Seiya Morita
The fate of every individual woman—no matter what her politics, character, values, qualities—is tied to the fate of all women whether she likes it or not.
── Andrea Dworkin, Right-wing Women (1983)
On October 21, 2025, Sanae Takaichi, the first female president of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), was designated as the 104th Prime Minister of Japan in the Diet’s prime ministerial nomination election. Eighty years after Japanese women gained the right to vote in the postwar era, Japanese people finally saw their first female prime minister. This was undoubtedly a historically groundbreaking event in a country like Japan, which suffers from severe sex discrimination (Japan ranked 118th out of 148 countries in the 2025 Gender Gap Index (GII) published annually by the World Economic Forum). Moreover, she is not the child of a politician, nor does she come from a wealthy or elite background; she is of commoner origin. That such a woman rose to become Japan’s first female prime minister is truly remarkable.
Public sentiment in Japan was generally favorable. Before Takaichi became LDP president, only 20% of survey respondents considered her suitable for Japan’s top job. Yet after she actually became prime minister, approval ratings for her administration reached 70-80% in various polls. Notably, support among young women in their teens and twenties exceeded 90%.
However, the attitude of most Japan’s leftists was the exact opposite. Neither Japan’s left-wing parties—including the Japanese Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party (both led by women)—nor left-leaning civic groups, nor major feminists like Chizuko Ueno showed any positive reaction to this historic event. Instead, they emphasized Takaichi’s right-wing views, taking the position that this development offered no benefit for gender equality. For example, one radical left-wing civic group stated in its statement:
‘The hailed “first female prime minister” is utterly unacceptable for us. We do not desire the emergence of a “first female prime minister” in this manner. We had hoped that the dawn of a female prime minister would bring about the realization of gender equality—including the option for married couples to use separate surnames, the reduction of excessive overtime, a society free from sexism, and the freedom for anyone to choose any future regardless of gender.’ [1]
But, in a country like Japan where the Left is extremely weak—and growing weaker by the day—it should be obvious to anyone with even a modicum of understanding that the first to break the most difficult “glass ceiling” of all—that of becoming prime minister—is far more likely to be a right-wing woman than a liberal or left-leaning one. The first female governor in Japan was a female politician from the Liberal Democratic Party, and the first governor of the capital, Tokyo, was also a right-wing woman. So what’s so surprising about Japan’s first female prime minister being right-wing?
While Takaichi does not advocate for gender equality or women’s liberation in an abstract sense, she frequently proposes and implements policies for women and girls based on her own experiences as a woman. Examples include her efforts to strengthen the Child Sex Buying and Child Pornography Prevention Act and securing subsidies for gender-specific medical care for women.[2] Furthermore, during the November 6 plenary session of the House of Councillors, she responded to a question from a female lawmaker of the Constitutional Democratic Party, stating that the government “would strive to abolish prostitution.” Among past prime ministers, she was the first to explicitly declare the goal of eradicating prostitution.
On the other hand, what about the liberal female politicians who advocate for “gender equality” in abstract terms? Most of them insist on self-identification in transgender issues, stubbornly claim that men dressed as women are “women,” and try to force them into women’s spaces. They even go so far as to label the biological truth that men cannot become women as discrimination and seek to impose penalties for it. At least Takaichi doesn’t make such ridiculous claims.
This essay will analyze this intriguing phenomenon—the majority of Japan’s Left and feminists reacted negatively toward Japan’s first female prime minister—from three perspectives. 1. The tendency among the Japanese Left to never distinguish between a politician’s personal beliefs and the historical fact of Japan’s first female prime minister, and what this signifies. 2. The duality of misogyny displayed by Japan’s Left towards Takaichi. 3. How such reactions from the Left (regardless of sex) towards right-wing women expose deeply internalized misogyny within the Left itself.
“Gender Equality” for the Left
Japan’s leftists argue that even if Takaichi is a woman, she is far right, patriarchal, and someone who will continue and worsen the LDP’s past misrule. Therefore, even if such a person becomes prime minister, it would not be positive for “gender equality,” and there is nothing to commend about her advancement. Even if there were absolutely nothing commendable about her ideology or policies (though as already stated, this is not actually the case), the fact that a woman would become prime minister for the first time in 80 years since the end of the War should still hold significance in itself. Yet the Left absolutely refuses to acknowledge this.
The statement mentioned earlier includes the phrase “the freedom to choose any future, regardless of gender.” But isn’t her rise of prime minister precisely the result of partially her exercising this ‘freedom’? Or does the phrase “any future” also carry the caveat “except for futures that don’t align with leftist views”?
The fact that the LDP administration has fallen into crisis and been forced to entrust its fate to a right-wing female politician demonstrates, on one hand, the severity of the its crisis, while, on the other hand, it also starkly reveal women’s rising social status. Had this been twenty years ago, even if the LDP faced crisis, a female politician would never have become its president or prime minister (indeed, the party faced several crises threatening its loss of power in the past, but female politicians never played a crucial role in its recovery of power). Today, even a right-wing party, the Sanseito, have a majority of female Diet members. Regardless of their political spectrum, the significant advancement of women into the political world is, from a feminist perspective, something that should be assessed positively.
The reason the Left has been able to become women’s “ally” up until now is simply because the rightists and conservatives had generally been indifferent to women’s rights and sought to maintain the old patriarchal system. However, they can no longer continue operating in this way indefinitely. Today, 80 years after women were granted the right to vote and stand for election, they too can no longer afford to ignore female politicians and the female vote.
Therefore, the numerous personal attacks directed at Takaichi by the Left may be, on one hand, an expression of their internalized misogyny, and, on the other hand, a manifestation of their anxiety over having the “gender equality” card snatched away by the Right. That’s why they must desperately insist that she is far right and a warmonger, effectively reducing the significance of Japan’s first female prime minister to almost zero. Yet the more they say this, the more they reveal the fact that, for the Left, “gender equality” is not an end in itself to be pursued, but merely one (replaceable) means tolerated only as long as it serves their own policy agenda. Ultimately, this denies the distinctive dimension of gender hierarchy that exists across the political spectrum, and thus also denies feminism as an independent political movement. [3]
The Left argues that whether Takaichi is male or female is irrelevant—only the policies she promotes matter. To understand the deception in this argument, let’s examine the issue of women’s suffrage. Why was women’s suffrage important? Was it because women voters were more likely than male voters to support liberal and left-wing candidates? If not, if female voters were generally more conservative, would the Left have opposed women’s suffrage? If ideology and policy are the only things that matter, then it must admit that women’s suffrage itself has no independent significance; it is important only to the extent that it serves the political advancement of the leftists and liberals.
To gloss over this glaring contradiction, they argue that she is not merely a right-wing politician, but someone who has consistently opposed gender equality policies. Therefore, having someone like her become prime minister would not be positive but rather negative for gender equality. This seems persuasive at first glance, but it also fails to escape the same contradiction. It merely circles back to the original question: why is this “gender equality” they speak of important? Unless one takes the position that improving women’s status itself holds significant value, irrespective of the ideological beliefs of women who benefit from that equality, the criterion of whether one supports or opposes “gender equality” is inherently meaningless.
The Left seems to unconsciously assume that women with conservative or rightist political beliefs have never experienced oppression or discrimination as women. That’s why it finds no significance in a right-wing woman becoming Japan’s first female prime minister. However, the reason we (I consider myself part of the Left, so I use “we”) advocate for the advancement of women and sex equality is not because women are inherently liberal, but because this sex group have historically and consistently been relegated to second-class citizen status, structurally subjected to discrimination, oppression, and exploitation on the basis of their sex. And this is precisely what makes women a political collective rather than merely a biological one.[4] This reality is inescapable, even for right-wing women like Sanae Takaichi. Regardless of her ideological beliefs, it is impossible that she has never experienced oppression as a woman throughout her life. In fact, she herself speaks about the numerous instances of gender discrimination she has experienced. Clearly, her path has been more thorny than that of male politicians of the same conservative persuasion. Precisely for this reason, her becoming the first female prime minister is something to be welcomed.
Double Bind and Dual Misogyny
Shortly after Takaichi became Japan’s prime minister, many leftists declared that even though she was biologically female, she was essentially a macho man inside. Therefore, she wasn’t a “real” woman, and consequently, her significance as Japan’s first female prime minister was null and void. They called her “a macho man with a woman’s face,” “an old fart in a woman’s skin,” “an honorary man,” “a female Shinzo Abe,” and so on. For example, one elderly leftist man stated the following on Facebook:
‘I get the impression she rose to prominence in the LDP’s male-dominated world by abandoning her “womanhood” and becoming an “honorary man.” She merely triumphed in the career race; there’s absolutely no sign she cares about the people or wants to do anything for women. In short, she’s a pitiful woman who discarded her womanhood.’
It’s astonishing that even in the 21st century, there is a left-wing man who so blatantly promotes such archaic patriarchal “gender roles.” The leftist world is a strange place. Make any kind of xenophobic remark, and you’re immediately lumped into the absolute evil category of “fascist,” “racist,” or “bigot.” Yet, even when making such blatantly sexist statements, not only are they not criticized within leftist circles, they seem to be met with agreement and even regarded as more leftist. The more you bash right-wing women, the more popular you become among leftist comrades.
In the first place, the biological dividing line between men and women does not align with the ideological dividing line between the Left and the Right. These are entirely different lines. This very notion of directly linking specific biological characteristics to specific ideological beliefs is what should truly be called biological determinism, or biological essentialism. Liberalism isn’t hardwired into the X chromosome, so why are leftists and liberals shocked when they see right-wing women?
Probably because, whether with conscious or unconsciousness, for the Left, ‘women’ only means women who are ‘feminine’ in a leftist sense. Being “feminine” in that sense means holding liberal beliefs, being kind to the socially disadvantaged, having pacifist tendencies, unconditionally obeying the demands of minorities (especially minorities including men), being devoted to social justice movements, and so on. This constitutes “femininity” for the Left—merely a left-wing version of traditional “femininity” (kindness, gentleness, obedience, devotion). The right-wing politician Sanae Takaichi was deemed by the Left as failing to meet these standards. Her beliefs are anti-liberal, she is not kind to the socially disadvantaged, she supports military expansion, she is indifferent to minorities, and she is hostile to social justice movements. Therefore, she is not a “true woman,” but rather “something in a woman’s skin.” [5]
On the other hand, liberal men who oppose sexism are not stripped of their social status as men, nor are they called “women in men’s skins.” Men, whether right-wing or left-wing, conservative or liberal, remain men. But women, if deemed to deviate from gender norms (whether left-wing or right-wing) set by men, are immediately denied their womanhood. This is precisely what is called sexism, patriarchy, and misogyny.
For leftists and liberals, women are inherently the exclusive territory belonging to the liberal or leftist kingdom, their rightful possession. Even if women do not belong to individual men, they must belong to liberals as a whole, and thus to liberal men. Women who become rightists, therefore, are seen as traitors who have fled their rightful territory and defected to the enemy camp. Moreover, a woman who becomes a top figure on the Right is the ultimate political traitor, an ideological sellout. Thus, their hatred erupts toward Takaichi, and they gang up to strip her of the title “woman.”
Eighty years ago, after the Nazi occupation of France ended, French prostitutes who had been mistresses of Nazi officers were lynched by liberated French men, their hair cut off at the roots with scissors. Footage of this was filmed, allowing men across France to feel the tangible victory over the occupiers. For men, defeat in war and occupation felt akin to the humiliation of being raped like a woman. Therefore, punishing the “their” women who had betrayed them was a way to restore their status from the feminine to the masculine. But why did the liberated men cut off women’s hair? Because hair was a symbol of womanhood, a symbol of femininity. Cutting it off was a punishment of the traitorous women who had literally slept with the enemy by denying their womanhood. Similarly, Japan’s leftists and liberals also sought to punish the right-wing politician by denying her womanhood.
However, the Left, while stripping her of her “woman” title and treating her as a “man,” has absolutely no intention of granting her the dignity and authority that men enjoy in this society. Indeed, many leftists are just as relentless as rightists in attacking her “womanhood.” She was repeatedly told that her rise to prominence was due to her “pandering” to influential male politicians within the LDP. Male politicians, who likely made various efforts to gain backing from influential politicians (usually men) within the same party, are never accused of “pandering to men.” Only female politicians are accused of “pandering to men.” In that sense, she is still treated as a woman, treated as a second-class citizen.
Especially when she, as prime minister, held her first meeting with U.S. President Trump, her behavior during that meeting was traditionally feminine (looking up at Trump, hopping excitedly beside him, walking with her arm around Trump’s, etc.), which prompted an outpouring of anger from the Left (not the Right!) who denounced her as a “national disgrace,” “Japan’s shame,” and a “traitor to our country.” These same people, who routinely attack Japan and Japanese nationalism and have scorned the Right for its nationalism, suddenly emerged as simple and pure nationalists who put rightists to shame.
Furthermore, they hurled every conceivable sexist slur at her: “Trump’s mistress,” “prostitute,” ‘panpan’ (referring to women who had to sell themselves to occupying soldiers to survive during the postwar occupation period), “bitch,” “whore,” “Trump’s pet,” “Trump’s local wife,” and “geisha.” All of these were attacks on her womanhood, words designed to degrade her precisely because she is a woman.While the Left usually railed against discrimination against “sex workers,” they didn’t hesitate for a moment to use terms like “prostitute,” “whore,” and “panpan” as insults. Ironically, witnessing this spectacle even led some right-wing men—who usually spare no effort attacking feminists—to discovering the severity of sex discrimination in Japan for the first time. They began saying things like, “Maybe the feminists were right after all.”
Until just yesterday, the Left criticized Takaichi not as a “woman” but as an “old fart in a woman’s skin.” Yet now that, when she is perceived as expressing her “femininity,” they have begun to disparage that very expression. In other words, she is attacked whether she is seen as failing to display “femininity” or “womanhood,” or whether she is seen as displaying them. This is precisely the double bind experienced by all women living in a male-dominated society, and it is nothing less than dual misogyny.
Internalized Misogyny on the Left
The above-mentioned facts demonstrate that Sanae Takaichi is a woman, and that even a woman in such a high position as Japan’s first female prime minister cannot escape the humiliation and discrimination of being a woman in this sexist society. The Left has strived for decades to shatter the “glass ceiling,” yet the moment a right-wing female politician broke through it, they reinstall it by attacking her with sexual or sexist slurs. And needless to say, the Left itself, by taking the lead in this, has brought its moral authority down to rock bottom.
The Left clearly directs more hatred toward right-wing female politicians than toward right-wing male politicians. They hate right-wing women because they hate women more than they hate the Right. Misogyny of the Left is directed most intensely against right-wing women. While usually restrained by leftist norms, this restraint breaks down when it comes to right-wing women. And precisely because it is normally suppressed, the hatred directed at them is all the more intense. Catharine MacKinnon once said, back when she was still a militant radical feminist, that:
‘If white women’s oppression is an illusion of privilege and a rip-off and reduction of the civil rights movement, we are being told that there is no such thing as a woman, that our practice produces no theory, and that there is no such thing as discrimination on the basis of sex. […] What is done to white women is a kind of floor; it is the best anyone is treated and it runs from Playboy through sadomasochism to snuff. What is done to white women can be done to any woman, and then some.’ [6]
Replacing “white women” with “right-wing women” in this context makes the argument equally valid—perhaps even more so. This is because, within the Left worldview, “right-wing women” face a far more severe denial of their womanhood as an oppressed, discriminated-against attribute than “white women” do. When the Left denies “womanhood” of right-wing women—whether by denying it through the logic that their inner selves are macho men (left-wing logic), or by denigrating it as inherently prostitute-like (right-wing logic, though also adopted by the Left), it denies the very existence of discrimination against women and denies the universality of women as an oppressed group.
And once the “womanhood” of right-wing women is denied, that logic can always be extended to other women—and indeed, it is being extended. Or, by arbitrarily classifying any woman as a “right-wing woman,” woman who voices opinions that the Left finds disagreeable, their womanhood can be denied. Just as in the trans issue, women who criticize trans ideology are being classified as “right-wing” or “far right.”
Therefore, for misogynists on both the Left and the Right, it is essential to secure a specific group of “women” to whom the definition of women as an oppressed social group, or as subjects deserving respect and honor, does not apply. For the Right, this group is usually “women of color,” “foreign women,” “traitorous women,” or “women in prostitution.” For the Left, it is above all “right-wing women.” And “women in pornography” represent a common such group for both camps.
The existence of such groups is essential to them in two ways. First, they can openly direct blatant and violent misogyny toward the women in these specific groups—misogyny they cannot (at least legitimately) express toward “their own women.” Second, as long as these groups exist, they can function as a threat against other women. The right-wing men says: If you want our protection and safety (which is rarely actually safe), then love us (mainstream men) and love our country. The left-wing men says: If you don’t want to be labeled a “right-wing woman,” then support our agenda and behave like a leftist or liberal.
That is precisely why we must insist, as Dworkin stated, that “The fate of every individual woman—no matter what her politics, character, values, qualities—is tied to the fate of all women whether she likes it or not.” We cannot make “right-wing women” an exception to this rule. If even a powerful woman occupying the top position in the Japanese government receives treatment reminiscent of the fate of French prostitutes (the most powerless women) immediately after the liberation of France, it is clear what will happen to all women less powerful than Takaichi if they defy men’s will. In that sense, Sanae Takaichi represents all women—not in terms of her policies, but in terms of her treatment.
[1] http://www.labornetjp.org/news/2025/1761726886587staff01
[2] https://dot.asahi.com/articles/-/266773?page=2
[3] “We are a class. That class contains women from across the political spectrum. It makes absolutely no sense to say that a movement in the interests of all women can be fought only by ‘team left’ women on ‘team left’ women’s terms.”, Holly Lawford-Smith,Beyond Left and Right, Polity, 2025, p. 107.
[4] The fact that “women” are viewed among the Left as if they were some sort of removable “skin” may point to one reason why the Left and liberals so readily capitulated to transgenderism. If “women” are merely removable “skins” or something like that, then a man should be able to become a ‘woman’ simply by putting on that “skin.” Strangely enough, for the mainstream Left, “trans women are women,” but “right-wing women are not women.”
[5] On this point, see also my article: Seiya Morita, “From Feminism to Transgenderism: Catharine MacKinnon and her Political Transition.” (2023).
[6] Catharine A. MacKinnon, “From Practice to Theory, or What is a White Woman Anyway?” (1996).
Leave a Reply