Re: Cartofeminism

#11
When I was about 10, my sister (who is a few years older than me) bought a pocket chess set, and we both learned to play. We were quite well matched - she was a bit older, and maybe a bit stronger. But I became quite obsessed, and she lost interest. I don't think that it was too difficult for her - I think that she couldn't see the point. I became a reasonable amateur, and played regularly at one time. Winning gave me a buzz - I wasn't too hot at sports, but I was quite good at this. It is true - there still are a lot more male than female chess players in the top rank. I suspect that is largely because men are more competitive.

A long chess combination can be extraordinarily beautiful, but in the end I lost interest because I felt uneasy about devoting large amounts of time to a game, and if I did play, I wanted to play well. It is an activity that can easily become obsessive. I have heard Bobby Fischer described as 'the ego crusher' in comparisons of players' styles. I think that fewer women than men get off on crushing egos.

Re: Cartofeminism

#12
There are some big holes in this thread.
How about some stats?
Here are some informal ones about card playing as a game/dicing and board games. I of course take that Tarot card playing is in there. There is the Historical questions on who had the cards -not those exclusive handpainted ones, but the everyday Tavern ones. Lots of things in there- who could make money from cards and why, who had money to lose at gambling, who was the bread winner and what has changed today. The article on Cartofeminism seems to have a personal agenda and lacks actual statistics- which for all you nit picking historians out there seems to be lacking in substance of actual facts or proof.

The most common reasons for playing cards/playing board games/playing with dice
Entertainment or fun (72%)
Win money (67%)
Socialize (37%)
Excitement or challenge (35%)

Men were somewhat more likely than women to play cards for the excitement or challenge.
More men play cards after retirement than before retirement
More Men gamble at cards than Women.
Moral reasons for not gambling were also named by one-third to one-half of nongamblers who are 75 percent more likely to be women.(with cards).

This is clearly a different outcome when considering using cards for 'reading' than 'playing'.
When considering reading cards the statistics have a totally different slant and other ideas come into the question/stats. The social history becomes far more important. Where is the articles social history stats?

Basing ones argument on the largest web forum as an example is flawed, as is the largest card producers etc.
One of the best arguments for women reading- is that it is a small industry that can be home based, and there is more time available, though this is an increasingly a fading statistic.

It is a very broad brush that has been used in this discussion. :-w

I have no feminist agenda and I am pretty typical.
I play cards for leisure, I gamble for fun, I read cards because it interests me- you do not know whether I am male or female because this is the web... I learned Chess as part of my education, just as I learned Bridge- all taught to me by men who had the time. I learned Tarot by myself as there was not the web, precious few books and personal contact with people who followed Crowley/Waite or any Temple-ites who dressed up as Magicians etc and had rituals. I realise that in card collecting- there is a very strong commercial component- and that drives the drivel- as it does in all spheres of commercial activity- so what? I can enjoy and participate in the drivel if I wish.
This, without facts is in fact a spurious discussion, slanted towards having a go rather than education.... (-|
but that is OK - there is some humour in parts which makes me giggle.
~Lorredan
The Universe is full of magical things patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper.
Eden Phillpotts

Re: Cartofeminism

#13
I've set some lemonade on the sidetable. Lemonade is a famous tonic for reducing the heat; and it is delightful because it compliments and reduces the bitterness by adding just the right amount of sugar.

Image

Re: Cartofeminism

#14
robert wrote: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.

Actually, I agree.

In a sense, sound historical ideas are becoming more mainstream because the Internet is a common source of information for many, but there is still a lack of validation in print. I don’t know if ‘desire’ is a word I would use, but there is at least an acknowledgement of the plausibility of the tarot images having a late-medieval European origin/content. In response to Huck’s question, I see ‘new’ or younger people approaching the tarot without carrying any pre-conception or old agenda. They tend to be more open to actual history. But still, divination suffers the same problem secular magic does: its aesthetics belong to the 19th Century, at best. We still think of a diviners as an old lady in robes, surrounded by the kind of stuff you would find on a 19th Century’s French parlor. Most professional readers play that stereotype, reinforcing the idea of readings, and the tarot, as a dated phenomena pertaining to old people.

As Huck noticed, language also plays an important role. In Spanish, for example, the main school of thought is still “No one knows the tarot’s history for certain, but let the images tell us their secrets” as if all the contributions made by Dummett, Moakley, etc... never happened. Most of the books you will find in Spanish start with the old: “Although no one is certain, most people places the origin of tarot in ancient Egypt”. It is truly horrifying.


Best,


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

Re: Cartofeminism

#15
I've noticed more people on Aeclectic asking if they can be "Christian and still read tarot", and then usually there are handfuls of other Christian readers who recommend decks that have aesthetics or content that might be appropriate for the poster. Usually it's something like the St. Petersburg with its Russian icons, or the Tarot of the Saints by Place; and sometimes, people even recommend the Visconti, LS Renaissance (d'Este), or Tarot de Marseille. So, I am seeing people making these connections, at least at some level.
The Tarot will lose all its vitality for one who allows himself to be side-tracked by its pedantry. - Aleister Crowley

Re: Cartofeminism

#16
Patrick Booker wrote:"But I became quite obsessed, and she lost interest."
This is a common development, some get obsessed, others not. Mostly boys become obsessed. Girls have mostly not the free energy capacity. These decisions of early youth determine the later statistical results.
Lorredan wrote:There are some big holes in this thread.
How about some stats?
The statical base was given, visit a chess club and visit a bridge club.
The most common reasons for playing cards/playing board games/playing with dice
Entertainment or fun (72%)
Win money (67%)
Socialize (37%)
Excitement or challenge (35%)
This is a stupid statistic and it's easy to recognize.
The base to the current discussion was "clever playing", it was not gambling. So Chess and Bridge (these are sports for clever playing", in the case you don't know that) players you'll more or less not find between those people who answered this selection.
Probably the American understanding of "card playing" has a lot to do with "gambling" (and probably this is an American statistic). This is different to European understanding. French Tarot for instance seems to be an organised thinking sport, the national organisation has something about 15.000 members or so. They make tournaments with young players attending, it's youth sport - you can find such events in the web. Austrian Tarock is a lot of pub playing, private exchange of some money, but I assume not "much money". Both are not Casino sports, as far I can see.
Also chess is an organised sport.

And any serious chess and bridge player would laugh about your statistic, "67% wish to gain money" ... you don't understand the dimensions of "thinking sport".
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Cartofeminism

#17
Huck wrote:
" ... you don't understand the dimensions of "thinking sport".
I thought this thread was about Cartofeminism which indicated that women do not participate in thinking sports- just drivel and they were taking over the world of Tarot, had no concepts of History of cards.........
Have a lemonade Huck.
~Lorredan
The Universe is full of magical things patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper.
Eden Phillpotts

Re: Cartofeminism

#18
Just to be clear, I did not find your statements to be personally offensive, just generally offensive. :-*

Another point I would like to clarify, it was not the observation you made about the number of women playing chess versus the number of women playing bridge that was offensive, it was this conclusion you drew;
Huck wrote: The simple reason: chess was too difficult for women.
Thanks for the lemonade, James.


edit; for purposes of clarity! :-B
"...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

#19
robert wrote:I've noticed more people on Aeclectic asking if they can be "Christian and still read tarot", and then usually there are handfuls of other Christian readers who recommend decks that have aesthetics or content that might be appropriate for the poster. Usually it's something like the St. Petersburg with its Russian icons, or the Tarot of the Saints by Place; and sometimes, people even recommend the Visconti, LS Renaissance (d'Este), or Tarot de Marseille. So, I am seeing people making these connections, at least at some level.
I see what you mean Robert.

Incidentally, one of the most extended myths I have heard is that ‘the Bible forbids the tarot’. Then there are those who link the tarot to voodoo, showing that they know nothing of neither of those.

On the other hand, I have noticed that liking the tarot’s origin with Christianity makes some Christians very uncomfortable. That was surprising -even if understandable- for me. (A couple of years back a friend of mine -an ordained priest of the Church of England- asked me to write a little endorsement for a book he wrote. The publishers refused to let me put ‘tarot reader’ as my occupation. I had to settle for something ‘less conflicting’. Curiously, I proposed ‘mind reader’ and that one was O.K. :-o ).


About feminism, etc. I can’t speak for Tarotica but I think the point of this thread wasn’t to suggest that women lack intellectual abilities, but to point out that there is a feminist discourse that prevails in the tarot market. Such discourse is what has opened the tarot to all the goddess-oriented neo-pagan tendencies we encounter today, and makes quite hard for most to acknowledge any connection between the tarot and male-god-oriented christianity.

Best,


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

Re: Cartofeminism

#20
prudence wrote:Another point I would like to clarify, it was not the observation you made about the number of women playing chess versus the number of women playing bridge, it was this conclusion you drew;
Huck wrote: The simple reason: chess was too difficult for women.
The case can be made that women don’t like chess because checkered patterns make you look fat. B-)
What’s honeymoon salad? Lettuce alone
Don’t look now, mayonnaise is dressing!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests

cron