EnriqueEnriquez wrote:

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.

okay, I will not take this one personally either.

EnriqueEnriquez 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. ).

I will make an inference that your publishers in question were male?
Now a Neo Pagan feminist publisher would most likely have accepted your occupation without conflict.

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.

I think it is commercialism that is the driving force, that allows the discourse to have voice. It is women who are by far the congregation in Christian Churches, who seem to accept without question the male-god orientated religion. Publishing houses of Tarot seem to be, in the main, male owned business. Perhaps the question could be asked, why are those Neo Pagan decks fostered? Cutey animals? Faeries? Manga type decks? Fantasy filled with gratuitous boobs and bums? Is there an acceptance that women can read cards better than men? I personally do not think so- but the publishers seem to think so. Profit driven ideas drive everything into the 'pap' of middle ground and fads prevail. I have not met anyone who thinks Renaissance expressions were not built on Patriarchal Christianity, with other streams of thought thrown into the mix. Anyway I thought that early cards were of Pagan Gods- maybe those were not standard enough for a game and things changed- even back then. What is the problem? Tarot not exclusive enough- trying to be inclusive?

Like the checked fashion aspect of Chess- I must admit I like Draughts as I can jump over men.
~Lorredan

Lorredan wrote:

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

I took the lemonade, cause I've a nasty cold. So it really doesn't hurt.
It's interesting to observe, how elegant you reduce arguments, looks like an interesting form of tenuki.

prudence wrote: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.

Well, it's allowed to make observations and from the observations you can make conclusions about the probable real context. In the criticised passage (with conclusion: "chess was too difficult for women") you forget to tell, that I followed a little later in the same article ... (post Nr. 2)

"... 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."
... which naturally is also only a conclusion, following the idea, that the observable less capacity in a specialised field of thinking is a logical result of other observable conditions. That's not specific women-hating or so.

Now, recently ... I made the observation, if you make a conflictary statement at the begin of a post, which is balanced in the later part of the article, that specific readers already exploded at the first words and didn't read the rest.
An interesting observation, I'm not sure, for what this is good for. Surely good for something ... seems to be the Jess-Karlin-strategy. Write in the title line "Cartofeminism" and the rest is done by itself. Jess Karlin is right ... Cartofeminism exists ...

Good, the lemon was good, I try another one.

Huck wrote: It's interesting to observe, how elegant you reduce arguments, looks like an interesting form of tenuki.

Hane... Cut.... Placement.....

Hope your cold gets better

~Lorredan

Well, Jess defines Cartofeminism, a word he made up all by himself, this way:

cartofeminism: noun; the exploitation of playing cards and particularly Tarot, usually by post-menopausal "white" Western females with an abundance of animus-ity, to achieve allegedly feminist objectives, often by dishonest means.

Here are the main elements of the definition.
(a) women
(b) white women
(c) Western women
(d) women who are post-menopausal
(e) women who have "animus-ity"
(f) women with feminist objectives, alleged (or sincere)
(g) exploitation of playing cards and Tarot cards ("exploit"?)
(h) dishonesty

Question: Isn't this just plain misogynist?
Answer: Yes.

Lorredan wrote:There is the Historical questions on who had the cards -not those exclusive handpainted ones, but the everyday Tavern ones.

I agree with this point. As far as I'm personally concerned, I'm not convinced that the cards started in the courts. I'm still open to them being created in an academic environment, such as Bologna, and then adopted by the courts. I don't think the evidence is at all conclusive to date.

At what point do "cards" become associated with sailors and the working classes? Surely the he-men on ships wouldn't be playing such a "feminine" game would they?

EnriqueEnriquez wrote: Incidentally, one of the most extended myths I have heard is that ‘the Bible forbids the tarot’.

I think that's a very good question actually. I suspect there are verses to both support and condemn divination, and like so many things in the Bible, it's a pick and choose to provide support for your side. And also, does it forbid card-playing? Too late to be mentioned explicitly, of course, but perhaps there are appropriate analogies? If so, probably the same situation as divination, I'd guess.

EnriqueEnriquez wrote: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

Well, certainly it causes some conflict if one has been raised to think of tarot as used for fortune-telling and that the Bible condemns fortune-telling. They'd probably be more comfortable thinking of it as a game with a moral allegory.

Lorredan wrote: I think it is commercialism that is the driving force, that allows the discourse to have voice.

I'd agree. Any trend.. pirates, vampires, angels, cats... whatever is "in"... spiritual or not so much... is ground up and regurgitated as a tarot. It seems anything can be applied to the tarot template and a new deck created to market and sell. And yet, the market is there, waiting to buy it up, and if it didn't like what was being offered it would demand better, but it doesn't. So the publishers produce the decks, and the consumers buy them... just like anything else in a consumer economy. Of course, many of these decks really do have beautiful artwork, or imaginative concepts, and sometimes really innovative ideas are expressed. But ultimately, I agree, it is commercialism driving this.

Huck wrote:Now, recently ... I made the observation, if you make a conflictary statement at the begin of a post, which is balanced in the later part of the article, that specific readers already exploded at the first words and didn't read the rest.
An interesting observation, I'm not sure, for what this is good for. Surely good for something ... seems to be the Jess-Karlin-strategy. Write in the title line "Cartofeminism" and the rest is done by itself.

Indeed.

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?

(jk)

robert wrote:Chess uses a war metaphor; tarot is much more charming.

Well, it seems a much more inclusive conflict.

But, Court de Gébelin certainly thought Tarot used a war metaphor, and so have subsequent occultists.

(jk)

robert wrote: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.

Well, if someone told you they just chuck the whole pile of Tarot decks, from all times, into the big bucket of nonsense that they are, and will leave it to others to explore whatever details of worthiness they might claim for them, wouldn't you think that person, at the least, an unlikely candidate to express an informed opinion about Tarot?

So, how much of the timeline do you have to be interested in to be knowledgeable about Tarot's history?

You are already tearing off the last century and throwing it away, with the "rest of the modern decks". But you are doing more than this, because the deep connections occult decks like Waite and Thoth have to the entire occult movement in Tarot design, is unquestionable.

And that would mean cutting off an informed understanding of Tarot designs and events since 1781 as well. More than another century tossed aside as irrelevant. And there are many aspects of occult Tarot design and dogma that go right back to the first Trionfi cards.

When you find yourself throwing centuries of Tarot history into the "let the silly modernists figure it out" junk heap, your might question your commitment to understanding what has happened and what difference that makes.

(jk)

EnriqueEnriquez wrote: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.

Another way to look at it:

Tarotmania Map.

(jk)