(ETA: I wrote that before your last response. I don't want to humiliate you but I do react negatively to a "fun project" that IMHO shows disrespect to tarot AND art, both of them dear to my heart).
Well, it seems to me that you don't really know what you want. It's possible to fill the line art of the RWS with feminine textile patterns (Celia Birtwell, William Morris, whatever you like) and get the effect of a flat, vibrant textile collage. That would impose this aesthetic on every card, even the Hierophant or Emperor where IMO it doesn't suit at all, but it's possible. There are decks who have this playful-"feminine" vibe (I see "feminine" and "masculine" not as immutable anyway).
A lovely "flat" tarot is the construction paper tarot - the artist tore colourful papers and made collages. By hand. Looks great (although arguably it doesn't add to the tarot content-wise).
But if you want to go for textures, IMO that's something totally different from a visual-language point of view. Textures means 3dimensional. Taking textures from a computer program and filling line drawings made by a artist 100 years ago with them by clicking on a button is NOT art and is NOT creative. It's mechanical and easy and the result is and cannot be anything but poor. Where's the fun in that? Children nowadays do everything by clicking on a button and don't learn to deal with fine manual coordination challenges any more, like drawing lines, filling fields of colour etc.
Art is something people LEARN. Either in a structured framework or by years of sitting on their backside. Computer programs look easy to use but people who use them as artistic tool work very hard. They have a vision and know how to translate it.
I'm sorry but I'm not at all surprised that your vision doesn't come alive on the screen just like that. It doesn't work that way. I can dream of singing the Queen of Night's aria by Mozart better than anyone but I didn't learn opera singing so that's impossible. I didn't learn classical dance so I can't dance the Dying Swan. I can't climb the Anapurna, I can't drive a racing car. If I want to improve on anyone's performance, I have to learn the basics first.
In the visual arts, people think they can take shortcuts. The computer will do it. But it won't.
If you want to translate some inner vision of what you think is feminine into images that others can see and relate to - then go and learn visual communication, art, illustration. Before "improving" the beloved and trusted images of an artist like Colman Smith who honed her skills for years, try to express something of your own.
People have done that. Even with little artistic training - Rachel Pollack's tarot is not strong from a technical-artistic point of view, but it's filled with her insights about tarot and that makes it interesting.
Sometimes an amateur-like approach can bring more powerful results than a slick commercial graphic artists (Lo Scarabeo produced some decks with comic artists that lack depth IMO). But even an amateur has to know some basic things about the "translation" process necessary to bring a concept alive visually.
Tarot archetypes are quite a big deal. Why not start with three Majors that are really close to your heart, and make them yours? Collages, either from papers and pictures you collect, or on the computer?
I'm aware that this is not what you want to hear. But that's what I think.