When Sanae Takaichi was elected as the new president of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) in early October — thereby virtually ensuring she will become Japan’s first woman prime minister — she made a striking statement in her inaugural remarks: “I will discard the phrase ‘work–life balance.’”

That line immediately reverberated across media, social networks, and political commentary. What did she mean by it? Why would a female leader, pursuing a historic milestone, reject such a phrase? And what reactions has it provoked? In this article, we explore the context, the potential reasoning behind her comment, and the spectrum of public and expert opinion.


Context: A Historic Rise Amid Pressing Challenges

To understand her remark, it helps to see the background in which it was spoken.

The LDP leadership election and her ascension

Takaichi won the LDP presidency after a fierce contest, defeating rival Shinjirō Koizumi in a runoff. Because the LDP still dominates parliamentary numbers, her election virtually guarantees she will become prime minister in the upcoming Diet session.

Her victory marks a breakthrough: she will be the first female prime minister in Japan’s history. Known as a conservative figure often aligned with former Prime Minister Abe’s policies, she has long been admired for a “Thatcher-like” toughness in her rhetoric.

However, her victory comes at a time when the LDP is politically vulnerable — losing momentum in both houses, facing public dissatisfaction, and dealing with fiscal and demographic pressures. Against this backdrop, her statement about discarding “work–life balance” was more than a slip of the tongue. It was a deliberate message.


What Might She Mean by “Discarding” the Term?

When a leader says “I will discard that phrase,” it signals priorities and possible shifts. Here are plausible interpretations behind Takaichi’s remark.

A. Emphasis on urgency and sacrifice

Leadership at this moment may demand extraordinary dedication. By rejecting the phrase “balance,” she could be signaling that she expects herself and her cabinet to work beyond standard limits, putting national interest above personal comfort.

B. Pushback against complacency

For some, “work–life balance” represents a softer, more complacent approach to work. Takaichi may view it as incompatible with the discipline and seriousness she believes Japan needs in a time of crisis.

C. A recalibration of gendered expectations

Ironically, her rejection may also be an attempt to resist the gendered burden often placed on women leaders — the expectation that they must prove they can “balance” both public and private life. By discarding the phrase, she may want to frame herself simply as a leader, not as a woman forced to juggle dual roles.

D. A rhetorical device

It is also possible the statement was more rhetorical flourish than policy blueprint — a way to grab attention and project toughness, rather than a literal rejection of labor policies related to worker well-being.


Reactions: Support, Criticism, and Ambiguities

The backlash and support to her statement have been immediate and intense.

Criticism

Many citizens criticized the phrase as harsh and tone-deaf. In a society already struggling with overwork, declining birthrates, and long working hours, rejecting the language of balance risks sounding dismissive of ordinary people’s daily struggles. Others questioned whether her stance conflicts with the expectation that Japan’s first female prime minister would advocate more strongly for gender equality and family-friendly policies.

Support

Among her conservative supporters, the remark was praised as a sign of strong leadership, determination, and seriousness. Business leaders and traditionalists welcomed the idea of a prime minister who sets high expectations and signals a no-nonsense attitude.

Mixed views

Some observers noted that the phrase “work–life balance” itself has always been vague, and dropping it does not necessarily mean rejecting the underlying issues of overwork and well-being. Still, critics argue that abandoning the term without proposing a new concept creates confusion and risks alienating younger generations and working families.


My Perspective: Bold, Risky — And a Mirror to Japan’s Dilemmas

Takaichi’s remark is undeniably bold. It sets a tone of toughness and seriousness at the start of her leadership. But it is also risky. Japanese society is weary of excessive work culture, and younger generations especially value quality of life, flexibility, and family time.

As the first female prime minister, her words will be measured not only against political expectations but also against symbolic ones. She must prove she is not dismissing the real struggles of workers, parents, and women who face systemic barriers in the workplace.

In practice, her rhetoric will likely soften. Once she begins drafting policies, she may reframe the concept of work–life improvement under different language — perhaps emphasizing “productivity,” “efficiency,” or “work style reform” — while distancing herself from a phrase she views as overused.

The challenge is whether she can balance her tough rhetoric with practical reforms that actually improve working conditions. If she succeeds, she could redefine leadership in Japan. If she fails, her words may come to symbolize insensitivity and missed opportunity.


Implications and What to Watch

As her premiership begins, here are key points to watch:

  • Policy follow-through: Will she introduce labor reforms, flexible work policies, and parental support?
  • Cabinet formation: Will she appoint reformist voices or double down on hardline allies?
  • Coalition dynamics: Her ability to cooperate with moderates will shape whether she adapts or entrenches her stance.
  • Public opinion: The reaction of younger workers, women, and families could make or break her approval.

Conclusion

Sanae Takaichi’s declaration that she will “discard the phrase ‘work–life balance’” is both symbolic and controversial. It reflects her intent to project toughness and urgency, but it also exposes her to criticism in a country fatigued by overwork.

Ultimately, the meaning of her words will depend less on rhetoric and more on policy. If she can deliver reforms that improve lives while maintaining her image of seriousness, her statement may be remembered as a bold provocation. If not, it risks becoming a symbol of disconnect between leadership and the lived realities of the Japanese people.