Thread by @RWPUSA

This letter is a devastating take down of dishonest and unsubstantiated arguments underlying Mark Ramseyer's article claiming that women kept as WWII sex slaves entered valid contracts as prostitutes. The Journal should retract the article immediately.
sites.google.com/view/concerned…

"On page 4 of his article Ramseyer relates the story of a Japanese girl named Osaki who traveled abroad to work at a brothel in Borneo at the age of ten. He uses this example as evidence for his fundamental claims: that women agreed to contracts, that they were paid large sums.."

This Elsevier Journal thinks an article describing how teenage girls entered into "contracts" for sex with soldiers passes "peer review." Does your library pay the $1431 institutional subscription fee for the International Review of Law and Economics?

journals.elsevier.com/international-…

For example, Ramseyer writes: “When Osaki turned ten, a recruiter stopped by and offered her 300 yen upfront if she would agree to go abroad. The recruiter did not try to trick her; even at age 10, she knew what the job entailed” (4).
Huh? This is "law and economics"?

"But Osaki’s testimony...which Ramseyer cites, reveals precisely the opposite.
Osaki recalled, “Although I had some idea of what a prostitute was, no one explained it and we [i.e. the girls who had yet to be initiated as prostitutes] didn’t ask. We didn’t really know anything.”"