Living Lesbian Lands and Women-Led Experiential Living: Outdoor Learning Environments for Gaian Flourishing

  • Marna Hauk
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Gender and Education book series (GED)


This chapter synthesizes and makes meaning of descriptive research findings regarding lesbian and women’s lands and women-led projects as ecofeminist sustainability learning centres through living in outdoor learning environments. Through treks, ceremonies, land-based sustainable living experiments, small-scale farming, permacultural householding, collective creative ventures, and feminist culture genesis, women’s lands and women-led adventures incubated effective, local, small-scale learning alternatives to industrial domination education. Women-led outdoor experiential learning environments offered open spaces for slowing and presence that affirm sufficiency, emergence-from-within, strengths-based skills, opportunities, and sanctuary-towards. Grounded in compassion and an ecofeminist ethic of care, these outdoor experiences nurtured creativity within and amongst learners and the land. They catalysed regenerative ripples and generative webs and networks of Gaian flourishing that further nurture and liberate other educational and cultural contexts. Decolonizing perspectives can further strengthen the offerings.


Ecofeminist Women’s land Outdoor education Sustainability Earth regenerative education 



The author would like to thank the participation of Bethroot Gwynne (Fly Away Home), Denise Mitten (Woodswomen), Jean Mountaingrove (Rootworks), Musawa Moore (We’Moon), Nicole Apelian (EcoTours International), Sierra Lonepine Briano and Marj Greenhut (Art Springs), Vicki Noble (Motherpeace), and the alumnae and board members of OWL Farm for their generous contributions of time and insight that nurtured this research.


  1. Aguilar, J., Long, L., Anna, F. A., Hauk, M., Moore, M., & Gwynn, B. (2012, November). Creatrix for the possible: Women make art, make community, make change [Panel]. Feminism unbound: Imagining a feminist future, National Women’s Studies Association 2012, Oakland, CA.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, J. F., McKenna, J., & Hind, K. (2012). Brain resilience: Shedding light into the black box of adventure processes. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 16(1), 3–14.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, M. A. (2007). Landfullness in adventure-based programming: Promoting reconnection to the land. In B. Henderson & N. Vikander (Eds.), Nature first: Outdoor life the friluftsliv way (pp. 246–256). Toronto, ON: Natural Heritage Books.Google Scholar
  4. Barrett, R. (2016). Female erasure: What you need to know about gender politics’ war on women, the female sex, and human rights. Pacific Palisades, CA: Tidal Time.Google Scholar
  5. Birnbaum, J., & Fox, L. (2014). Sustainable [r]evolution: Permaculture in ecovillages, urban farms, and communities worldwide. Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic.Google Scholar
  6. Burmeister, H. J. (2013). Rural revolution: Documenting the lesbian land communities of Southern Oregon. Master’s thesis. Dissertations and Theses, Portland State University. Paper 1080. Retrieved from
  7. Calderon, D. (2014). Speaking back to manifest destinies: A land education-based approach to critical curriculum inquiry. Environmental Education Research, 20(1), 24–36. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daly, M., & Caputi, J. (1987). Webster’s first new intergalactic wickedary of the English language. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dashú, M. (2012, April). Modern matriarchal studies [Panelist]. Conference of the Association for the Study of Women and Mythology, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  10. Dashú, M. (2015). Resurgence. In M. R. Dexter & V. Noble (Eds.), Foremothers of the women’s spirituality movement: Elders and visionaries (pp. 39–47). Amherst, NY: Teneo.Google Scholar
  11. de la Bellacasa, M. P. (2010). Ethical doings in naturecultures. Ethics, Place & Environment, 13(2), 151–169. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dillon, J. (2003). On learners and learning in environmental education: Missing theories, ignored communities. Journal of Environmental Education, 9(2), 215–226. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fawcett, L. (2013). Three degrees of separation: Accounting for naturecultures in environmental education research. In R. P. Stevenson, M. Brody, J. Dillon, & A. E. J. Wals (Eds.), International handbook of research on environmental education (pp. 409–417). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Fellowship for Intentional Community (FIC). (n.d.). Communities by country. Retrieved from
  15. Flinders, C. L. (2002). The values of belonging: Rediscovering balance, mutuality, intuition, and wholeness in a competitive world. San Francisco, CA: Harper.Google Scholar
  16. Gagehabib, L. V., & Summerhawk, B. (2000). Circles of power: Shifting dynamics in a lesbian-centered community. Norwich, VT: New Victoria.Google Scholar
  17. Galman, S. C. (2013). The good, the bad, and the data: Shane the lone ethnographer’s basic guide to qualitative data analysis. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast.Google Scholar
  18. Gough, A. (1999). Recognising women in environmental education pedagogy and research: Toward an ecofeminist poststructuralist perspective. Environmental Education Research, 5(2), 143–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gough, A. (2004). The contribution of ecofeminist perspectives to sustainability in higher education. In P. Corcoran & A. E. J. Wals (Eds.), Higher education and the challenge of sustainability (pp. 149–161). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gough, A. (2013). Researching differently: Generating a gender agenda for research in environmental education. In R. P. Stevenson, M. Brody, J. Dillon, & A. E. J. Wals (Eds.), International handbook of research on environmental education (pp. 375–383). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Gough, N., Gough, A., Appelbaum, P., Appelbaum, S., Doll, M. A., & Sellers, W. (2003). Tales from Camp Wilde: Queer(y)ing environmental education research. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 8, 44–66.Google Scholar
  22. Harvester, L., & Blenkinsop, S. (2010). Environmental education and ecofeminist pedagogy: Bridging the environmental and the social. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 15, 120–134.Google Scholar
  23. Hauk, M. (2010, October). Four characteristics of Gaian methods. In M. Hauk, J. Landsman, J. Canty, & N. Cox Caniglia (Eds.), Gaian methodologies—An emergent confluence of sustainability research innovation (pp. 10–14). Proceedings paper, Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education Conference, Denver, Colorado. Retrieved from
  24. Hauk, M. (2014a). Complex regenerative creativity. In D. Ambrose, B. Sriraman, & K. M. Pierce (Eds.), A critique of creativity and complexity—Deconstructing clichés (pp. 97–121). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense/Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Hauk, M. (2014b). Gaia e/mergent: Earth regenerative education catalyzing empathy, creativity, and wisdom. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from Proquest (UMI 3630295). Retrieved from
  26. Hauk, M. (2015). Dreams of Earth: Earth dreaming as eco-resilience practice for the long emergency. Ecopsychology, 7(4), 258–265. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hauk, M. (2016). Queer Earth: Troubling dirt, humanness, gender, assumptions, and binaries to nurture bioculturally responsive curricula. In V. E. Bloomfield & M. E. Fisher (Eds.), LGBTQ voices in education: Changing the culture of schooling (pp. 186–200). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Hornibrook, T., Brinkert, E., Parry, D., Seimens, R., Mitten, D., & Priest, S. (1997). The benefits and motivations of all-women outdoor programs. Journal of Experiential Education, 20, 152–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Keating, A. (2013). Transformation now!: Toward a post-oppositional politics of change. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  30. Mitten, D. (1985). A philosophical basis for a women’s outdoor adventure program. Journal of Experiential Education, 8(2), 20–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mitten, D. (1992). Empowering girls and women in the outdoors. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 63(2), 56–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mitten, D. (1996). The value of feminist ethics in teaching and leadership. In K. Warren (Ed.), Women’s voices in experiential education (pp. 159–171). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.Google Scholar
  33. Mitten, D. (1997). In the light: Sexual diversity on women’s outdoor trips. Journal of Leisurability, 24(4), 1–11. Retrieved from Google Scholar
  34. Mitten, D. (2017a). Connections, compassion, and co-healing: The ecology of relationship. In K. Malone, S. Truong, & T. Gray (Eds.), Reimagining sustainability in precarious times (pp. 173–186). Singapore: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mitten, D. (2017b). Ethic of earth care in women’s outdoor programming. Unpublished manuscript. Prescott, AZ: Prescott College.Google Scholar
  36. Mitten, D., & Woodruff, S. L. (2010). Women’s adventure history and outdoor education programming in the United States favors friluftsliv. Norwegian Journal of Friluftsliv. In: Henrik Ibsen: The Birth of ‘Friluftsliv’. A 150 Year International Dialogue Conference Jubilee Celebration. North Troendelag University College, Levanger, Norway, Mountains of Norwegian/Swedish Border, 14–19 September 2009. Retrieved from
  37. Moore, M. (2016). We’Moon 2016. Wolf Creek, OR: Mother Tongue Ink.Google Scholar
  38. Morris, B. J. (2016). The disappearing L: Erasure of lesbian spaces and culture. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  39. Mortimer-Sandilands, C. (2010). A genealogy of queer ecologies. In C. Mortimer-Sandilands & B. Erickson (Eds.), Queer ecologies: Sex, nature, politics, desire (pp. 1–47). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar
  40. Noble, V. (2003). Double goddess: Women sharing power. Rochester, VT: Bear.Google Scholar
  41. Of-Hearts, S. (2016, July 7). Community as sanctuary: How these retreats offer refuge in rural places. Fellowship for Intentional Community [Web log]. Retrieved from
  42. Russell, C., Sarick, T., & Kennelly, J. (2003). Queering environmental education. Pathways: The Ontario Journal of Outdoor Education, 15(1), 16–19.Google Scholar
  43. Sandilands, C. (2002). Lesbian separatist communities and the experience of nature: Toward a queer ecology. Organization and Environment, 15(2), 131–163. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Santana, E. M. (2015). Old growth feminism: Arboreal agencies on lesbian land. Master’s thesis, York University, Ontario, Canada. Retrieved from
  45. SheWolf. (2013). Shewolf’s directory of wimmin’s lands and lesbian communities (6th ed.). Melrose, FL: Target Blue.Google Scholar
  46. Shiva, V. (2014). Reductionism and regeneration: A crisis in science. In M. Mies & V. Shiva (Eds.), Ecofeminism (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Zed.Google Scholar
  47. Taylor, S. E. (2002). The tending instinct: How nurturing is essential for who we are and how we live. New York, NY: Times Books.Google Scholar
  48. Tuck, E., McKenzie, M., & McCoy, K. (2014). Land education: Indigenous, post-colonial, and decolonizing perspectives on place and environmental education research. Environmental Education Research, 20(1), 1–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Warren, K. (1996). The midwife teacher: Engaging students in the experiential education process. In K. Warren (Ed.), Women’s voices in experiential education (pp. 182–192). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.Google Scholar
  50. Warren, K. (2015). Gender in outdoor learning. In B. Humberstone, H. Prince, & K. A. Henderson (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of outdoor studies (pp. 360–368). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marna Hauk
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Earth Regenerative StudiesPortlandUSA
  2. 2.Prescott CollegePrescottUSA

Personalised recommendations