Kirk here. This post is not Kumamoto specific but, of course, as Kumamoto is part of Japan, the kinds of issues I’ll try to point out are not unrelated to life in Kumamoto.
The English article I’m linking to is very misleading. I’m not posting to endorse it but rather to point out several problems with Kyodo’s journalism and international journalism in general. So, instead of merely skipping my post and going straight to the article, I hope you’ll read all of my post – though it is rather long.
The source of the problem seems to be with Kyodo’s Japanese article on what the labor minister said:
https://this.kiji.is/508926832349496417?c=39546741839462401
In this article Labor Minister Nemoto is quoted as follows:
「社会通念に照らして業務上必要かつ相当な範囲かと思います」
And, in English, this becomes
“It’s generally accepted by society that (wearing high heels) is necessary and reasonable in workplaces”
One might quibble about whether the English is an accurate translation of the Japanese. I think it makes the English sound more declarative or stronger than the Japanese but that’s not the main point. The main point is that the Japanese itself is inaccurate. It’s not an exact quote – merely Kyodo’s summary of their interpretation of what he was saying.
The actual text can be found here:
https://www.huffingtonpost.jp/entry/kutoo_jp_5cf79a66e4b0747b8c5efe26
and at
https://www.j-cast.com/2019/06/06359462.html
The Japanese Huffington Post article seems to give the actual word-for-word text of the questions posed to Nemoto and his responses but there are some obvious typos. I used the J-Cast article to double check what seemed to be Huff Post mistakes.
Initially, Nemoto seems to be expressing some sympathy for the position taken by the people who conducted the #KuToo survey. For example
「ハイヒールやパンプスの着用については、それぞれの業務の中で、それぞれの対応がなされてると思いますが、たとえば労働安全衛生の観点からは、腰痛や転倒事故に配慮して、服装や各事業上の対応が講じられるべきかと考えています。」
“In regard to the wearing of high heels and pumps, I think decisions are being made in individual workplaces in accordance with the nature of the work, but from the perspective of worker health and safety, I think due consideration should be given to the risk of falls and the exacerbation of lower-back pain.” (Translation: Kirk Masden)
Nemoto’s interrogator, Representative OTSUJI Kanako (尾辻かな子), was not satisfied with this rather oblique response and continued to press him to take a stronger position. In response to her question about the absurdity of the very idea that their might be a workplace where it would be appropriate to force employees to wear high heels, Nemoto responded as follows:
「ハイヒールやパンプスの着用を強制する、指示する、これはいろんなケースがあると思いますが、社会通念に照らして、業務上必要かどうかということ、これは社会慣習に関わるものではないかなと思います。だからそういう動向は注視しながら、働きやすい職場づくりを推進していきたいと思います」
“I think there may be a variety of cases in which employers require (demand) the wearing of high heels or pumps but I think that whether or not such footwear is necessary in a particular area of work depends on social norms. So, I’d like to pay close attention to social trends in this area and try to promote workplaces that are easy (for women) to work in.” (Translation: Kirk Masden)
This last statement seems to be what became
「社会通念に照らして業務上必要かつ相当な範囲かと思います」
in Japanese and
“It’s generally accepted by society that (wearing high heels) is necessary and reasonable in workplaces”
As you can see, the Japanese is not an exact quote of what was said, though it may be possible to argue that it paraphrases the gist of it. It’s true that Nemoto refused to come out and make a blanket statement that no employer should ever be able to require female employees to wear high heels or pumps. So, in that sense, his statement can be taken as support for the status quo.
Things really went off the rails, however, when foreign media started rephrasing this. The Guardian presents the following summary:
“Japan’s health and labour minister has defended workplaces that require women to wear high heels to work, arguing it is ’necessary and appropriate’ after a petition was filed against the practice.”
Nemoto’s statement was a mealymouthed attempt to avoid a blanket condemnation while still trying to seem supportive of the basic idea of avoiding practices that cause unnecessary hardships for female employees. He can be criticized for being evasive and for refusing to condemn current practices clearly but that’s not quite the same thing as actively “arguing it is ’necessary and appropriate.'”
For me, the following J-Cast article has been quite helpful in understanding the media storm about this:
https://www.j-cast.com/2019/06/06359462.html
The J-Cast article says that Kyodo Tsushin first came out with the following headline:
「パンプス『業務で必要』と容認 厚労相発言、波紋呼びそう」 “Minister of Labor Says Pumps are ‘Necessary for Work’ – Comment Likely to Draw Criticism” (Translation: Kirk Masden)
Later, however, on the 6th, they down-toned it as follows:
「パンプス着用、社会通念で 厚労相、容認とも取れる発言」 “Labor Minister Makes Statement that Appears to Condone Requiring Pumps Based on Social Mores” (Translation: Kirk Masden) https://this.kiji.is/508926832349496417
So, Kyodo was forced to walk its characterization back a bit. I have no problem with this new headline. I would agree that he “appeared to condone,” or at least “refused to rule out” some requirements to wear pumps, etc. Still, Kyodo has kept the inaccurate quote (described above) that is more of a paraphrase and misrepresents the strength of his statement.
Also, note that while Kyodo changed it’s Japanese headline, presumedly as a result of backlash from people who knew what was actually said, they kept the more declarative English headline: “Labor minister opposes banning female dress codes with high heels”. Perhaps they think a more nuanced headline would be lost on dull-witted foreigners who only understand “black” and “white” distinctions.
I’m interested in this issue for a number of reasons.
First of all, I think the issue itself is important. Perhaps it would be reasonable for a director to ask Meryl Streep to wear a particular brand of pumps to get the image of the character she played in “The Devil Wears Prada.” So, OK, never say never. There may be some situations where requiring pumps might be necessary to the work at hand. But, of course, I think such justifiable situations are far, far fewer than the actually number of situations where women suffer various kinds of harassment related to their appearance. So, I’m definitely much more sympathetic to #KuToo’s position on this one than I am to Nemoto’s. [By the way, #KuToo is a play on #MeToo, 靴 (kutsu; shoes), and 苦痛（くつう; pain and suffering).]
Secondly, though I’m sympathetic to those who wish to express frustration with Nemoto, I dislike sloppy journalism and have been bothered by inaccurate use of quotation marks for years. This is by no means the first situation in which I have noticed that what we find between quotation marks is not an exact quote. In some situations such paraphrasing may be an acceptable liberty that journalists can take, but in situations like this, where the exact wording can have a significant impact on how problematic the statement is taken to be, I find it to be a downright offense practice.
Thirdly, I’m disappointed in English-language media outside of the U.S. They all seem to be following the lead of Kyodo’s misleading characterization. In some cases, rephrasing of the type that the Guardian engaged in leads to an impression that’s even farther from the original reality – something like a telephone game in which repetition leads to incredible distortion. But this shouldn’t be a telephone game. International news services (the Guardian, CNN, etc.) should be able to do the amount of checking that I did before writing up this little Facebook post. Moreover, the Guardian article (and probably most others, I haven’t checked all of them) didn’t even admit that they were relying on Kyodo – a second hand source. The article has the appearance of original reporting and of having the full imprimatur of this globally recognized news service. If they had written, “according the Kyodo, . . .” they might be forgiven.
I’m reminded of something similar that happened in the 1990s. Prime Minister MIYAZAWA Kiichi was quoted as criticizing the work ethic of American’s. What he actually said was very different:
If anyone has bothered to read this far, I’ll be curious to hear what you think. Thanks for reading.
