Cartofeminism

#1
The war to make Tarot the domain of women.

This ideaological-marketing campaign described in that article has been largely successful in crafting modern Tarot, now dominated by and for women.

This is one of the reasons the demographics at the largest Tarot forum are overwhelmingly female, and specifically older, "white", female. This is the same story at the largest Tarot website, and the same story at the largest owner and peddler of Tarot decks.

The demographics, regarding gender anyway, are quite similar to those of Oprah.com, the chief exception being that Oprah's audience is substantially older, wealthier, and can afford to go to Dr. Phil, instead of to a fortuneteller, or the same dressed up as a shrink with a pack of Tarot cards.

The true history of Tarot is not just the story of where and why things began, but also the story of how they are ending up, today, and tomorrow.

Yet, in "A History of The Occult Tarot, 1870-1970", the authors dismiss the notion that history now or lately is worth any examination at all, because they would have to look "at a great deal of detail", or in other words examine a lot of Tarot history they don't care anything about. Also, to have done any examination of the last 30 years, or 40 now, would have potentially exposed a lot of living subjects, instead of defenselessly dead ones, to some Dummett-Decker derision. And that, among other problems, might have made the "Acknowledgments" section of their book seem a little insincere, to say the least. Instead, they imperiously declared the story of occult Tarot, which in their view is non-gaming Tarot, as "quite complete".

Convenient. Also dead wrong. Just because historians are too lethargic or worried about ruffling feathers to do some more work, doesn't necessarily mean the story is done being told.

(jk)

Re: Cartofeminism

#2
Well ... it's even worse ...

Already in 15th century there was Cartofeminism of high degree ... at least at the high courts. Occasionally (documented Savoy 1430) it was prohibited to men to play with cards, only allowed, when they played with women. Men were advised to stay humble, playing chess or tennis, going hunting, making knight tournaments, having simple and cheap amusement with a handful of colored papers weren't their domain.
One of the first persons, which got some character by giving playing card commissions, was Parisina Malatesta, 3x she is mentioned in playing card documents. This didn't go well and she was killed by her husband. Many playing card pictures from 15th century show mostly at least one woman.

Our researches did lead to the insight, that the first of these worthful decks, which later are said to have been Tarot decks were just made for these clients, young girls in the age of 13-16, in the eyes of the time the ideal age to form a new marrriage. Indeed it seems, that the cards had an erotical function, they were used to stimulate amourous ideas in the wedding night - one has to calculate, that the couples even didn't know each other, usually only by a picture. So the cards had their function, this and surely the consumation of some alcohol made it possible, that new wonderful heirs of wonderful kingdoms, dukedoms etc. found a way into the world. This didn't work in the case of Bianca Maria Sforza and Emperor Maximilian, but we've an report of this activity with playing cards in 1494. We have no report in the case of Bianca Maria Visconti, but in this case it worked better, Sforza got many childrens from her.

So, assuming, that there is revolutionary cartofeministic underground movement which wishes to set its feet in a masculine universe ... no, playing cards were already a female domain.
The simple reason: chess was too difficult for women. If you doubt, visit a chess club and you'll find many men. As an alternative research: visit a bridge club and you'll probably find more women.

The 14th century was dominated by chess and still the 15th century. But ... as it is frustrating between partners in marriage and life, that in games always one side is winning, the less serious playing card games with a higher factor of luck could balance the injustice, that constantly men had more time to play games (and therefore are trained to play them better) in comparition to women, which had to spend their time to give birth to children, for cooking etc., just for the more serious things.

As a clear sign, we have it, that in Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo and Cary-Yale the triumphant chariot was driven by a female, which was changed later - then the figure was usually a man.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Cartofeminism

#3
Huck wrote: ... no, playing cards were already a female domain.
The simple reason: chess was too difficult for women. If you doubt, visit a chess club and you'll find many men. As an alternative research: visit a bridge club and you'll probably find more women.
LOL.

I doubt that "difficulty" is the issue as much as preference, perhaps cards are simply more fun? I certainly think they are. Chess uses a war metaphor; tarot is much more charming.
The Tarot will lose all its vitality for one who allows himself to be side-tracked by its pedantry. - Aleister Crowley

Re: Cartofeminism

#4
Tarotica wrote:The war to make Tarot the domain of women.

The true history of Tarot is not just the story of where and why things began, but also the story of how they are ending up, today, and tomorrow.

Yet, in "A History of The Occult Tarot, 1870-1970", the authors dismiss the notion that history now or lately is worth any examination at all, because they would have to look "at a great deal of detail", or in other words examine a lot of Tarot history they don't care anything about. Also, to have done any examination of the last 30 years, or 40 now, would have potentially exposed a lot of living subjects, instead of defenselessly dead ones, to some Dummett-Decker derision. And that, among other problems, might have made the "Acknowledgments" section of their book seem a little insincere, to say the least. Instead, they imperiously declared the story of occult Tarot, which in their view is non-gaming Tarot, as "quite complete".

Convenient. Also dead wrong. Just because historians are too lethargic or worried about ruffling feathers to do some more work, doesn't necessarily mean the story is done being told.

(jk)
I appreciate your interest in this topic and I think your engagement worthful. ... your methodes I'll not really discuss ... :-)

For myself, I even hesitate to leave 14th/15th century and even carefully avoid to get too much to do with the 16th. Dummett, Decker and Depaulis were in this topic more courageous than me .... :-) ...

For the cartofeministic view on 15th century Dummett, Decker and Depaulis were captured by a blind spot, I would assume, they simply didn't realize the obvious.

For the modern development: the specific modern Cartofeminism seems to be an US-American phenomenon ... so it's a topic for somebody, who is living in the US with enough opportunity to observe it. Naturally we have this form also in Germany (a greater part of the interested people are women, no doubt) , but I've difficulties to take it serious. Thanks to missing Tarot literature in German language about Tarot history even the basic information is missing by those, who have some enthusiasm in the general topic Tarot ... so it's a general sad situation.
Even the recently passed away star author of German Tarot literature Hajo Banzhaf was weak in his aspect, so in his many book projects he simply hadn't to tell too much, as far these aspects are concerned. In his dominating role he might have done something about it, but he missed the opportunity, as far I can judge it.

In slow movements I occasionally engage to tell a little bit in German Tarot forums, the people react often positive, but it's generally too far off for them. Often they are not used to read in English, so a hint to links on Trionfi.com doesn't really help.

... :-) ... so in the international observation of this conflict Greer/Karlin it presents a rare highlight, as I would assume, that the Tarot history in other countries (Italy, perhaps also France, might be an exception) is similar dead as in Germany, as far as serious Tarot history (including the ability to see the modern development as a form of Tarot history) is considered.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Cartofeminism

#5
I'm with you Huck. :-bd

I'm just not terribly interested in modern tarot, and have little interest in exploring anything after the Golden Dawn became involved. The lastest deck I've found myself really interested in is the Vachetta in 1893. I don't even own a Waite-Smith. Although, I am interested in some of the oracle decks, but again, mostly historical.

God knows though that there is a lot of slop out in the market these days, and it seems that publishers will jump on any trend to make a buck (um, I mean, address the needs of their audiences). I just throw Waite and Crowley in with the rest of the modern decks and happily leave it to others to explore the worthiness of their contributions.

That said, if anyone is interested in the new deck that I'm working on, The Tarot of the Angelic Vampire Pirate Cats, I'll start a new sign up sheet for pre-orders!
cat.jpg
The Tarot will lose all its vitality for one who allows himself to be side-tracked by its pedantry. - Aleister Crowley

Re: Cartofeminism

#6
I got tons of peace of mind when I realized that the vast majority of what we would define as ‘the tarot world’ is composed by costumers. Those are not historians, nor semiologists, nor researchers, nor even tarot readers but ‘users’, this is, people who what to read the tarot for themselves. They aren’t really interested in the tarot but in cartomantic gossiping. They get a deck and learn the basics, so they can read for themselves almost daily without having to pay anybody for readings. Most of them never read for others, only for themselves, and most of their public discussions are about the fears, anxieties and joys of their personal experience while reading the cards. Obviously, there is nothing inherently bad in that, but it is important to keep it in mind so one doesn’t gets discouraged at the lack of interesting interlocutors.

I have never had an interest of the tarot’s contemporary history because I see it as a accumulation of nonsense fostered by a couple of publishers, all of it inscribed within the new age market, which I consider aesthetically and conceptually bland. But I do believe that taking into account these things Tarotica is pointing out is relevant to understand why is that there is such a little market for tarot history. These days the tarot is a political space conquered by feminism and neo-paganism agendas. Anything historians may uncover that goes against that will have very low ‘ratings’.


Best,


EE
What’s honeymoon salad? Lettuce alone
Don’t look now, mayonnaise is dressing!

Re: Cartofeminism

#7
Well,
I think, that the following is a true observation about modern Tarot history ... although not too much refering to cartofeminism.

Undoubtly the internet took its start in US America ... this happened in a period, when in America the topic of Tarot was still of larger interest, which is confirmed by the integration of Tarot symbols in contemporary movies. As the internet developed to other countries, naturally the first in these countries had a strong interest in English webpages (as the web in the own mother language usually didn't offer too much material).
By this logic, anything which was en vogue in the 90's in US America had good chances to become popular in other countries later. It seems, that Tarot belonged to the favoured topics - just by the common historical conditions of Internet. So we have now stronger Tarot developments in Russia, Japan, Phillipines, India etc., countries, from which it may be assumed, that before 1995 there were not too much.
Although this effect is running out (now with enough pages in the mother languages), partly it reappears in countries, which found late to Internet (for instance islamic countries). Well, the time of English dominance isn't totally gone in Internet, but the conditions have changed.
It's just my impression, I don't know .. the usual American with Tarot interest isn't very young usually? Is this a correct observation?
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Cartofeminism

#8
EnriqueEnriquez wrote: I have never had an interest of the tarot’s contemporary history because I see it as a accumulation of nonsense fostered by a couple of publishers, all of it inscribed within the new age market, which I consider aesthetically and conceptually bland. But I do believe that taking into account these things Tarotica is pointing out is relevant to understand why is that there is such a little market for tarot history. These days the tarot is a political space conquered by feminism and neo-paganism agendas. Anything historians may uncover that goes against that will have very low ‘ratings’.
Ironically, I'm noticing a growing desire for more Christian iconography in the tarot! I'd also say that the level of knowledge of tarot history is improving, and there are more people discussing tarot history in terms of actual history rather than mythology.
The Tarot will lose all its vitality for one who allows himself to be side-tracked by its pedantry. - Aleister Crowley

Re: Cartofeminism

#9
Huck said;
"So, assuming, that there is revolutionary cartofeministic underground movement which wishes to set its feet in a masculine universe ... no, playing cards were already a female domain.
The simple reason: chess was too difficult for women. If you doubt, visit a chess club and you'll find many men. As an alternative research: visit a bridge club and you'll probably find more women."

:-?

:-q


Right, and there is a scientific basis for the notion that women are intellectually inferior to men. It's always good to know where one stands in the eyes of others. Got it.
"...he wanted to illustrate with his figures many Moral teachings, and under some difficulty, to bite into bad and dangerous customs, & show how today many Actions are done without goodness and honesty, and are accomplished in ways that are contrary to duty and rightfulness."

Re: Cartofeminism

#10
prudence wrote: Right, and there is a scientific basis for the notion that women are intellectually inferior to men. It's always good to know where one stands in the eyes of others. Got it.
... :-) ... there is evidence by the Hungarian Judit Polgar and the Chess teaching concept of her father, that there is no essential boundary which make women to worse chess players. It's more the summary of many social influences.

Judit Polgár (born July 23, 1976) is a Hungarian chess grandmaster. She is by far the strongest female chess player in history.[1] In 1991, she achieved the title of Grandmaster (GM) at the age of 15 years and 4 months. She was, at that time, the youngest person ever to do so. Polgár is ranked number 46 in the world on the September 2009 FIDE rating list with an Elo rating of 2687, the only woman on FIDE's Top 100 Players list, and has been ranked as high as number eight.
.. .-) ... women are also rare between the hardcore Tarot historians. It's just an observation, nothing personal. If it would be different, I would observe something different.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests

cron