Harvard Professor’s Paper Claiming ‘Comfort Women’ in Imperial Japan Were Voluntarily Employed Stokes International Controversy
By Ariel H. Kim and Simon J. Levien, Crimson Staff Writers
SEOUL, South Korea — A paper by Harvard Law School Japanese legal studies professor J. Mark Ramseyer that claims sex slaves taken by the Imperial Japanese Army during World War II were actually recruited, contracted sex workers generated international controversy, academic criticism, and student petitions at Harvard this week.
The paper, “Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War,” made headlines across South Korean media and was met with widespread public anger. Ramseyer’s work is set to be published in the March issue of the International Review of Law and Economics. Korean outlets picked up the news after Ramseyer’s paper was featured in a Jan. 28 press release in Sankei Shimbun, a Japanese newspaper.
Well-known worldwide for its conservative, nationalist bent, Sankei shared Ramseyer’s abstract with his permission, while adding that memorials to “comfort women” across Asia have spread a “false image” of Japan.
“Comfort women” — a loose translation of a Japanese euphemism for “prostitute” — refers to women and girls forced into sex slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army. Comfort women were held at brothels, or “comfort stations,” adjacent to Japanese military facilities to serve soldiers. The number of women enslaved from Japan’s occupied territories is disputed, but estimates range from the tens of thousands to up to 410,000, with many being of Korean descent.
Since World War II, Japan has propped up and dissolved compensation funds, dealt with lawsuits and investigations, and issued and walked back apologies to comfort women. Of the few surviving comfort women today, many have said they are still waiting for justice.
The U.N. Commission on Human Rights, Amnesty International, and many notable scholars in Korea, Japan, the United States, and other countries have published extensive reports documenting the explicit sexual slavery of comfort women.
Ramseyer argues in his paper that comfort women were not coerced, but voluntarily employed under the terms of a contract.
Based on the title of Ramseyer’s professorship — the Mitsubishi Professor of Japanese Legal Studies — many Korean media outlets and scholars suspected that he may be sponsored by the Japanese corporation.
Yuji Hosaka — a political science professor at Sejong University in Seoul often cited in Korean press — suggested in an interview the possibility that Mitsubishi donated money to the University to establish the professorship and give Ramseyer this role.
In an interview with The Crimson Friday, Ramseyer said he is not aware of the precise origin of the endowed professorship, but believes that Mitsubishi Group made an approximately $1.5 million donation to Harvard in the 1970s to back the position. He said, however, that there are “no strings” or money from Mitsubishi attached to his professorship today.
Spokespeople for the University and the Law School did not respond to a request for comment.
Hosaka also said he suspected Ramseyer’s work was influenced by his connections with the Japanese government. Ramseyer, who was raised in Japan, was awarded the Order of the Rising Sun in 2018, a Japanese government distinction for those who promote Japanese culture abroad.
Ramseyer acknowledged that he has friends who work for the Japanese government, but “absolutely” denied that those connections or the award had any influence on the paper.
Academics Question Paper’s Reasoning and Sources
Legal scholars and historians from South Korea and the United States said Ramseyer’s paper had several flaws in its reasoning and raised questions about the sources he used to back up those arguments.
Harvard Professor of Korean History Carter J. Eckert ’68 wrote in an emailed statement that Ramseyer’s article is “woefully deficient, empirically, historically, and morally.”
Eckert added that he and fellow Harvard History professor Andrew Gordon ’74 are preparing a critical response to Ramseyer’s article at the request of the journal.
University of Connecticut professor of Japanese and Korean history Alexis Dudden — who said she took a class taught by Ramseyer at the University of Chicago in the 1990s — said she was “shocked” when Ramseyer emailed her the article in December.
“It is a poorly resourced, evidentially fatuous piece of scholarly production,” she said. “It is conceptually misguided, because he’s not understanding not only the context, but what actually happened.”
Dudden said after reading the article, she wrote to Ramseyer, responding to inaccuracies she noticed in his logic.
Among the first things she noticed, she said, was that Ramseyer omitted “an intense body of scholarly archival Government of Japan evidence.”
Pyong Gap Min — a sociology professor at Queens College, City University of New York who has researched comfort women — said that Ramseyer based his claims solely off of Japanese “neo-national arguments.”
“He has the burden to refute previous studies that have demonstrated the comfort women system as sexual slavery,” he said.
Ramseyer said an early version of his paper included “disputes with historians,” but those sections were cut from the final version at the request of the journal in order to focus the article on the contracts.
The journal’s editors did not respond to a request for comment Saturday.
Several scholars also said they took issue with two of Ramseyer’s main arguments in the article.
The first is his claim that recruiters and brothel operators, rather than the Japanese government or military, were responsible for forcing women to work at the comfort stations.
“Ramseyer made the error of completely ignoring the fact that these recruiters were working under Japanese military or government orders,” Hosaka said in an interview conducted in Korean.
Japanese government documents provide evidence that the Japanese military secretly selected independent recruiters and forced them to operate comfort stations, Hosaka added.
Professor Seo Kyoung-duk, who teaches at Sungshin Women’s University in Seoul, said he agreed with Hosaka, citing a 1938 Japanese ministry notice on recruiting women to comfort stations.
Responding to the evidence that Hosaka, Seo, and other scholars have cited in their research, Ramseyer said the notion that there are documents confirming Japanese government involvement is “just wrong.”
“I don’t see anything that indicates that the Japanese government dragooned people into doing it,” he said.
Asked why he did not cite any Korean sources in the paper, Ramseyer said he is “very upfront” about the fact that he does not read Korean.
Several academics also disputed another one of Ramseyer’s claims in the paper: that comfort women willingly entered brothel contracts, from which they financially benefited, and after which they were able to return home.
“The comfort women system that the army was using is essentially an extension of the licensed prostitution system that was in effect in Japan,” Ramseyer said in the interview.
Hosaka argued, however, that the “comfort stations” that accompanied the Japanese military during WWII and the licensed brothels in Japan are entirely different.
Harvard Law School professor Noah R. Feldman ’92, who has studied comfort women and contract theory, also said Ramseyer’s claim is incorrect.
“The economic relationship that was deployed, even according to Ramseyer’s own research, is very close to what we would ordinarily call debt slavery,” Feldman said, comparing it to sharecropping contracts in the Jim Crow American South. “Such arrangements are designed to and do exploit the vast power discrepancy between different actors and institutions.”
Katharine H.S. Moon, a professor of Asian studies and political science at Wellesley College, wrote in an emailed statement that Ramseyer’s claim ignores the context in which women entered into contracts.
“How do we explain whether a 14- or 16-year-old girl knew what she was signing even if she signed it, especially in a Korean society at the time that was not accustomed to contracts and related legalism and didn’t grant such agency to girls and women?” Moon wrote.
Students React with Anger, Petitions
The Korean Association of Harvard Law School, led by law students Gabrielle J. Kim and Kikyung “Kik” Lee, released a statement Thursday condemning Ramseyer’s article as “factually inaccurate and misleading.” As of Saturday morning, the statement garnered more than 800 signatures, many from law students across the U.S.
The Harvard College Korean International Students Association also sent a press release to Korean newspapers Friday morning criticizing Ramseyer’s paper and laying out actions the organization plans to take in protest.
KISA also plans to send out a petition to Harvard affiliates, according to Yumi Lee ’21, one of its co-presidents.
Lee said the petition will contain a list of demands to Ramseyer, University administrators, and the academic journal publishing Ramseyer’s article. It will request that Ramseyer apologize “to comfort women for whom his claims may have reinforced painful trauma” and “to the Harvard University community for injuring the institution’s reputation and standards for academic soundness,” she said.
Lee also said KISA will demand that University President Lawrence S. Bacow and Law School Dean John F. Manning ’85 condemn Ramseyer’s research, and that the journal apologize for not upholding a rigorous peer review process and withdraw the article from its upcoming issue.
In a separate email to members Friday, KISA wrote that the Korean Consulate General in Boston is “aware of the situation” and may use KISA’s statement in an official communication. The consulate did not respond to a request for comment Friday.
Several Harvard undergraduates said they reacted with disbelief and disappointment when they first encountered news of the article in South Korean media.
“It was all over the news,” Alyssa Suh ’25, who currently resides in Seoul, said. “I was extremely angry and upset when I first saw that. We were colonized, and they don’t acknowledge that.”
“No one really knows about this piece of history in the States. The amount of Korean history that we learn is literally a paragraph,” Suh added.
Ike Jin Park ’20-’22 said if the history surrounding comfort women was more well-known in the U.S., there would be a greater outcry from students.
“As a Korean citizen myself, I was very uncomfortable,” Park said. “Imagine this was another issue that a lot of people in the West cared about. It simply wouldn’t be okay.”
Park also said he believes the University “needs to make a statement” and that he would like to see the paper taken down.
Esther E. Kim ’23 said she believes the article will damage Harvard’s reputation among Koreans.
“Especially because there is a lot of respect afforded to institutions like Harvard by the Korean community, by the Korean-American community, it is devastating to see that this could be accepted and published by a Harvard Law School professor,” she said.
Responding to student backlash, Ramseyer said he has a “responsibility to the students at the Law School” and is willing to speak with them about the paper.
Ramseyer also said he does not intend to pursue further research on this topic.
Though many scholars said they disagree with Ramseyer’s claims, several noted Ramseyer is protected by academic freedom to promote his opinions.
“His academic freedom entitles him to express whatever views he wishes without any form of university-based sanction,” Feldman said.
Law School professor Jeannie Suk Gersen wrote in an emailed statement that she was “proud” that HLS student organizations had released the statement “affirming the need to be historically accurate.”
“They have refrained from petitioning for measures that would impair my colleague’s academic freedom, and I would of course disapprove of any such calls,” she wrote.
“He has every right to his opinions and viewpoint, and we all equally have every right to criticize his reasoning and logic,” Gersen added.
The Harvard Crimson 2021.2.7
2021/02/07
ダデンやA・ゴードン、ムンらがラムザイヤー論文に反論
ハーバード大ロースクール韓人学生会声明文（ラムザイヤー教授）
Statements
KAHLS Statement in Response to Professor J. Mark Ramseyer’s Article “Contracting for sex in the Pacific War”
Professor J. Mark Ramseyer, the Mitsubishi Professor of Japanese Legal Studies at Harvard Law School, recently published an article (“Contracting for sex in the Pacific War”) and accompanying editorial (“Recovering the Truth about the Comfort Women”), in which he describes the forced sex slavery organized by Japan during World War II as a consenting, contractual process. He claims, without sufficient evidence, that the Japanese military sex slaves were willing prostitutes who were able to “negotiate” for substantial wages in a consensual, contractual relationship. In his editorial, he also makes multiple assertions that the comfort women story is “pure fiction,” a revisionist claim that is recycled time and time again by neonationalist figures.
Professor Ramseyer’s arguments are factually inaccurate and misleading. Without any convincing evidence, Professor Ramseyer argues that no government “forced women into prostitution,” a contention he also makes in his editorial. Decades’ worth of Korean scholarship, primary sources, and third-party reports challenge this characterization. None are mentioned, cited, or considered in his arguments.
Professor Ramseyer’s deficient presentation of the historical record is demonstrated by his bibliography. Korean perspectives and scholarship, both rich sources of material on this topic, are almost completely absent in his work. Scholars studying history understand the possibility of post-hoc revisionism and bias. To counter such effects, they consult a wide-ranging set of materials from a variety of sources. Professor Ramseyer does not.
He also ignores expansive scholarship done by international organizations, such as the United Nations and Amnesty International, which has conclusively found that the “comfort women” were coerced, kidnapped, or forced by the Japanese government. After its independent inquiry, the Japanese government itself acknowledged as part of the Kono Statement that “the then Japanese military was, directly or indirectly, involved in the establishment and management of comfort stations.”
As students of law and democracy, we are committed to a fair presentation of diverse perspectives. Our professors stress the fundamental importance of bringing multiple perspectives to a discussion. Again, Professor Ramseyer’s article falls short in this regard. He does not engage with the historically validated and important perspectives of scholars who have worked to amplify the testimonies of these women. To ignore this work is to create the false impression of a settled history of an imagined world where Korean comfort women were free to contract for higher wages paid at their preferred schedule.
Analytically, Professor Ramseyer takes these contracts as a given. He suggests comfort women “negotiated” their contractual terms. Such value-neutral language erases important historical context of coercive sexual violence. He assumes away important issues of consent, duress, and power dynamics. As law students, we study the doctrines and equitable principles that have developed to correct for these issues in our first-year curriculum. As future lawyers, we recognize that much is still to be done, that settlements and non-disclosure agreements can do much to obscure latent coercion. As citizens of a world where sexual violence, denialism, and slavery run rampant, we call attention to misleading histories and economic analyses that callously suggest that these women negotiated into their own sexual slavery.
We, and the undersigned, strongly condemn the deliberate erasure of human rights violations and war crimes. Up to 200,000 women and girls were forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese military, from not only Korea, but also China, Taiwan, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Netherlands, East Timor, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, and Burma. We stand with the victims who have yet to receive full reparations and a proper, official apology from the Japanese government. We strongly condemn all actions that inflict pain and insult to the victims, who bear witness to the atrocities committed by the Imperial Japanese Army.
As students, we have the utmost respect for academic freedom, including that of Professor Ramseyer. But at the same time, we firmly believe that a sincere commitment to academic freedom is inseparable from the obligation of academic integrity as part of a genuine search for truth. Upholding these values requires that we shed light on the failings of misleading narratives that omit important voices and obscure critical histories.
February 4, 2021
2021/02/06
強制的性奴隷と表現するのは国連の勧告事項（朝鮮日報）
日本軍慰安婦被害者を「強制的性奴隷（enforced sex slaves）」と表現するのは国連の勧告事項だ
「慰安婦は性奴隷ではなく売春」…日本政府から叙勲されたハーバード大学教授の論文が波紋
知日派に分類される米国ハーバード大学ロースクールの教授が、日本軍「慰安婦」被害者は強制動員された性奴隷ではなく売春だったという内容の論文を発表した。日本軍慰安婦被害者を性奴隷と規定した国際社会の普遍的認識だけでなく、日本政府が慰安婦動員の強制性を認めて謝罪した1993年の河野談話とも反する内容で、論争が予想される。
ハーバード大学のジョン・マーク・ラムザイヤー教授は、3月に出版予定の学術誌「インターナショナル・レビュー・オブ・ロー・アンド・エコノミクス」第65巻に「太平洋戦争における性契約（Contracting for sex in the Pacific War）」というタイトルの論文を掲載した。
論文情報サイトに載った抄録によると、ラムザイヤー教授は、慰安婦の女性たちと雇用主である慰安所は契約関係にあり、その契約の力学関係を調べると、両者には与えられた条件下で相手と相互作用しつつ最大限の利益を追求するという「ゲーム理論」の論理が反映されていた、と主張した。
ラムザイヤー教授は、女性たちは戦時売春に随伴する危険と評判上の被害を相殺する条件を要求し、慰安所は直接監視できない環境で女性たちが十分かつ熱心に仕事をする動機を付与しなければならなかった－と明らかにした。こうした相互要求を充足するため、女性たちと慰安所は、十分な収益を創出した場合にあっては女性たちが早期に離れることを可能にする条件や、1－2年分の巨額の前払い金などを組み合わせた雇用契約を結んだというのだ。
ラムザイヤー教授は、1954年に米国シカゴで生まれた直後、宮崎県に移り住んで18歳まで現地で暮らし、日本法と法経済学を専攻した。米国における日本学の発展と日本社会・文化の理解に寄与した功績を認められ、2018年に日本政府から旭日中綬賞（ちゅうじゅしょう）の叙勲を受けた。
産経新聞の報道によるとラムザイヤー教授は、慰安婦は性売買を強要された性奴隷ではなく、慰安婦被害は朝鮮で行われた就職詐欺に伴うものだと主張した。産経は、同論文が「慰安婦が当時政府規制下で認められていた国内売春婦の延長線上の存在であることを理論的実証的に示した」と報じた。右派寄りの産経は、同論文が「慰安婦＝性奴隷」説に異議を提起するものであって「意義は大きい」と評価した。
しかし、日本軍慰安婦被害者を「強制的性奴隷（enforced sex slaves）」と表現するのは国連の勧告事項だ。1996年に採択された国連人権委員会の報告書に「性奴隷」という表現が登場した後から、本格的に通用してきた。
朝鮮日報日本語版 2021.2.2
2021/01/28
Education for Social Justice Foundation (サンフランシスコ) Teacher and Student Resource Guide
Education for Social Justice Foundation (サンフランシスコ) が昨年公開した "Comfort Women" History and Issues: Teacher and Student Resource Guide
URL http://www.e4sjf.org/comfort-women-history-and-issues1.html （魚拓）
[報道] 誰も手を付けられなかった日韓合意の残金
慰安婦賠償判決で浮び上がった…３年間誰も手を付けられなかった５６億ウォン
今月８日、韓国裁判所の慰安婦被害者賠償判決で一次的な司法の正義は実現したが、実際の賠償まではまだ道のりは長い。日本公館の差し押さえなども議論されているが、現実性が低いうえに韓日関係を破局に追い込みかねない。そのような中、２０１５年韓日間慰安婦合意によって日本政府が予算から拠出し、今は性格が曖昧な和解・癒やし財団の残余基金５６億ウォン（約５億２６００万円）が再び注目を集めている。
（１）「日本の拠出金」、いくら残っているか
日本政府は２０１６年の財団発足と同時に、合意した通り１０億円（当時のレートで約１０８億ウォン）を拠出したが、文在寅（ムン・ジェイン）政府は慰安婦合意に重大な誤りがあるとし２０１８年に財団解散を決めた。１０億円を財源として被害者と遺族に支援金を追加支給することも中断した。
だが、財団はまだ法的に完全に清算されておらず、すでに支給されたものを除く５６億ウォンが財団基金としてまだ存在する。韓国政府は残金を返さないとし、日本も返還を要求しないと方針を固めたため、５６億ウォンは誰も手が付けられないまま残っている。
（２）日本との交渉は可能か
公館を除くと韓国にある日本政府資産自体を探すのは困難なので、一部からは今回の訴訟で勝訴した被害おばあさんに５６億ウォンを活用して賠償する方案も提起されている。これに先立ち、２０１９年強制徴用問題解決のために文喜相（ムン・ヒサン）前国会議長が韓日の企業・国民の自発的募金案を提案し、草案に和解・癒やし財団の残余基金を活用する方案を含めた。当時菅義偉官房長官は「和解・癒やし財団の基金は韓日合意を履行する観点から使われなければならない」とし、事実上反対の立場を明らかにした。
これは逆に考えれば韓国政府が慰安婦合意継承を前提に慰安婦問題解決のために５６億ウォンを使うとすれば、日本もあえて反対する名分は大きくないということにもなる。外交消息筋は「和解・癒やし財団出資金の場合、明確に『賠償金』と釘を差してはいないが、日本が責任を認めたことを前提に日本政府予算から出したもので、事実上賠償金の性格がある」と説明した。また「日本も韓国政府がどのように説得するかによって、すでに渡したものなので、韓国側が判断して使うことに同意する可能性もある」と話した。
（３）韓国のお金か、日本のお金か
このように和解・癒やし財団基金自体が日本政府の予算で作られたことは間違いないが、拠出後はすでに財団のものになったうえ、解散手続きまで進行中なので、この出資金の性格が曖昧になっている。財団自体は女性家族部の傘下にあり、財団定款が準用する民法によると、「（財団解散時）財団の設立目的と同じような目的のために、処分できない時、（残余財産は）国庫に帰属する」とされている。最初は日本政府が出したので「日本のもの」であっても、今は韓国政府の管轄にあるので「韓国のもの」としても見ることができる曖昧な状態といえる。
だが今回の慰安婦賠償判決の核心は、賠償主体が「日本政府」というところにある。５６億ウォンの活用に両国が同意するからといって「韓国のもの」にするなら、判決の趣旨そのものから外れることになりかねない。そのうえ韓国政府は日本が拠出した１０億円を全額韓国予算で充当するとし、２０１８年１０３億ウォン規模の予備費を編成した。１０億円のうち、すでに被害者に支給されたお金まで否定することによって「日本が出した１０億円には手を付けなかった」という論理を構成するのが目的だった。このため、財団の残額も韓国政府のお金に代える性格の基金という反論もある。
（４）カギは被害者の意志
結局、カギは賠償を受け取る慰安婦被害者の意見だ。日本政府を相手取って慰安婦被害補償訴訟を起こしたおばあさんは全員２０１５年慰安婦合意に反対した。被害者が和解・癒やし財団のお金は受領しようとしない可能性がある。
また、慰安婦被害者の李玉善（イ・オクソン）さん（９３）は８日、勝訴判決後に中央日報の電話取材に応じ、「３億ウォンをもらっても嫌だ」とし「日本の謝罪が先」と話した。５６億ウォンを活用するのかやめるのかよりも、日本政府が誠意ある謝罪とみることができる措置をするかどうかがまず協議されなければならない。このような過程が前提にならなければ、両国政府が合意したところで、２０１５年慰安婦合意の時と同じような結果になりかねない。世宗（セジョン）研究所の陳昌洙（チン・チャンス）首席研究委員は「生半可に韓日間協議に入るよりは現状凍結がよい場合もある」と話した。
だが、日本は２０１５年合意で安倍晋三首相が「日本総理大臣」の資格で「お詫びと反省」を表したことによって「最終的・不可逆的」にすべての問題が解決済みだという立場なので、追加的な措置に意志を示さない可能性が大きい。そのうえ菅義偉内閣の支持率がスタート４カ月で半分に下落するほど、国内政治的な状況が厳しい以上、歴史問題に関連して韓国に前向きな措置を取ることは容易ではないという観測もある。
2021/01/24
パク・ユハ「学者や運動家は『強制連行』の意味を変えてきた」
その言葉の意味するところを少しずつ変えてきた・・・ある意図を持って、ね。
2)変わりうる「ファクト」とは 「帝国の慰安婦」著者が指摘、「学問の政治化」
不安定な「ファクト」
歴史葛藤をめぐって「ファクト」を見るべしとする人々がいる。最近日本でもベストセラーになっている「反日種族主義――日韓危機の根源」などもその一つといっていいだろう。もっとも、「事実」を確認することは基本的には重要だ。しかしこうした考えに陥穽（かんせい）がないわけではない。まず「事実」なるものの中身を提示するのは、多くの場合学者であるが、そうした意見が学問という名の研究の結果である限りいつでも変わりうる。つまり研究の進展によって「ファクト」とはいつでも変わりうる。しかも、学問も研究の結果なのだから、ひとりの学者の見解も変わりうる。それは当然のことだが、学者によってはその変化を明確にしない場合がある。しかも、その学説がすでにメディアなどによって広く広まったあとは訂正しにくいこともある。
たとえば、慰安婦問題における「強制連行」「強制性」という言葉をめぐって日本の学者たちや韓国の運動家はその言葉の意味するところを少しずつ変えてきた。「性奴隷」もまた同様である。つまり、たとえ「反日種族主義」の学者が「慰安婦は性奴隷ではない」と言ったところで、これまで「強制連行」「性奴隷」と主張してきた人たちはすでにその意味するところを変えているので議論がかみ合わない。そうとも知らずにそれぞれの説を信頼してやまない人々の間で接点がつくられようがないのである。たとえば、「強制性」の意味は動員をめぐっての状況ではなく「慰安所（での不自由）」（吉見義明・中央大名誉教授）をめぐるものになっていたりする。しかもそこでの不自由＝監禁の主体が誰なのかは言われない状況が…
毎日 2021年1月24日（一部）
2021/01/23
韓国の反フェミニスト「挺対協は、慰安婦問題の解決を望んでいない」
－－本で「尹美香（ユン・ミヒャン）事態も女性運動系と既成政界の結託」と批判した。
「韓国女性運動と『日本軍性奴隷制問題解決のための正義記憶連帯（正議連）』の前身である韓国挺身隊問題対策協議会（挺対協）運動は同じ幹だ。１９８７年に韓国女性団体連合ができ、その３年後の１９９０年に韓国の進歩左派女性団体３６団体が集まって挺対協を作った。尹美香議員が下っ端活動家だった時から見守ってきた。女性運動と尹美香議員、挺対協と正義連は同じ延長線にある。批判を受けるとしても一緒に受けざるをえない」
－－「正義連が実質的に慰安婦問題解決を望んでいない」と主張した。
「正義連は挺対協と統合したが、まだそれぞれ違った法人資格で女性家族部から補助金を別途受けているではないか。こうしたことは非常に間違っている。補助金問題だけではなく、彼女たちにとっては慰安婦活動がまるで巨大な産業になってしまった。慰安婦問題が本当に解決されたら、正義連の存在価値は消えるから…慰安婦問題を本当に解決するつもりがあるのか疑問を感じるのだ。慰安婦問題を一日でもはやく解決するためには、正義連のような市民団体に任せるのではなく、最初から最後まで政府が直接責任を取ってやらなくてはならない」
－－女性家族部も繰り返し批判している。何が問題なのか。
「女性家族部ができて２０年になる。その時は女性家族部が必要だった時期だ。今と違っていたから。ところがいま予算１兆２０００億ウォン（約１１３０億円）以上も使うこの組織が必要なのかどうかよく分からない。青瓦台（チョンワデ、大統領府）の国民請願に最も多く投稿される請願が『女性家族部の解体』だ。文在寅（ムン・ジェイン）政府になって関連請願が１５００件ほど投稿された。名前を『性平等家族部』に変えるか、少子化・女性・老人・女性脆弱階層、男性問題も総合的に扱うようにしなければならない。男性たちも解決すべき問題が本当に多い。解体に近い改編が必要だ」