Sanae Takaichi - Japan's first female Prime Minister, who marks a massive milestone step towards equality in one of the world's most patriarchal states. Elected on October 21st, 2025, she has instilled hope among much of the Japanese population through her politics and identity. She is an 'ultraconservative' member of the Liberal Democratic Party and voters are exceptionally inspired by her 'outsider, rebellious' personality as a former heavy metal drummer and motorcyclist.
She marks the smashing of the 'glass ceiling', overcoming the invisible barriers to women advancing to high leadership levels, such as Japan's low ranking at 118th out of 148 countries in gender parity (World Economic Forum's Gender Gap Report 2025). Some now say, 'Japan is back'. Facing a challenging economic scene, she aims to combat inflation with her 'Sanaenomics': aggressive government spending and investments in AI and biotechnology sectors to stimulate growth, while simultaneously increasing defence spending.
Her popularity is furthered by lower certain taxes plans whilst tightening controls on foreign workers, reflecting the growing nationalism in Japan. These stances have led to high approval ratings of 83% (JNN poll). Her success and power should be promising for gender equality and Japan's future, but is it?
Controversial to this public optimism, Takaichi's Thatcherite ultraconservative politics reveal that no ceiling has been smashed... She is in many ways actively working against intersectional feminist liberation. Firstly, Takaichi supports male-only succession to the throne, reiterating the long-standing notion of female submission and inferiority.
Secondly, in response to Japan's current debate on whether it should be legal for women to retain their maiden name after marriage, Takaichi's pro-establishment stance keeps it illegal. However, married surnames are a powerful symbol of women losing their identity upon marriage, showing Takaichi's conformity to oppressive institutions. Additionally, her opposition to samesex marriage and scepticism of gender quotas reflects the voice of her 'idol' Thatcher, who said she owes nothing to women's liberation.
This is further echoed by her Trumpism; following their meeting on October 28, their close relationship reflects her tolerance for misogyny. These positions perpetuate the confinement of women to society's margins; ultimately making equality even more inaccessible. Conservatism UPHOLDS misogyny.
The main harm of Takaichi's election is its contribution to the narrow definition of what type of woman can hold power. There is a quota seen in Marine Le Pen, Giorgia Meloni, Thatcher and so on, that to survive in top roles, women must align with the conservative framework of an 'acceptable woman'. Female leaders seem to be credited when emphasising nationalism, traditional family roles and strong state ideals rather than challenging patriarchy.
This is a paradox: only by aligning with the very system that oppresses them, can women achieve power. Takaichi's election symbolises a strategic 'fem-wash' for the LDP, which has been in power almost continuously since 1955 but is currently reeling from scandals, particularly the misuse of a ¥600 million slush fund. Takaichi therefore represents a 'new era' for the party, intended to invigorate voters and convey party transformation.
Despite the descriptive politics of Takaichi (her gender) representing a radical shift in patriarchal Japan, she is deeply rooted in continuing the traditionalist agenda. This fem-washing highlights the large step from symbolism to substantivism in descriptive politics. Just because Takaichi broke gender barriers doesn't mean she has broken the structures of inequality.
Her gender and 'outsider' character description are purely symbolic and indeed politically useful, rather than meaningful. Her nationalist conservative priorities neglect the rights of minorities or intersectional feminism. It remains unclear whether she will increase female political inclusivity, Still, it is clear that she reveals the persistence of the patriarchy in Japan.
Will this narrow definition entrench the future for women in power globally? Or is it better to have this 'acceptable' trope of a woman in power over none at all? Does that mark the failure of equal democracy?