Huck wrote:Already in 15th century there was Cartofeminism of high degree
My understanding of the word "Cartofeminism" is that it refers to a modern, really postmodern phenomenon. What you are talking about is an effort by male authorities in 15th-century Italy to control the behavior of their population, which is a different motive than a handful of Tarot professionals hitting on an innovation they realized would be especially attractive to many women in a time of increasing acceptance of entitlements, vengeance, and misandry.
So, I do not think there was any Cartofeminism of any degree in the 15th century.
Huck wrote:... 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.
Well, I think the point of the statute was to regulate gambling, not card playing. Men and women were prohibited from gambling with cards. But there was an acknowledgment that some social benefit might be obtained from allowing non-gambling card play to continue between men and women. Also, I suspect they well understood a complete prohibition against any card playing would be derisively ignored.
The possibility that Tarot, in the beginning, was a game made for and mainly played by women, is a point I raise in the article, and reference the research done a number of years ago by Christina Olsen.
But the fact women were allowed to play Tarot, or encouraged to do so, doesn't mean they had any influence on the design or the interpretation of the cards they were given to use, or that they sought to appropriate the designs for feminist ends. One exception to this is the presence of the Popess card, which has made and continues to make a feminist statement, regardless of the original intent for its design.
Huck wrote:The simple reason: chess was too difficult for women.
That is a consensus reached by your colleagues at trionfi.com?
What is your factual basis for that conclusion?
Huck wrote:If you doubt, visit a chess club and you'll find many men.
If I visit tarotforum.net, I'll find many more women than men. Is that because Tarot is too difficult for men?
Huck wrote:As an alternative research: visit a bridge club and you'll probably find more women.
And that is because bridge is too difficult for men?
Huck wrote: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.
So, allow me to rephrase this, so I can see if I understand your argument:
1. Harmony between the sexes being a worthy goal...
2. And nobody liking to lose a game...
3. And women more likely to lose a game of skill with a man...
4. Card games rose in popularity as mixed-gender activities, because they are more dependent on luck, which decreases the man's advantage over the woman.
Is that correct?
Huck wrote: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.
I don't see the clarity of this "sign". What do you claim it means or points to?