Summary
When discussing the sexual exploitation system constructed by the Japanese Empire in Asian colonies and occupied territories during the first half of the twentieth century, the term “Comfort Women” has long served as standard academic and public discourse.
However, from contemporary legal historical and victim human rights perspectives, this terminology is truly a “euphemism” that not only conceals the system’s profound coercion but also linguistically obscures the war crimes perpetrated by the Japanese military during the colonial period.
This article aims to examine the term’s misleading nature and argue for transitioning to precise descriptions like “Military Sexual Slaves” as necessary for restoring historical truth and pursuing historical justice.
One: Etymology and the Disguise of Rhetoric
The term “Comfort Women” translates directly from Japanese ianfu. In the colonial context, the Japanese military used this term to refer to females providing “comfort” and “stability” to troops’ morale. This naming convention packages extreme violence as a military supply matter, attempting to frame victims as “willing service providers” rather than “violence sufferers.”
From academic precision standpoints, this rhetoric successfully constructed a false contractual relationship in historical archives while completely ignoring the deception, kidnapping, and violent coercion victims experienced during recruitment.
Two: Damage from Continued Use of “Comfort Women” Terminology
Persistent use of this terminology produces several cognitive distortions:
- Obscuring Crime Nature: The “comfort” term carries voluntary dedication connotations, easily misleading the public about victim agency, distorting historical facts, making people think this was merely a wartime “special industry.”
- Responsibility Shifting: This ambiguity provides historical revisionism space, allowing perpetrators to evade state and military legal responsibility through “civilian recruitment” or “contractual relationship” claims.
- Secondary Victimization: For surviving victims, the term perpetuates societal stigmatization of their identity, forcing them to endure unnecessary moral shame when pursuing future justice.
Three: Renaming Movement and International Consensus Shift
Since the 1990s, as victim testimonies emerged, international legal circles and the United Nations began questioning term appropriacy. UN Special Rapporteur Gay McDougall explicitly indicated in related reports that more legally binding and factually accurate descriptions should be used:
- Military Sexual Slaves: Emphasizes victims’ complete loss of personal freedom and the system’s state military control.
- Victims of Wartime Sexual Violence: Categorizes this as armed conflict war crime rather than general social problem.
Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also instructed in 2012 that official documents should use “enforced sex slaves” instead of “comfort women” to face historical truth directly.
Four: Conclusion
Reconstructing proper Japanese colonial-era narrative language is history’s vessel. When exploring this dark history, we shouldn’t continue using colonizer-imposed euphemisms.
Transitioning to “Military Sexual Slaves” or “sexual violence victims” represents not merely linguistic correction but historical power reversal—reclaiming the right to define history from perpetrator rhetoric, returning it to victims.
Only through precise linguistic naming can we authentically restore this systematic crime against humanity in academia and social education, establishing foundations for historical justice.