Gea’s Comments (group member since Aug 06, 2007)

Gea’s comments from the The Evergreen State College group.

Here are a couple works I recommend on the topic. Any other suggestions?

Bobel, Chris. (2002). The paradox of natural mothering. Temple University Press: Philadelphia, PA.

Chris Bobel is Assistant Professor of Women’s Studies at the University of Massachusetts, Boston. In addition to her research in The Paradox, Bobel is currently researching the menstrual activism movement. In The Paradox, Bobel researched thirty-plus women, who she coined as, ‘natural mothers’, who predominantly practiced attachment parenting, home birth, holistic remedies, home schooling, and who did not work outside the home. Although Bobel considers herself somewhat of a natural mother, she concluded that, because the natural mothers she studied believed in biological differences between men and women (children do best when their nurturing mother is very present for their needs) and because they typically chose not to work outside the home, they were supporting patriarchical structures rather than changing them. The Paradox is an interesting and somewhat disturbing read for scholarly feminists and natural mothers themselves, as it not only addresses a possible paradox between natural mothering and the feminist movement, but also highlights a paradox within Bobel’s research. A self-declared feminist herself, Bobel led the natural mothers to believe that she was supporting their practices while she actually had the intention of trying to prove faults in their lifestyles.

Ruddick, Sara. (1998). Maternal thinking: Toward a politics of peace. Ballantine Books: New York, NY.

Interesting research by Loye that revisits Darwin's works (Origin of the Species and Survival of the Fittest). Loye points out how, in fact, Darwin frequently alluded to this idea and theory of the 'the moral sense.' The moral sense is based on consciousness and CHOICE - Loye calls this the 'lost theory' or 'second half Darwinism' because much of the research that has been done on Darwin's writings and research has ignored this second half of what Darwin was saying: that human evolution occurs not only through breeding selection and natural selection, but also, by a large part, through our moral sense and reasoning. And this moral sense and reasoning that we have, as Loye explains, first began to arise when meiotic sex began to happen (when organisms came to the point of needing two - instead of just themselves - to reproduce); these pairing relationships led to caring for another being (instead of only looking out for one's self) and led to family and social bonds and values (ie. conscious evolution). Essentially, Loye points out that: evolution is NOT inherently selfish or random (despite what mainstream teachings on science and evolution lead us to believe).

I just finished reading the book, Free Schools, Free People (Ron Miller); it traces the history of the free-school movement, what the free school movement stands for, and some of the pioneers of the movement.

I think that the free school movement made a big mark on the way learning/education/schools are understood. Yet, very few people - including those who are in the field of education - know much about 'alternative' ways of learning (IE learning outside of public schools) such as free schools. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Or, for those specifically in the education field, how much did/does your 'training' address these kinds of issues?

Allen Olson's class: How People Learn. I got the most good books out of this class than any of the others...Deschooling Scoeity (Illich), Caring (Noddings), Education and Experience (Dewey). Granted, I am into these because I am into research on learning and education vs. schooling - and social systems.