The overall number of marriages grew slightly in 2024, but Japan’s birth rate crisis has only worsened. And yet a survey by the Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industry states that young people want to get married and have families. So what gives?
Marriage is a deeply complicated subject beyond any romantic or cultural notions of love. In order to understand it better, analyzing the deeper financial, physical and mental costs of marriage is vital. These, in turn, differ dramatically by gender.
For the purposes of this article, only heterosexual marriages will be considered, as they are the only form of marriage legally recognized in Japan.
The hidden costs of love and money in Japan
Most people have felt the ongoing cost-of-living crisis impacting their wallets. Staple foods and utilities have gone up, and overall wages have stagnated. Suffice to say, spending on dating is risky, but not spending is also problematic. According to the Japanese Gender Equality Bureau, not providing financially for a partner or paying one's share in a relationship is a form of domestic violence.
Being single doesn't imply financial security either. Men in their 20s, according to the 2022 Employment Status Survey by the Japan Statistics Bureau, earn an average annual salary of less than ¥3 million. Given that the Japanese gender wage gap puts women’s income at roughly 70% to 80% that of men, more than half of young Japanese women struggle to make ends meet.
...more than half of young Japanese women struggle to make ends meet. Marriage is just as much a financial burden.
Marriage is just as much a financial burden. Aside from the average wedding costing around ¥4.15 million according to a Zexy.net article (Japanese), marriage itself involves making major, life-altering financial decisions. Unless both people are earning a commensurate wage, it can be very difficult to determine how to balance spending and saving as a couple.
Income and debts, spending versus saving, and long-term financial plans regarding homeownership and retirement — these are all fundamental questions a couple should discuss before marriage is even on the table. Financial instability puts an incredible amount of strain on both people in a relationship and can quickly become a point of contention.
“I earn far less than my wife each month because I’m an English teacher. I’ve cut back on buying things for myself, but even that doesn’t seem to make things easier. We’ve put off having kids as a result, which I know she’s not happy about,” said Steven, a 31-year-old American.
The physical price of partnership — especially for women
Marriage — or long-term cohabitation — affects men and women differently in terms of their physical health. It's a well-established fact that in the majority of cultures, women are expected to take care of the home and any children, while men work outside the home.
Married men are typically healthier than those who are single, divorced or widowed, according to Harvard Health Publishing. The general consensus of these studies is that married men live longer because their wives keep track of their health and nutrition for them — rather than anything married men do that single men don't. This may also contribute to the statistic that men are more likely to die from “broken heart syndrome” — a condition that prevents people’s hearts from contracting properly according to an NBC News article — despite it being a condition more often found in women. Men suffer worse cardiovascular outcomes when they lose a spouse to divorce or death than women do.
Married women, on the other hand, are not better off physically when compared to single women, according to these same studies. The American Psychological Association found that marriage only benefits women's physical health when it comes with a high level of sexual and emotional satisfaction. Findings from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging determined that married and single women were virtually identical in terms of overall physical health at any age.
Childbirth is another major factor to consider. Pregnancy has a major, lasting impact on women. According to a study conducted by Lancet Global Health, about 40 million women a year experience long-term health complications caused by pregnancy. These include pain during sexual intercourse (affecting 35% of postpartum women), permanent low back pain (32%), anal incontinence (19%), urinary incontinence (8% to 31%) and secondary infertility. This does not take into account the mental and emotional consequences.
Numerous studies have also found that women are far more likely to be divorced if they become seriously ill. A study published in the journal Cancer found a woman is six times more likely to be separated or divorced soon after receiving a diagnosis than a male patient.
Women are the least likely to benefit from marriage, no matter where they are in the world
“In sickness and in health, my ass. Men walk out as soon as they learn their wife is sick more often than not. They can’t handle it. And if they don’t walk out, they cheat and marry someone else as soon as their wife dies or the divorce goes through. It’s sick, but I see it so often I’m not surprised anymore,” said Hannah, a 54-year-old Canadian oncology nurse.
Mental health and marriage: Who really benefits?
Married people are, on the whole, less likely to suffer from depression. One peer-reviewed study by Scimex found that unmarried people have a 79% higher risk of depression than married people. It further concluded that the innate support network of marriage and shared financial resources likely contribute to improved mental health for both spouses. A happy marriage is one that protects both spouses’ mental health in direct and indirect ways; however, definitions of what constitutes a happy marriage vary greatly.
Divorce is hard, but staying in an unhappy marriage is worse. A Michigan State University study concluded that worsening marital quality contributed to a faster rate of cognitive decline in men, while staying can also lead to increased rates of depression for both spouses. These in turn can cause or exacerbate lifestyle- and stress-related medical conditions.
Comparatively, single women are far happier with their lives than married women, single men or married men. They report higher levels of satisfaction with their relationship status, life overall and sex lives, and a lower desire for a partner than anyone else.
The harsh bottom line on marriage in Japan: Women still lose out
Communication issues can impact a relationship, but the financial, physical and mental costs can destroy one. Women are the least likely to benefit from marriage, no matter where they are in the world, and that in turn impacts men and childbirth rates as well. Can these costs be balanced in order to make marriage and childbirth worth it?
The short answer is: no, they can’t. It’s impossible to make things equal in society at present. In a decade or two, perhaps — but only if dramatic changes are made. The gender differences in the costs of marriage, if they continue as they are, will always mean one partner loses out.
© Japan Today
45 Comments
Login to comment
tora
JT can you stop using red fonts? In dark mode on a phone they are unreadable.
blackpassenger
Get your phone out of dark mode, the red font is just fine.
jeffb
This is probably the worst article I've ever read on JT. The idea that inequalities in society are holding back the institution of marriage is some hardcore neomarxism. This article is Dark Mode. Really bad stuff.
David Brent
The kids, when the marriage inevitably ends in divorce.
virusrex
The article do not make this point, instead it is arguing how women are the ones that bear the cost of marriage in happinnes, health, personal development, etc.
So you think 100% of marriages end in divorce?
jeffb
It literally makes that point. It says marriage won't be worth it for women until equity has been achieved in society. This article attempts to hold hostage the institution of marriage and demand a ransom in the form of some bizarre universal equity. Marriage (between a man and a woman) is the bedrock of the family unit. That family unit being the very thread in the fabric of society. The breakdown of which is a mechanism of neomarxist ideology.
Jay
Ah, there it is - why only show up when someone dares to criticize a left-wing talking point? The rest of the time, you're mute while Uber "progressives" tear down tradition, family, and basic social cohesion. But the second someone pushes back, suddenly you're a scholar of nuance and misrepresentation!
Josh
https://ifstudies.org/blog/who-is-happiest-married-mothers-and-fathers-per-the-latest-general-social-survey
https://www.pdrc.keio.ac.jp/en/publications/dp/8368/
What exactly is the aim of this article? Is it to put fear in women? Its main goal is to disrupt the traditional institution of the family. Once that happens, society will start to break down. Once society has broken down, governments will be in full control. This article is misleading and is very biased. What about the number of women on anti-depressants? The rise of mental health issues? Happiness may be true for the women in their prime, but once they pass the optimal age for reproduction, their happy goes way down compared to married women with children.
I always read things from these anti-family far-left institutions with a large grain of salt.
Yrral
Being single you have access to a lot of women, without guilt especially online
BigDog
Or you could look at it the other way round-
being single disadvantages men more than it does women.
antibotter
The concept of marriage in asia is old fashioned and outdated. Don't pressure young into getting married just because. Look how it's in Scandinavia. There is a reason those countries have a higher happiness index.
proxy
Men in their 20s earn an average annual salary of less than ¥3 million!!!!!!
That is less than $21,000 USD.
Japan's slide into 3rd world poverty is almost complete.
kohakuebisu
The poster child for poverty in Japan is a single old lady. The poverty rate for them is around 45% and without inheritances is likely to increase, given that more and more jobs are hiseiki and do not put workers in the shakai hoken pension scheme. The poverty rate among the elderly is higher for unmarried and divorced women than for widows. The poverty rate for single old men is low.
I would happily wager that this article was written without the author having any interest in whether other women like being mothers. Children are only mentioned in the form of longterm health problems resulting from difficult pregnancies or births.
So getting to do what many say is the best thing in their lives, raising a family, is not a "benefit"?
Marriage doesn't have to be about kids, but married people have way more of them than single people.
fallaffel
Some parts of the article seem contradictory. Regarding physical health:
"Married women, on the other hand, are not better off physically when compared to single women"
Ok, sounds interesting. But then a couple sentences after...
"Findings from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging determined that married and single women were virtually identical in terms of overall physical health at any age."
Wait what?
kohakuebisu
The article does not strike me as anything to do with Karl Marx and is just "identity politics", or what I would call staunchly liberal middle-class feminism. Feminism as practiced under the completely unchallenged framework of late-stage capitalism. 1970s feminism, which did have Marxist elements in viewing women as a class, is completely different. I would like to remind everyone that a classic left wing institution is called a "union", something that brings people together. Identity politics is the opposite, it is about placing all your attention on yourself as an individual. This drives people apart.
Negative Nancy
In my case, when I was single, I ate better, was more physically active, and more socially active. I was saving money more effectively by living economically. Marriage for me has been detrimental to my health and wealth without a doubt. I'm the main breadwinner and I contribute more to domestic issues and childcare by far. My wife, on the other hand, has married into a comfortable lifestyle. Since our relationship began, she has more autonomy than she did in her family home, and has become more active as a result of our current family life. She's travelled more, she has more spending money, and she has widened social circles and is involved in a broader range of hobbies and interests.
The grass is not always greener on the other side, and there are so many variables to say one way of life is better than the other. I personally prefer aspects of both single and married life.
Cephus
"The true cost of marriage in Japan: Who really pays the price?"
If you go by this article then all our founding fathers who started with just an abstract ideas of nations could never get married because there was no enough cash and that could burden the women right? Crap and more crap everyday masquerading as news.
jeffb
Neomarxism is distinct from the type associated with Karl Marx himself. It's an ethos under the umbrella of progressivism that by appropriating classical liberalism seeks to undermine and dismantle traditional world views and morals. Similar to the Orwellian newspeak; up is down, bad is good, sin is virtue, etc. The kind of rhetoric in this article is a perfect example of the inversion of a positive moral good in favor of the destruction of social cohesion.
jeffb
I think framing marriage as being transactional is the crux of the issue I have with the article beyond my analysis of its neomarxist utility. The idea of "who benefits more from marriage" is a loaded question. The answer is that all of society benefits, not just the individuals engaged in the act.
virusrex
That is completely different point, no "holding back" the marriage but that the institution reflects the social inequalities by design. And it makes this point with many valid arguments of which you have not refuted any.
Nonsensical, how do you supposed it is holding anything "hostage"? by not lying about it in order to promote it? are articles about the flaws of other social institutions (religions, for example) holding those other institutions also hostage?
And there is nothing bizarre about gender equality, it is a perfectly rational and achievable thing to aim for that bring social development and better life for the people that are being unfairly discriminated.
But it is both a social construct and susceptible to improvement, which makes the article perfectly valid.
virusrex
I "show up" when I want, you seem to think that commenting is some kind of job or responsibility, but that indicates much more about you than the site.
If I don't find a problem with other people comments I have no obligation to correct them just because your personally believe they are wrong (even if you can't make the argument yourself, so you want others to do it). In the same way If I can argue how someone is incorrect I am also free to do it.
Maybe the problem is that you tend to support flawed claims because they fit your prejudices better and don't like when people make those flaws evident, but that is again on you.
jeffb
The validity of the article is not in question. It's just an opinion piece with cherry-picked data. My argument is that the article frames considering marriage as a cost/benefit analysis and then makes all sorts of wild proclamations about the supposed lack of benefits for women. It's identity politics in every sense of the term. I'm simply calling out the motives of this kind of rhetoric.
virusrex
Do you think women will just become aware of the inequalities and disadvantages of marriage as if they were not terribly obvious?
By making a list of things that can be proved objectively? this would mean that the disruption is done by the problems themselves, not by the people that list them.
Exaggerating much? a much more common consequence of making social problems obvious is that people work to solve those problems and society improves. Ethnic discrimination for example was long considered "normal" and people also argued that society would break down with racial equality, in reality that did not happen.
Proving that there are problems with an institution is not being against it, it is simply the only way to actually do something to correct those problems and improve that institution. Of course those that are being unfairly benefited from the inequality work very hard to misrepresent this effort to improve things as destruction since it goes against their interests.
There is no contradiction, "are not better off" is equivalent to "were virtually identical" in this context. Being in the same condition do mean there is no advantage.
That of course assumes that your founding fathers, realizing an unjust inequality, would choose not to get married instead of correcting it. That seems like a bad example to follow. Regular people (without no special level of goodness) would instead incorporate the improvement of gender inequalities as part of their abstract ideas.
No it is not, easy to prove the moment you have not been able to make any argument that demonstrate any "cherry-picking". The only problem with the data is that proves objectively something you refuse to accept, but that is a problem with your position, not the article.
kohakuebisu
The article is not even about the "benefits" of marriage. It merely suggests that there is something called the "true cost" and tries to justify a preordained conclusion that it must be the woman who "loses out".
Do any of the sources quoted, Harvard, Michigan, Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging etc. relate to "marriage in Japan". You know, "in Japan". My stat about many single old women living in poverty is from Japan.
virusrex
First, the article list benefits of marriage, and how those benefits apply mostly to the men. Second, everything have costs (disadvantages, negative aspects), and it would be irrational to think marriage is free from this. Third, it do not try to justify any preordained conclusion, the only thing it does is to clearly demonstrate with objective data that the women do have less benefits and more disadvantages.
The article do mention how the inequalities are also present in Japan, so it is not unreasonable to conclude that in this country the negative aspects would also apply. It is not like Japanese women get the same salaries as males in the same work positions, or that men take the same amount of paternal leave or abandon their careers in the same number as women. These would be arguments to argue the costs do not apply in Japan.
HopeSpringsEternal
More proof negative news 'sells', can come up with anything given enough 'research' to justify your negativity
Why not write an article on the elderly that're depressed and regretful because they have no family, as that's a HUGE growing cohort in Japan, both married and single
virusrex
That makes no sense. The evidence is presented here and you have not refuted anything about it.
Could you do for example the opposite and show that men die more or become more unhappy after marriage using available data? If not that proves that your claim that you can prove anything with enough research is false.
jeffb
The article only lists a handful of studies that are essentially glorified surveys. It tells absolutely nothing difintive about anything. Women report negative physical effects of marriage if they have trouble giving birth and single women say they're happier (how would they know unless they were married?) so therefore the author determines that women are less benefiting from marriage than men. It's a completely shallow argument at best, at worst it's bad faith anti-natalist garbage.
TaiwanIsNotChina
Garbage article. These are all problems that can be addressed without claiming that marriage is somehow broken.
virusrex
They are scientific studies with methods, data and conclusions that can be reviewed by any professional. Unless you can bring actual scientific arguments against them they are perfectly valid and correct and just calling them "glorified surveys" do absolutely nothing to reduce their validity. If anything it just show how difficult is for you to accept evidence when it contradicts what you want to believe.
Nonsensical, the studies have details about the methods precisely because this is not just random things being collected, tools are validated to be used even in social sciences, that you ignore how this validation is done is a completely different problem.
It is also telling that you are trying to ignore the health data that is also included and that do not depend on any survey, pretending this is not included would indicate a willing desire to mislead people about the sources of the article.
You know what is a shallow argument? pretend the science is wrong because you personally don't understand it and want to believe.
The article do not claim marriage is broken, it just claims (and proves) that it has a significantly higher cost for women than for men. And this is done precisely to call for attention that there are problems that require attention to be solved.
jumpsin
I agree that this article is some kind of doomsday scenario for marriage. Pure garbage.
virusrex
More importantly, how can you disprove the evidence provided for what is written?
If you can't that means the article is not garbage, just you don't want to accept what it includes.
TaiwanIsNotChina
I can claim that childbirth is bad for your health on average. Doesn't mean people should stop having kids.
TaiwanIsNotChina
Should have stopped there to be honest. They are never going to be "worth it" from a selfish perspective if there is no discussion of the value of family.
Try never. The different experiences of different genders to marriage is as old as the existence of marriage.
Showing a few gender imbalances in married life does not mean that one partner always loses out as a whole. There is such a thing as a Pareto Improvement where both sides benefit.
virusrex
So what? where in the article does it say that women should not get married? in both cases the emphasis is in correcting this problem.
Giving up is a terribly negative position to take, the article is much more rational and productive by making the point that gender differences are the ones that make this impossible so they should be corrected.
So was discrimination based on ethnicity, or sexual preference, some societies have done a huge lot of progress solving this. The time a problem has been happening do nothing to prove it is impossible to solve.
Many, and specially very important imbalances do make it valid to generalize instead of pretending a minority of cases (or even just the exceptions) are the ones that should be taken into account.
Which in no way contradicts anything in the article, of course for measures to improvement to be implemented the first step is to recognize the problem exist, not pretend that is is "natural" for the situation to present itself, nor giving up saying that "this is how things are".
proxy
Married woman are in fact significantly happier that single woman, as are men. It can be age dependant; a 23 year old married woman can report greater happiness but that flips as people age. Single cat woman are less happy. Even happy people become happier when married.
Wanna earn more money and have financial stability? Get married. Yes, having children knocks back woman's salaries but being married means that their man will earn significantly more than a single man.
Harry_Gatto
Can you please explain how and why?
proxy
@Harry_Gatto
The “marriage wage premium" is well studied and does not correlate with education or background. It is a fact.
It is true for both men and woman but stronger for men.
Perhaps it is because low-income potential men make undesirable partners. Maybe woman are really good at avoiding even well educated men by seeing being able to see their laziness.
TaiwanIsNotChina
It says they lose out in marriage. That is pretty clear.
This is how things are. Gender differences aren't going to disappear in marriage any more than the women's preference for tall men is going to disappear.
proxy
@TaiwanIsNotChina
Woman DO NOT lose out in marriage. The story is complete rubbish. The studies referenced are selected to fit the narrative, that probably single with a cat, Hilary Keyes is telling herself.
Married woman earn more money are are happier.
virusrex
Any source for this? because the research linked in the article says the opposite, obviously just claiming otherwise is not evidence the study is wrong, if anything it would indicate you are the one in the wrong.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/19485506241287960
So a rational person clearly understand this problem is the one that should be solved, not that they should not get married. If you find out an article saying hospitals have higher than expected deaths, do you also think it is "pretty clear" that the article is arguing for hospitals to be closed? or you think it is calling for the problem to be solved?
And so have been all other social problems, and the ones that have been solved are not because people gave up and said "this is how things are" but instead because people realized there is no reason why things should be this way. To the great surprise of people that believed slavery would never disappear.
They do, making baseless claims only make those claims you make complete rubbish, not the article. It clearly links to objective evidence of what is described, you on the other hand provide exactly zero evidence it is wrong.
Wesley
Well, since some people are so adamant that women don't benefit from marriage, I guess you shouldn't be upset with MGTOW.
If marriage is so painful for women, why are so many so desperate to get a man to propose to them?
Oh, and if your so-called "studies" come from feminist-infested, misandrist, Western academia, take it with a pinch of salt.
virusrex
Who has made this argument? obviously saying that women bear a higher cost is not even remotely the same thing.
Social pressure, false expectations that are now being dispelled, unreasonable optimism, etc. etc. It would not be the first nor the last social construct that a person assumes because it is forced by society without a real need.
Which of the studies about the differences in health outcomes are so? none? then why generilize (also if someone tries to dismiss a study without providing any actual argument that is something that should be doubted by default).
UncleA
@virusrex
Your pattern of engagement is telling: you demand sources from others while dismissing ideological bias only when it suits your stance. The irony is rich.
You ask who made the argument that “women don’t benefit from marriage” — well, the original article itself implies as much, and your own comments seem to reinforce the idea that marriage is inherently detrimental to women. Yet, the data — when parsed with intellectual honesty — is far more nuanced.
You cite a study and assert, “They lose out in marriage. That is pretty clear.” But if that’s so clear, why are millions of women still eager for marriage proposals globally? You offer hand-waving answers — social pressure, false expectations, unreasonable optimism — without any empirical backing. So let’s apply your own standard: evidence, not vibes.
And while you insist on the objectivity of “studies,” you conveniently ignore the fact that a huge swath of contemporary Western academia — especially in the social sciences — is heavily ideologically skewed. Peer-reviewed journals in gender studies and sociology are often deeply embedded in feminist orthodoxy, which isn’t neutral by default. Pointing this out isn’t anti-intellectual — it’s called epistemic hygiene.
You mock those who are skeptical of biased institutions, but then fall into the same pattern when faced with inconvenient evidence — calling opposing views “baseless claims” while providing none of your own.
Also, your hospital analogy is cute but fails. If hospitals consistently killed more patients than they saved, yes, there would be legitimate cause to question their existence. Similarly, if marriage statistically harms one party more than the other, it’s not irrational to question the institution or to opt out — which, by the way, is the entire point of MGTOW, which you don’t seem to grasp.
So no, disagreement with your narrative isn’t “misinformation” — it’s the mark of a thinking person who refuses to be told that 2+2=5 by activist scholars in lab coats.
UncleA
This article is a perfect example of the kind of ideologically loaded content that’s quietly sabotaging Japan’s future under the guise of “analysis.” At first glance, it pretends to neutrally explore the “costs” of marriage. But what it really does is:
Pathologize marriage, especially for women
Blame men for everything while erasing their sacrifices
Discourage family formation under the banner of “empowerment”
Sow mistrust between the sexes
It paints women as victims trapped in a burdensome institution, and men as either freeloaders or cowards who abandon their wives at the first sign of illness. The cherry-picked stats and anecdotes serve a clear agenda: to undermine the family unit in a country already on the brink of demographic collapse.
Let’s get real: in Japan, men still pay the majority of household costs — rent, insurance, education. Weddings cost ¥4 million, and who’s expected to foot the bill? Men. Women’s earnings are mostly discretionary. The “financial burden” narrative is lopsided.
The physical cost of pregnancy is real — but weaponizing it to argue against family is a bleak and cynical move. Instead of honoring motherhood and building structures to support it, this piece frames it as a tragedy. That’s not progress — that’s civilizational decay.
As for the claim that “single women are happiest,” tell that to the millions of elderly women Japan now cares for in silence — childless, partnerless, and often isolated. That’s the real endgame of this ideology.
Marriage is not a trap. It’s a covenant, a structure of mutual obligation, sacrifice, and interdependence. Yes, it’s hard — but everything meaningful is. A society that mocks it, that tries to pit men and women against each other, is not progressive. It’s dying.
The future belongs to those who remember that men and women are meant to build together, not compete. Those who preserve family, land, and legacy will inherit what comes next.