Hillary Clinton and Japan Are in a Tiff Over 'Sex Slaves' and 'Comfort Women'

There's a fascinating tiff brewing between Japanese and U.S. diplomats after Hillary Clinton reportedly corrected a State Department official who referred to women drafted into prostitution by the Japanese during World War II by the widely used term "comfort women," asking that the Department instead call it like it is and say "enforced sex slaves."

This article is from the archive of our partner .

The State Department neither confirmed nor denied the report that the Secretary of State had corrected the State Department official, which allegedly happened at a closed-door meeting, first reported Monday by South Korea's Chosun Ilbo newspaper. No wonder at their reticence. The treatment of many, many thousands of women abducted from their homes and forced to serve at "comfort stations" in other countries through the war remains a sore point between Japan and countries like South Korea, China, the Philippines, and others whose women were drafted. The U.S., the paper noted, historically "has avoided getting involved in the painful history dividing Korea and Japan."

Japan wasn't exactly happy to hear about the potential new terminology. Japanese Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba told reporters Tuesday, "If that is confirmed, I will tell her that it is an incorrect expression and explain to her the steps that we have taken, including an apology by the prime minister and the creation of a fund to support women in Asia in order to help comfort women."

There have indeed been apologies and reparations from the Japanese, though pointing that out doesn't exactly address the language we should use to describe these women. Language nerds could liken that question to a descriptive vs. prescriptive debate. Should we use the term that's been prescribed to them, "comfort women," or one that describes their experience, "enforced sex slave"?

Korean officials quoted in a Korea Herald report seem to walk the line, or at least lean slightly toward the prescribers. "[Comfort women] is an established term in Korea and is also used in laws. But if victims and their supporters want it to be changed, we will consider it," says "an official in Seoul" to the paper. In other words, "comfort women" is undoubtedly a euphemism, but it's one upon which we've heaped decades of debate, historical research, and apparently law titles, so people aren't really confused about its meaning. For an admittedly imperfect comparison, consider the feelings evoked by the euphemism "Final Solution." They're not happy ones.

It's also a debate that obviously loses some nuance in translation. The Korean Herald reports:

Kim Dong-hee, secretary general for a Seoul-based civic group Korean Council for the Women Drafted for Military Sex Slavery by Japan, said that in Korean, the euphemism carries the connotation that they are the victims of forced sex slavery.

That's obviously not necessarily the case in English, except for those who are familiar with the history. The U.S. has remained sort of removed from this debate between their many Asian allies, so if it's true that Clinton is making a push for an official terminology change at the risk of annoying Japan, it shows a lot about how far she's willing to change things, even subtle things, to focus on her "signature issue" of women's rights worldwide. She is "interested in the issue and considers the treatment of the victims a serious human rights violation," Chosun Ilbo reported. On the other hand, if victims rights organizations aren't making a unified case that the term should be changed, perhaps she'd needlessly be creating a diplomatic headache, in which case, don't expect the State Department to go much further than they have in addressing the story.

This article is from the archive of our partner The Wire.

About the Author

Eric Randall is an associate digital editor at Boston Magazine and a former staff writer for The Atlantic Wire.

Twitter

More comfortable online than out partying, post-Millennials are safer, physically, than adolescents have ever been. But they’re on the brink of a mental-health crisis.

One day last summer, around noon, I called Athena, a 13-year-old who lives in Houston, Texas. She answered her phone—she’s had an iPhone since she was 11—sounding as if she’d just woken up. We chatted about her favorite songs and TV shows, and I asked her what she likes to do with her friends. “We go to the mall,” she said. “Do your parents drop you off?,” I asked, recalling my own middle-school days, in the 1980s, when I’d enjoy a few parent-free hours shopping with my friends. “No—I go with my family,” she replied. “We’ll go with my mom and brothers and walk a little behind them. I just have to tell my mom where we’re going. I have to check in every hour or every 30 minutes.”

Those mall trips are infrequent—about once a month. More often, Athena and her friends spend time together on their phones, unchaperoned. Unlike the teens of my generation, who might have spent an evening tying up the family landline with gossip, they talk on Snapchat, the smartphone app that allows users to send pictures and videos that quickly disappear. They make sure to keep up their Snapstreaks, which show how many days in a row they have Snapchatted with each other. Sometimes they save screenshots of particularly ridiculous pictures of friends. “It’s good blackmail,” Athena said. (Because she’s a minor, I’m not using her real name.) She told me she’d spent most of the summer hanging out alone in her room with her phone. That’s just the way her generation is, she said. “We didn’t have a choice to know any life without iPads or iPhones. I think we like our phones more than we like actual people.”