, child-care and so on). There's a sub-text, surely, about the blonde woman who is most often portrayed as being sexually available, hence all the kids. There's a lot of concentration on breasts and hips and legs and curviness, a sort of MILFy kinkiness about it. One might suspect the artist has a bit of a thing about stockings and suspenders.

As a woman I'm repelled because it offers the main character no dignity or respect. She's pictured as a joke and literally as a scrubber in a couple of the pictures. Under the humour (or what I suppose is intended to be humour) there's something unpleasant.

They're ridiculous! I grew up with women in the family who wore those kinds of pinnies and there's absolutely no way you'd have had nipples like that. Those pinnies were made of tidy thickness cotton worn over sturdy playtex cross your heart bras and a decent top.
The artist is clearly painting what he'd like to have seen rather than from life.

Looking through them again I have just realised why the last one is called kit wash day - I suppose the woman's kit is the pink bra and pants. Did not pay much attention to the titles the first time.

Exactly what Shedbuilder said - they have put it much better than me.

She's not farting Justaboy, she's warming her bottom.

I think what you're getting at OP is that you find them old fashioned and distasteful - personally I have no issue with them. They're kitsch and playful. The representation of North East working class women as big breasted and voluptuous resonates with me as all the women on the maternal side of the family are built this way (I sadly, am not). I doubt the women these illustrations are meant to represent would be offended by them.

@Shedbuilder

He's an older man who's sexualising women in a slightly slutty style and apparently, from what I can see, always in menial or traditional women's roles (cleaning, child-care and so on). There's a sub-text, surely, about the blonde woman who is most often portrayed as being sexually available, hence all the kids. There's a lot of concentration on breasts and hips and legs and curviness, a sort of MILFy kinkiness about it. One might suspect the artist has a bit of a thing about stockings and suspenders.

As a woman I'm repelled because it offers the main character no dignity or respect. She's pictured as a joke and literally as a scrubber in a couple of the pictures. Under the humour (or what I suppose is intended to be humour) there's something unpleasant.

Thank you! That is really well-articulated and I agree with a lot of it - the role of the male gaze and how these women's bodies are rendered. He has other artwork on his site, though I haven't really looked at it.

I think the portrayal of the women is fairly offensive myself.

You seem to have the answer you hankered after now OP.

I really don't see where you and others are coming from OP. They are essentially still shots in time, now this may been seen as a stereotypical view of women, but the time and the women he is trying to capture, they are relatively acurate.
I don't find the offensive, I do find them interesting though, almost like a window to the past.

makes me a little sad and nostalgic all at once Yes, me too. They tug at a little part memory in the back of my brain that I thought I'd forgotten about. My granny warming her bum against the fire. Me and my sister in the bathtub in front of the fire on a Sunday night. Women in headscarves once they passed a certain age, making them almost invisible.

Those could be scenes from my childhood; every one of them familiar. I dont find that at all offensive.

@Samtsirch

You seem to have the answer you hankered after now OP.

No - I am genuinely sorry if I have given that impression. Old me would not even have asked if they were offensive. I would have genuinely posted on here or similar straight to 10 on the scale of offended - Look how awful these are! How dare he! etc

I realised that offended is too strong a word - and that there is a context and other people find the pictures humorous/ no problem with them.

I do find the pictures somewhat distasteful in how they seem to sexualise women and how their bodies are portrayed. But there have also been plenty of posts on here that have shared other views and about the world depicted in them. I have perhaps focused too much on certain posts as I am trying to find better ways to articulate my thoughts about something - and there are many excellent examples of that here.

TLDR: I am learning!

Child care isn’t menial@Shedbuilder, it’s one of the most important things someone can do.
Sluttish means untidy or messy, so a sluttish cleaner is an oxymoron.
Women have breasts and hips.
They also sometimes have noticeable nipples.
How would you know how the main character is feeling.
Interesting that you assume the main character is the woman you describe in such poetic terms.

Was expecting to think meh about this...

But actually looking at them, the pictures are wrong? An overburdened housewife looking a bit scruffy and tired, but with bouncing breasts and huge nipples... it’s a bit weird.

Our area had a lot of ladies like PP describe and they’d never have looked like this. What it reminds me of is a scummy man that used to say he went for the older housewives cos they were desperate, the haggier the better (his words! Sick). Like sexualising tired women? Shedbuilder is spot on!