Harvard Law professor claims that Japanese comfort women were voluntarily employed

Harvard Law School Japanese legal studies professor J. Mark Ramseyer argues in a paper due to be published next month that it’s a myth that women were coerced into working as prostitutes for the Japanese Army in WWII.

Needless to say, this is not going over well. Critics are pointing out that the professor ignored a vast body of documentation from Korean sources and international scholarship, and suggesting that his relationship with Japanese government officials influenced his paper.

The paper’s abstract (available online) is disturbing enough; an editorial by Prof. Ramseyer is even more offensive.

Basically: “Who are you going to believe - me, or a bunch of lying whores?”

He seems nice.

Remember that textbook McGraw-Hill published for Texas claiming that enslaved people from Africa were immigrants and referred to them as “workers”? It’s never to late to polish up your image with some revisionist history.

At least it’s literally true that slaves were immigrants and workers. The connotations are all wrong, but the literal meaning is at least correct.

But saying that these women were willing, when they themselves say otherwise, is just plain wrong.

Is it? If you’re forced to work, can you literally be referred to as a ‘worker?’

Worker, yes. Employee, no.

Forced work is slavery

Well duh.

The term “worker” is purely descriptive - it means someone who performs work. Nothing more than that.

Seems to sum it.

Well then, it sounds like you’re saying the comfort women were sex workers rather than rape victims. If forced work is work and not enslavement, then forced sex is sex work, and not rape.

It depends on the context. Most folks would assume workers are paid for their labor.

What about women and girls trafficked into sex ‘work’? They are also forced into it, but still called sex workers.

Not by me. I call them kidnapping victims.

Yes, and slaves were actually well treated and had no problem with their lot in life.

:face_with_raised_eyebrow:

Maybe. You’d say, for instance, “the workers who built the Great Pyramid of Giza”, even if you don’t know if they were paid or not.

That is an excellent point. I think I’d say, very tentatively, that forced sex work is both sex work and rape, just like a field slave is both a worker and a victim of slavery. Saying that something is forced sex work does not, of course, diminish one whit from the crime, nor does it make the rape any less heinous.

In my experience, most folks said “the slaves who build the Pyramids” until it was discovered that they were paid workers. Until that, I’d only heard them referred to as slaves. In the context of slavery, the term “workers” is inappropriate unless making a distinction between say the workers and the overseers.

While it’s obvious from the OP, please note that I’m citing the “learned professor” here.

This is an area where one should defer to the professionals who have actually researched the primary evidence. It would appear the great majority of professionals vehemently disagree with this guy.

Yep - folks like Marx. And Jesus.

I would very strongly disagree that any slave is a worker. “Worker” in the labour sense means so much more than just “person who does work”.

Bosses “do work”, but they’re not workers.

Neither are slaves. Or rape victims.

[Moderating]
Jasmine, please be more cautious about correctly attributing quotes so that you don’t appear to be attributing really fucked up opinions to people who don’t hold them. Your post has been edited to remove the attribution to Jackmanii.

No warning issued.
[/Moderating]