Numbering of alternative or second Man, Woman (or Person) card

[le_charior]

Hello Lenormand readers out there! 

 

I am just getting started on this wonderfully different system (from my Tarot perspective), and I am really fascinated by it. I downloaded the Treppner course and bought Andy Boroveshengra's book and installed the Dondorf app on my ipad, so I have a pretty good base for the moment I feel.

 

When looking at decks, a question came to mind. If there are second Man or Woman cards in a deck, to read for gay or queer folks, they often seem to be a duplicate of the first Man or Woman card, sometimes facing the other direction, sometimes exactly the same, but in many cases with the same numbering and the same playing card insert. That is weird to me - would it not make so much more sense, if one wants to use a deck say for a lesbian woman with a relationship question, to have the second Woman card with #28 and the Ace of Hearts, instead of a second #29 and Ace of Spades? 

 

In the deck I ended up buying, the Green Glyphs Lenormand, it is solved that way - and there are also two Person cards, one on 28 and one on 29, to read for people who are outside the binary. Which I love. So in a way I am happy I found a deck already, that works really well for me in this aspect, as a queer card reader, but i was curious if other people here have opinions on it, and if there are other decks that solve it that way. 

 

(Also I think I will get a traditional deck, most likely the ASS Lenormand, and just recreate the extra cards in the way I want. Feel really drawn to the traditional cards as well, but a deck of 100% straight (and white...) people is just so unsatisfying to me...). 

 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, le_charior said:

When looking at decks, a question came to mind. If there are second Man or Woman cards in a deck, to read for gay or queer folks, they often seem to be a duplicate of the first Man or Woman card, sometimes facing the other direction, sometimes exactly the same, but in many cases with the same numbering and the same playing card insert. That is weird to me - would it not make so much more sense, if one wants to use a deck say for a lesbian woman with a relationship question, to have the second Woman card with #28 and the Ace of Hearts, instead of a second #29 and Ace of Spades? 

That is an issue that I raised a few years back. Although some (most) deck creators flip the figures few (if any) changed the number or playing card.

As a gay man, with large LGBTQ+ circle of friends and clientele, I have never felt the need to use the extra cards. The only time I have used them is to swap the directions to mirror the Carta Mundi.
 

From early on, the Cavalier and Hound cards showed themselves as the men in my life. Later I observed both the Serpent and the Bouquet for lesbians. These are all people cards. Also I have bisexual clients — so I need both. 
 

Of course, others feel differently.

 

The non-binary is an issue. 
 

28 minutes ago, le_charior said:

(Also I think I will get a traditional deck, most likely the ASS Lenormand, and just recreate the extra cards in the way I want. Feel really drawn to the traditional cards as well, but a deck of 100% straight (and white...) people is just so unsatisfying to me...). 

The ASS was always a favourite with students and workshops. But do note that the Lord and Lady both face left 🙂 

[le_charior]

20 minutes ago, timtoldrum said:

From early on, the Cavalier and Hound cards showed themselves as the men in my life. Later I observed both the Serpent and the Bouquet for lesbians. These are all people cards. Also I have bisexual clients — so I need both. 

Thank you @timtoldrum, wonderful to read about your experience! Can I ask a question that might have been answered already many times (apologies in that case... I did read through a few older threads on the AT forum and here): If you use the Cavalier for a man in the querent's life - does that not mean losing the other meanings of the card? How do you decide where the card stands for News - and where it is the signifier for a romantic interest in the querent's life? 

 

I was trying to come up with an example - say I get 1 Rider - 9 Bouquet - 20 Garden - 28 Gentleman in a reading for a gay man. I would read that, say, as news about a birthday party the querent is getting. But if the Rider is the love interest of the querent, who is let's say single, it could also mean he will meet a man at a party. (I am pretty sure this example is somehow off and I am not reading this right anyway, but I hope you get the point I am trying to make!) 

 

 

Same question for the other cards - if a snake is the lesbian live interest, does it also keep and double up, kind off, with the other meanings of the card? 

Edited March 8, 2021 by le_charior

[le_charior]

Here are the 3 pairs of character cards, Men, Ladies and Persons by the way. They seem to be looking in all kinds of directions, so I am not really taking that into consideration at this moment, not yet!

[Guest]

2 hours ago, le_charior said:

Thank you @timtoldrum, wonderful to read about your experience! Can I ask a question that might have been answered already many times (apologies in that case... I did read through a few older threads on the AT forum and here): If you use the Cavalier for a man in the querent's life - does that not mean losing the other meanings of the card? How do you decide where the card stands for News - and where it is the signifier for a romantic interest in the querent's life? 

 

I was trying to come up with an example - say I get 1 Rider - 9 Bouquet - 20 Garden - 28 Gentleman in a reading for a gay man. I would read that, say, as news about a birthday party the querent is getting. But if the Rider is the love interest of the querent, who is let's say single, it could also mean he will meet a man at a party. (I am pretty sure this example is somehow off and I am not reading this right anyway, but I hope you get the point I am trying to make!) 

No. The Cavalier would still retain its primary association (that is messenger).  But, in the context of love, he would be read as a man. He can also fulfil such a role in a reading for a woman. 

In your example, the Cavalier — Flowers could indicate an invitation extended, female caller or the delivery of flowers.

 

In a line (for a gay man), I would read them as either a date, or the partner suggesting going out somewhere (or doing gardening).  For a gay man, you also have a chain (cards falling between two significators) which would say something of how things fair between them.  Sometimes for LGBTQ the Flowers — Park can indicate queer codes (Flowers = arrangement Park = in public). 

I will tag @katrinka and I believe that she will offer a valid perspective, particularly for Treppner. 

Edited March 8, 2021 by Guest

[Guest]

1 hour ago, le_charior said:

Here are the 3 pairs of character cards, Men, Ladies and Persons by the way. They seem to be looking in all kinds of directions, so I am not really taking that into consideration at this moment, not yet!

 There is no agreement on direction or how to use them (despite what some insist). Your cards will tell you over time what they want. The solar cycle is interesting. 

[le_charior]

5 hours ago, timtoldrum said:

The Cavalier would still retain its primary association (that is messenger).  But, in the context of love, he would be read as a man. He can also fulfil such a role in a reading for a woman. 

Thanks a lot @timtoldrum for your explanation, and your sample reading, really interesting and helpful! 

[katrinka]

7 hours ago, timtoldrum said:

No. The Cavalier would still retain its primary association (that is messenger).  But, in the context of love, he would be read as a man. He can also fulfil such a role in a reading for a woman. 

In your example, the Cavalier — Flowers could indicate an invitation extended, female caller or the delivery of flowers.

 

In a line (for a gay man), I would read them as either a date, or the partner suggesting going out somewhere (or doing gardening).  For a gay man, you also have a chain (cards falling between two significators) which would say something of how things fair between them.  Sometimes for LGBTQ the Flowers — Park can indicate queer codes (Flowers = arrangement Park = in public). 

I will tag @katrinka and I believe that she will offer a valid perspective, particularly for Treppner. 

 

I've never asked her about this directly - I didn't feel the need to. This is from her course:

"No. 28 - THE LORD
In most cases, this stands for your current partner...pay attention to the following hierarchy of cards representing males: Lord, Lily, Dog (then Bear and Horseman.)"

 

And similarly for the Lady:

"If you are a man asking about a woman, then you should look at this card first, but also remember the following cards in this sequence: Serpent, Child, and sometimes the Flowers."

In spite of that "If you are a man asking about a woman" bit (and while I'm not making excuses for her, it's possible that she just didnt want to go into a lengthier explanation due to her limited english. It would have been nice, though.), she does make it clear that these are partner cards. It always just made sense to use the male partner cards when reading for a gay man, and the female ones for a lesbian. If you don't know, consider context and the cards that connect the partner cards to the significator, if any. 

 

As for the numbering, I wouldn't even worry about it. The cards were originally numbered by Hechtel so people would know the order to lay them for the Game of Hope. After that, there doesn't seem to be any mention of them until people started reading houses in the Grand Tableau. I did ask Iris where she got that, thinking she might have learned the technique from her mother Kathe, and she said she found it on a German forum, lol. It could be a completely modern invention. And that pretty much sums up the numbering - it's there if you want to use it for anything, but it has no special significance - it's not like the Thoth. 😉

 

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, katrinka said:

In spite of that "If you are a man asking about a woman" bit (and while I'm not making excuses for her, it's possible that she just didnt want to go into a lengthier explanation due to her limited english. It would have been nice, though.), she does make it clear that these are partner cards. It always just made sense to use the male partner cards when reading for a gay man, and the female ones for a lesbian. If you don't know, consider context and the cards that connect the partner cards to the significator, if any. 

You can certainly see the intention. The hierarchy interests me (Lilies over the Hound card), but I guess these vary. 
 

28 minutes ago, katrinka said:

As for the numbering, I wouldn't even worry about it. The cards were originally numbered by Hechtel so people would know the order to lay them for the Game of Hope. After that, there doesn't seem to be any mention of them until people started reading houses in the Grand Tableau. I did ask Iris where she got that, thinking she might have learned the technique from her mother Kathe, and she said she found it on a German forum, lol. It could be a completely modern invention. And that pretty much sums up the numbering - it's there if you want to use it for anything, but it has no special significance - it's not like the Thoth. 😉

Lol. My critique centred more on how common the extra Lord and Lady cards had become; yet, who changed the playing card? It’s not real representation. 
 

That is interesting about the houses. L’oracle Parfait appropriated the “master method” and attributed it to Le Normand, and also used the 9x4 scheme. That spread-out and... and, at some point, the concept took hold.  It’s like knighting - chessboard 8 x 8. GT 8 x 4. 

Edited March 9, 2021 by Guest

[katrinka]

25 minutes ago, timtoldrum said:

You can certainly see the intention. The hierarchy interests me (Lilies over the Hound card), but I guess these vary. 

 

I think that comes down to her card meanings. She views the Lilies as sexual and the Dog as platonic. 
IME it doesn't always work out that way, but it works as a rough guideline. People don't always fit rough guidelines, though. 
 

25 minutes ago, timtoldrum said:

Lol. My critique centred more on how common the extra Lord and Lady cards had become; yet, who changed the playing card? It’s not real representation. 

 

True. They're not thought out, just kind of slapped onto the deck with those same playing card associations, like a garment that should be hemmed but isn't. Raw edges.
I worry for card reading sometimes. There's too much of a tendency to repeat what someone else said or did, without giving it any real consideration or applying critical thinking skills.

 

[katrinka]

Just want to add that I wasn't taking a shot at the deck. It looks functional and attractive - it has kind of a 1930's look. And most of my decks came with extra Man and Woman cards. I just take them out right away. 

[le_charior]

10 hours ago, katrinka said:

As for the numbering, I wouldn't even worry about it. The cards were originally numbered by Hechtel so people would know the order to lay them for the Game of Hope. After that, there doesn't seem to be any mention of them until people started reading houses in the Grand Tableau. I did ask Iris where she got that, thinking she might have learned the technique from her mother Kathe, and she said she found it on a German forum, lol. It could be a completely modern invention. And that pretty much sums up the numbering - it's there if you want to use it for anything, but it has no special significance - it's not like the Thoth.

Thanks @katrinka - for all your explanation, but this is particulary helpful. I wasn't even thinking about the question if the numbers actually matter 😉 

 

And interesting that the houses might be a totally modern addition!

 

8 hours ago, katrinka said:

Just want to add that I wasn't taking a shot at the deck. It looks functional and attractive - it has kind of a 1930's look. And most of my decks came with extra Man and Woman cards. I just take them out right away. 

 

I like the deck as well - from the little I have worked with it. And I feel far too much of a beginner to have an opinion on the extra cards, I was drawn to having the option, particulary for people outside the gender binary, but I will study and learn and experiment much more before allowing myself to come to a conclusion if I want to use extra cards or not. Appreciate to read your and @timtoldrum's take on reading these cards very much! 

 

 

10 hours ago, timtoldrum said:

Lol. My critique centred more on how common the extra Lord and Lady cards had become; yet, who changed the playing card? It’s not real representation. 

This is how I feel about it too - if adding extra cards, then the playing card inserts should be changed as well, I would think!

Edited March 9, 2021 by le_charior

[Guest]

14 hours ago, katrinka said:

I think that comes down to her card meanings. She views the Lilies as sexual and the Dog as platonic. 
IME it doesn't always work out that way, but it works as a rough guideline. People don't always fit rough guidelines, though. 

 

No.  It makes sense.  Generally, the Hound is platonic.  But that platonic love can and times shift, but on the whole, it often remains.  

14 hours ago, katrinka said:

Just want to add that I wasn't taking a shot at the deck. It looks functional and attractive - it has kind of a 1930's look. And most of my decks came with extra Man and Woman cards. I just take them out right away. 

 

I agree.  It is quite an attractive deck.  I am not adverse to the person-card rather than the Lord and Lady.  If I was to make myself a deck I think I might go down that road.

 

14 hours ago, katrinka said:

True. They're not thought out, just kind of slapped onto the deck with those same playing card associations, like a garment that should be hemmed but isn't. Raw edges.
I worry for card reading sometimes. There's too much of a tendency to repeat what someone else said or did, without giving it any real consideration or applying critical thinking skills.

 

 

5 hours ago, le_charior said:

This is how I feel about it too - if adding extra cards, then the playing card inserts should be changed as well, I would think!

 

Yes.  I have to be careful what I say (as I do not want to upset anyone), but there is a degree of tokenism in the extra cards. I remember someone on a FB saying that "now we can read for LGBTQ" clients and feeling quite sad. 

 

[katrinka]

28 minutes ago, timtoldrum said:

I agree.  It is quite an attractive deck.  I am not adverse to the person-card rather than the Lord and Lady.  If I was to make myself a deck I think I might go down that road.

 

The person cards are nice. I'd like to see more of that and less extra Gent and Lady cards. It's a step in the right direction. 
 

28 minutes ago, timtoldrum said:

Yes.  I have to be careful what I say (as I do not want to upset anyone), but there is a degree of tokenism in the extra cards. I remember someone on a FB saying that "now we can read for LGBTQ" clients and feeling quite sad. 

 

That's appalling. How could anyone even think that? Did they think that until those silly cards were added, readers were turning gay people away? Did they think gay readers also did this? 

But that's the implication in the extra cards: That one needs them in order to read for LGBTQ folks, therefore, before they existed, these readings couldn't be done - which is utter BS. I didn't like extra Man and Woman cards before, but in view of this, now I'm really not liking them.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, katrinka said:

The person cards are nice. I'd like to see more of that and less extra Gent and Lady cards. It's a step in the right direction. 

Yes. Thus far I have never found a good  solution to the non-binary significator. These designs work.

 

2 hours ago, katrinka said:

That's appalling. How could anyone even think that? Did they think that until those silly cards were added, readers were turning gay people away? Did they think gay readers also did this? 

Sadly, it’s an issue of not thinking. Or rather not having to think. What about a bisexual? 
 

Over the last four or six years, the question is raised and answers given. But most of the answers do not come from within the LGBTQ+ Communities. (those that do tend to be heard come from certain sections with a higher privilege). Where told the deck is old so it has to adapt. We did. 

 

 

2 hours ago, katrinka said:

But that's the implication in the extra cards: That one needs them in order to read for LGBTQ folks, therefore, before they existed, these readings couldn't be done - which is utter BS. I didn't like extra Man and Woman cards before, but in view of this, now I'm really not liking them.

Not wishing to fan flames or derail the thread that is what I have tried to encourage people to consider.  But tokenism sells.

Edited March 9, 2021 by Guest

[katrinka]

10 minutes ago, timtoldrum said:

Yes. Thus far I have never found a good  solution to the non-binary significator. These designs work.

 

I think you mentioned blank cards once, like in the Livre du Destin. Those could probably work. Or maybe add the playing card associations and the numbers, but no images.

 

10 minutes ago, timtoldrum said:

Sadly, it’s an issue of not thinking. Or rather not having to think. What about a bisexual? 

 

Too much complexity for them, I'm guessing. 

 

10 minutes ago, timtoldrum said:

Over the last four or six years, the question is raised and answers given. But most of the answers do not come from within the LGBTQ+ Communities. (those that do tend to be heard come from certain sections with a higher privilege). Where told the deck is old so it has to adapt. We did. 

 

That presupposes that humanity has collectively evolved over the last couple of centuries. You only need to read the headlines to see that it hasn't. 

We're primates. 
 

10 minutes ago, timtoldrum said:

Not wishing to fan flames or derail the thread that is what I have tried to encourage people to consider.  But tokenism sells.

 

Yes, with the added bonus of sanctimony. It lets people pat themselves on the back for being "inclusive"...but not TOO inclusive. 😣

[le_charior]

17 hours ago, timtoldrum said:

If I was to make myself a deck I think I might go down that road.

I think you should - if you feel like it! I would be very very interested in that deck in any case! 

 

I've been reading your posts with great interest, thank you both! It has given me a lot of food for thought while I continue my exploration of the Lenormand system. I am a string advocate for representation and visibility, but also strongly opposed to tokenism and performative allyship - it's a thin line sometimes. It would really take a voice from within the LGBTQ+ Communities as you say @timtoldrum, and a voice from someone who knows the system well and understands it deeply. 

[Guest]

Here is a line of five done for a querent in a relationship with another woman.  The question was “what is the future for us?”

The cards are the Birch Rod, the Ring, the Cross, the House and the Serpent.  
 

For me the queen of clubs (Serpent) is the partner. These cards show that she calls time on the relationship.  
 

If the Cross appears it also denotes the present moment.  So the Birch Rod - Ring indicate that the two women had ongoing difficulties that they were unable to solve (Ring indicates repetition and cycles). That has now weakened the strength of the bond between them (Ring - Cross) and will make for an unhappy home going forward (Cross - House). After some time (House - Serpent), the queen will move out.  

The “after some time” comes from the Serpent (detours and roundabout bringing a delay). So her significations are used.  The queen falling last means that the partner will leave and the querent, who doesn’t appear, has less say.  The partner did move out: while the client was at work. 

Another one I remember was done with the Wüst.  I use the left facing Lord. A man had feelings for a friend.  Should he act?
 

The cards were the Lord, the Cavalier and the Hound. I read it as a no. The man was in the friend zone (Cavalier - Hound).

The Cavalier indicates the overtures that are friendly/platonic (on behalf of the Cavalier).  
 

Edited March 12, 2021 by Guest
Typo & Clarification

[Guest]

20 hours ago, katrinka said:

 

I think you mentioned blank cards once, like in the Livre du Destin. Those could probably work. Or maybe add the playing card associations and the numbers, but no images.

 

 

Too much complexity for them, I'm guessing. 

 

 

That presupposes that humanity has collectively evolved over the last couple of centuries. You only need to read the headlines to see that it hasn't. 

We're primates. 
 

 

Yes, with the added bonus of sanctimony. It lets people pat themselves on the back for being "inclusive"...but not TOO inclusive. 😣

Yep. 

 

7 hours ago, le_charior said:

I think you should - if you feel like it! I would be very very interested in that deck in any case! 

 

I've been reading your posts with great interest, thank you both! It has given me a lot of food for thought while I continue my exploration of the Lenormand system. I am a string advocate for representation and visibility, but also strongly opposed to tokenism and performative allyship - it's a thin line sometimes. It would really take a voice from within the LGBTQ+ Communities as you say @timtoldrum, and a voice from someone who knows the system well and understands it deeply. 

I have thought about it. I may try.