Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    As a novice Tarot reader, I have bought several books on the subject,
    in order to learn as much as possible. I find that, while most cards
    decks in and of themselves are not violently sexist, the *people
    who wrote the books* could be, and often were. So the problem I
    see is in one's learning how to interpret the cards - if the "teacher"
    has sexist overtones, the cards will seem to.
    
    The "Motherpeace" feminist deck are the least inherently sexist
    decks.
    
    The best book I have is "Choice-centere", which was written by a
    woman and notes any traditional sexist interperetations of the cards,
    and blows 'em away.
    
    (Boy, I hope this reply makes it ok - I'm not used to handling
    repetetive error messages while typing"
    
    Dawn
    

    I just *knew* that last reply was gonna be a mess! (Comes from working
    on -20's and noting on VAXen :-))
    
    So - to fill in the holes, and make my point. The "Tarot of Wicca
    and "The Native AMerican Tarot" seem the least sexist to me.
    
    The book I wanted to cite is "Choice Centered Tarot".
    
    So: I found that the sexist symbolism ,as interpereted by either
    the instructions that came in the deck, or in my own books, was
    very off-putting to me, until I discovered the "Choice..." book.
    Now, I use that method of interperetation, and have no problems
    relating to the symbolism of the cards, especially with the Wicca
    deck (naturally), but even with some of the others.
    
    Dawn

    For what it is worth: I learned Tarot "the Old Fashioned Way" - known
    as FamTrad [Family Tradition] - my GrandMother taught me when I was
    very little. Possibly because of that, or because of my character, or...
    I find it easy to read for women and virtually impossible to read for
    men. If I want to read for myself I use a Thoth deck but for reasons
    more appropriate in DEJAVU than here, I will not use this Crowley designed
    deck for anybody else but myself.
    
    I would agree though that some of the books are "suspect" at the very
    least.
    
    /. Ian .\

As a side note, the Tarot of the Wicca [which I have] uses, as the card for 
"Strength" an image of a woman running through a field.

Then again, she is 'au naturelle' but the impression is similar to the 
impression you get from looking at a picture of men competing in the 
ancient Olympics.  Nothing erotic.  Just a demonstration of the body as 
'the ultimate machine'.

    I have the Motherpeace deck and the interpretive book that goes
    with it.  A few notes back someone said that it is one of the least
    sexist decks.  I thought about that for a while.  The Motherpeace
    deck is full of female imagery.  It is for women.  It may even be
    sexist if one defines sexism as focusing on one sex to the exclusion
    of the other.  Has anyone ever tried to do a reading for a man using
    the Motherpeace deck?    I ask because I can't imagine it.
                   
    (Disclaimer:  I am interested in Tarot, but don't have much experience
    with it.  I have enjoyed using the Motherpeace deck for myself.)
     
    It is also wonderfully celebrative of many cultures.

    I am an astrologer in my off hours, and this discipline has the
    same feature that many of you say Tarot does:  that the archetypes
    presented by the planets (which represent the different urges and
    drives of our souls) are not sexist, but the interpretive texts
    can be quite sexist.
    
    In many a reading a person has hesitantly mentioned an interpretation
    (s)he got on a certain feature of his/her chart (usually negative)
    and asked if I saw the same thing, if I made the same interpretation.
    Often I have not, and the negative info they got before was based
    on societal judgements of what was "good", what was "bad".  And
    many of those judgements, particularly in regard to work and
    relationships, have been quite sexist.
    
    For instance, most texts will give "good press" to traditionally
    yin planets (Moon, Venus) in the part of the chart pertaining to
    relationships.  For _both_ sexes, unless the planets are stressfully
    aspected.  A man might be told, if he has a well-aspected Moon in
    his relationship house of his chart, that this bodes well for his 
    relationships with women; women would be told the same thing about
    all their relationships.  However, a woman with a yang energy planet
    (Mars, Uranus, Sun) in her relationship sector might be told that
    this is "a problem", rather than saying that it bodes well for her
    relationships with men.  This is not true of newer texts, but some
    of those old ones are quite hidebound about it.
    
    To have the Sun in the sector of the chart pertaining to personal
    identity was considered good (strengthens your self-projection, will,
    etc.)--but not if you were a woman.  Then, it was said, you should 
    guard against being too pushy, too shrewish, too overbearing.  Since 
    conscious projection of strength and will was not considered a good 
    character feature for women in the past, that's not surprising.  But 
    even now, when people at least accept the idea that everyone benefits 
    from a strong self-image and will, I have had women come to me 
    feeling uneasy about their strong Sun (and I have felt so myself);
    they've wondered if it makes them unwomanly.  I always tell them
    that I feel no, it does not; that the unease they feel results from
    realizing that a vital part of themselves does not fit the norms 
    they were raised with; and I encourage them to be true to a strong,
    positive expression of themselves rather than automatically bow
    to implied societal standards.
    
    Marcia

I can't say that I believe X is sexist, or not, but:

RE: .6

"To have the Sun in the sector of the chart pertaining to personal identity was
considered good (strengthens your self-projection, will, etc.)--but not if you
were a woman.  Then, it was said, you should guard against being too pushy, too
shrewish, too overbearing."                                      

It may have been true that a ''Sun' woman' in past times would have become "too
pushy, too shrewish, too overbearing", but perhaps now, when there are more
possibilities, such a woman would not become so.

Not necessarily sexist, but perhaps a new deck/book is needed.

Is is sexist if it is true?

Jim. 

    Is it sexist if it is true?
    
    Yes.
    
    Just because it is true (it was certainly true of my mom; she's
    a woman with a lot of "masculine" traits, which her chart bears
    out--and she was also pushy, shrewish, and overbearing at times)
    does not mean that sexism didn't exist.  
    
    Further, I would argue that existence of sexist attitudes which
    state that an individual of either sex must deny his or her full
    individuality in order to comply with a socially sanctioned gender
    norm is a _cause_ of the manifestations of many of those negative
    characteristics.  If one is never trained in the most positive uses
    of one's basic potential, and the energy is very strong it's often
    going to manifest in largely negative ways.  And if the social norm
    is telling you (male or female) that you _should never_ have certain
    energies within your soul, then every piece of your social training
    is going to be geared toward squashing the energy, not finding good
    outlets for it.  And the "trainers" will use the negative manifestations
    that crop up as a result of the emotional foot-binding as "proof"
    that this energy within your soul is a Bad Thing.
    
    Yes, new "guide books" should be written.  I will probably not be
    the one to do so.  What I _do_ do is make individual people aware
    of the beauty and wonder of their true potentials, and point out
    how societal training might have held them back, suggest conditioning
    they might consider discarding in order to become fully enabled
    human beings.
    
    Marcia

RE: .8 (This is really doesn't have much to do with the topic, but...) 

"Just because it is true ... does not mean that sexism didn't exist."

Ummm that's not quite what I meant.  What I meant was more like 'Is the fact
that the average male is more muscular then the average female, sexist?' 

I guess what I'm asking in this particular instance is 'Just because the fortune
telling books 'describe' women in a sexist time doesn't mean that the book
itself is sexist.  I think people often lose track of the distinction.

Like I think I said before; times have changed, books describing the times have
to change. 

"Further, I would argue that existence of sexist attitudes which..."

Without a doubt.

"If one is never trained in the most positive uses of one's basic potential..."

And, I agree.  I have this book that describes that most problem behaviors are
caused by a repression of some part of a person, and that the cure is not to
attack the problem, but simply to let the person ***be*** themselves! 

Jim.