Fieldnotes from the Theory Classroom: Choosing Feminism

Fieldnotes from the Theory Classroom

Entry: Choosing Feminism


Context
This course for second-year Korean university students studying administrative welfare introduces social theories relevant to their major. Each week learners are introduced to five theories and then do a series of in-class activities and written homework to explore those theories and how they can be applied to Korean social and policy issues. A final interview with a student prompted me to return to his work and ask some questions. This is the work that I observed of the student, and my thoughts about what I should learn as a teacher.


Week 8
Two students — Park and Kim (pseudonyms) — lose their original partners due to attendance issues. Rather than reassign them to previously covered topics, I offer them the option to choose a new theory to explore together.

They choose feminist theory — a topic neither was assigned.

Their written submission begins:

“Hello, we're 17th generation Park and Kim. Our topic is about feminist theory. This is a theory that analyzes the power structure and social inequality by gender, and seeks to realize women's rights and equality. And the lens we chose is a historical development. Our research question is: How does feminist theory relate to and help the Me Too movement in relation to history?”

They describe the Larry Nassar case and conclude:

“It helped us understand that the Me Too movement is not just a personal accusation, it's a matter of society as a whole. And we think it's necessary to be interested in and learn about gender equality education.”

Feminist theory was assigned to four other teams. Park and Kim’s team is the only one to self-select it.


Week 9
The pair continues to work steadily. Park is often vocal in class when present. Kim is quiet and reserved. Their final project presentation is clear and well-paced. I still wonder how they landed on feminism, but I don’t ask.


Final Assignment Week
Students submit individual reflections on the most surprising or meaningful theory studied during the semester.

In his written reflection, Park does not mention feminist theory but does mention intersectionalism and the digital divide, other topics covered in the term.


Final Interview
During finals week, I meet with each student for a short one-on-one conversation.

I ask:
“How about this semester? What was most impressive to you? It can be about our class, your major, or campus life in general.”

Meeting with Park, he pauses. Then says:
“Feminist theory.”

It is the only time he names it as personally meaningful.


Journal Reflection: Naming Feminism in Private — Silence in Writing

Park’s naming of feminist theory as the most impressive part of the semester — during our one-on-one interview — has stayed with me. It was the only time he directly claimed it as personally meaningful. His final written reflection, however, made no mention of feminism at all.

This sharp contrast between spoken disclosure and written silence feels significant.

Feminist theory was one of several critical social theories students studied this semester. Park’s choice, alongside his partner, to explore feminism was notable since they self-selected the topic rather than having it assigned. Yet his later omission of it from his individual work raises questions about how students negotiate the cultural and personal risks around certain ideas.

For a young man in South Korea, openly aligning with feminism can be fraught. Public discourse often frames feminism as threatening or controversial, especially among young men who face conflicting pressures around masculinity and social expectations. Online hostility toward feminism is widespread and often harsh.

This is the third semester this student has studied with me. He is diligent, a struggles a little with attendance, but very active in his critical thinking and care related work towards others in his group work. I wondered at first if his naming of feminisim in our meeting was a type of brown nosing; seeing me as a woman, I would want to talk about this. But this type of behavior does not fit in with his previous behaviors displayed. 

Park’s disability adds further complexity. As a student navigating not only gendered social norms but also disability-related stigma and marginalization, his engagement with feminist theory may be deeply personal but also difficult to fully express publicly.

His quiet naming of feminism in a private conversation — contrasted with its absence in his formal writing — suggests that learning and identity negotiation happen unevenly and in different registers. Reflective writing may not capture the full extent of student meaning-making, especially around sensitive topics.

This moment reminds me to hold space for the invisible and the unsaid — the tensions students carry between public performance and private truth. It challenges me to rethink how we invite and recognize student voices, especially those negotiating intersectional identities in culturally complex environments.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Portfolio for Maria Lisak, EdD

Week 1: Thresholds + Intuition

Gaps and Opportunities in the South Korean Digital Content Creation Landscape