Side-Stepping Sexism

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 01 Jan 2003, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Macavity	01 Jan 2003
I suspect that this question is being (implicitly) debated in a number of threads. I think the author discusses the matter rather well. The WHOLE article makes rather interesting reading too... if one maybe ignores the first portion of the page ;) Macavity See: http://www.astrologyzine.com/tarotfaq.shtml I decided NOT to reproduce ANY of this. They seem concerned with absolute copyright :) But see e.g. the section headed "SIDE-STEPPING SEXISM".

HudsonGray	02 Jan 2003
I couldn't locate it anywhere on the site, do you have a more specific URL, one that goes directly to the right page?

Kiama	02 Jan 2003
HudsonGray: Just scrol down that page until you see it... It's not in any really huge font or anything, but it's art of the 'Action Figure' article. I think the writer has a point, but he misses out a huge chunk here which would be useful: The difference between 'male and female' and 'masculine and feminine'. What sexism talks about is inequality between 'male and female', but the Tarot uses the concept of 'masculine and feminine' to convey meaning... Kiama

Macavity	02 Jan 2003
Can't be more specific really. It's IS on that page - but some way down :) But I think the general thrust of the piece is about Archetypes versus stereotypes, which I believe forms the background to many a "spirited" discussion here ;) I think it provides a neat answer as to why some people can PREFER (simply that, no more) decks that somewhat "distance" themselves from photo-realism and especially dominance of male (or female!) nudity - without us ALL being (variously) prudes, bad sports, sexist etc. in "need of body-image therapy" etc. (joking) :D Sure, there has e.g. ALWAYS been a disparity between males and females (nude or otherwise) but somehow this seems to have become so evocative of modern-day sexual politics - And I venture that it shouldn't be. The Tarot may have been designed specifically to REMOVE this added dimension, simply by placing the archetypes in a far removed (from the present day) "medieval" setting. I suspect it was... Taking the bull by the horns, I suspect it also highlights the problem that emerges with attempts to redress the balance. In introducing (I suspect even a FAIRER) "selection" of Lover-archetypes as e.g. Stevee P does with his "Cosmic Tribe", he then finds himself in the unenviable position of then having to "apologise" (on his website) to anyone who still feels "left out" that their sexual preference is omitted! That seems to be the problem - where does one stop? Cleaerly you can't (ever) please everyone. But it may well be that simply by reducing historical archetypes, one gets to introduce (even more!) modernday stereotypes... Mac

kayne	02 Jan 2003
I think what the author is saying in the article goes without saying. All the images in a tarot card are symbolic and everyone interprets those symbols according to there prior knowledge of them, gut feelings and instinct and personal cultural background. For example, the author of this article also discusses the meaning of a snake being wisdom. Someone that picks up a card with a snake on it and has a huge fear of snakes might not 'read' the card in such a positive light as 'wisdom'. I agree with Kiama, in tarot males and females represent Masculine and Femine aspects rather than man and woman.

Ophiel	02 Jan 2003
An easy way to get right to the article is do a search (Ctrl + F on a PC) and enter the word "sexism." It will take you right there. BUT...if this is all part of the larger article, "The Action Figure Method of Card Interpretation" by Michael Star, you might want to enter a search for "Action Figure" or something. I didn't read the article yet, but am offering some suggestions on how to find the article.

HudsonGray	02 Jan 2003
Oh, way down there! I was looking for an article titled that & couldn't find it even with their search box. No wonder.

zander770	04 Jan 2003
Quote: Originally posted by kayne I think what the author is saying in the article goes without saying. All the images in a tarot card are symbolic and everyone interprets those symbols according to there prior knowledge of them, gut feelings and instinct and personal cultural background. . . . I agree with Kiama, in tarot males and females represent Masculine and Femine aspects rather than man and woman. agreed, and mr star also used the "male = soldier" comparison, that altho there are many woman soldiers, ". . . if he wanted to use a soldier to symbolize the traits of aggressiveness or raw strength, he would find some readers confused by the fact that a modern soldier may be a women or a man...and miss the symbolic concepts traditionally associated with masculinity vs. femininity." i experienced this when i first saw robin wood's rendition of #14/temperence! it was more than a "double-take" sort of reaction (please don't misunderstand me, for i love reading w/her deck); it really was something extraordinary, for me, seeing temperance depicted as a man, which i hadn't considered, never had an opportunity to, because #14/temperance was "always" feminine, and a "woman," pictorially, to me in my mind's eye! and (here's were it's "confusing," even to me) i also have been taught and have always thought that the "angel" on the card is michael! (other cards i have there's no doubt, whatsoever, that a woman, indeed, "is" portraying temperance.) i just (forever, probably) will think of a gentle, moderate, patient and loving WOman on key #14, at first sight, but, then immediately hence it's there that my mind begins w/all the analogies and "her picture" in this particular "tarot story" i'm piecing together, becomes less and less my focus . . . and then, to realize that he was juggling! well, i certainly have a new ideal of what key #14 "can" symbolize. mr star's article was copyrighted 1996, too, which is becoming "old" quick, i thought. and that's only one example of the way robin wood's deck truly subverts many of these traditional symbol choices; their roles, attitudes, ideals, in reflecting fresh meanings, and she accomplishes this in such a way that (obviously, if world-wide sales of the deck are any indication!) her interpretation not only "makes sense," but further enlightens the reader's depth, understanding, and ultimately their over-all skill in all aspects of the tarot! i too have found Macavity's suspicions "that this question is being (implicitly) debated in a number of threads," to be true because, yes, just last night i began a new "gender related" thread directly connected to an older one of my own. ~770 :TTEMP

The Side-Stepping Sexism thread was originally posted on 01 Jan 2003 in the Talking Tarot board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Talking Tarot, or read more archived threads.