I think it would be really rotten to tell boys that schools won't cater for them properly because men have unquestionably been dominant for thousands of years. A feminism that deliberately neglects boys is immoral in my opinion.
I don't agree with a core statement by most feminists, the statement by Simone de Beauvoir: "One is not born a woman, one becomes one." Even as a schoolgirl I wasn't convinced by the claim that gender has nothing to do with biology and is only shaped by one's environment.
Conservative feminism is such an artificial term that doesn't mean much to me. For me conservatism means accepting reality. I acknowledge that there are differences between men and women.
For me, a male role model would be a man who, despite holding a leadership position, has the courage to say that he wants to reschedule a 7 p.m. meeting for 4 p.m. because he'd really like to be able to put his son to bed.
It is absurd if something that is fundamental for humanity and for its survival should in itself be defined as submission. That would mean that society can't carry on without the submission of women.
When it comes to women, our perfectionism gives us a lot of grief. Women want to be super moms, super partners and super performers at work - and all at the same time. That's stressful.
For me emancipation will only be truly reached if a woman can wear makeup and skirts without having her abilities doubted as a result.
If I were to tell you that I'm the one who does all the cooking, you'd interpret it as me trying to be some kind of role model. And if I were to say that my husband does all the cooking, you'd say: "Ah, so that's how it is with family ministers."
I wanted to get away from having a minister who pretends to be a certain type of role model. I don't want my life to serve as an example for anyone.
When it comes to family policies, you are dealing with very private issues. Still, my husband and I decided that we didn't want to make our private lives a matter of public discussion.
Not careers alone make people happy. A successful professional life and joy in work are certainly a part of it, but I couldn't be happy without a fulfilling private life.
Many women are simply bad at negotiating (their salaries). Many are happy if they succeed in returning to professional life. The main thing for them is that their job is at least somewhat compatible with their family life. But that's exactly where they are wrong.
We, as women, often believe that we have to endear ourselves by acting modestly. But that leads personnel directors to think: Anyone who gives themselves away so cheaply cannot be very good. On that point, women need to get much, much more self-confident and tough.
I am certain that we do not need quotas for women, especially not in a time when we have a growing shortage of qualified workers. Companies are already asking head hunters to find women for top positions.
A quota for women always amounts to a failure of politics. For me, economics is first and foremost the ability to act freely without state rules. That's why I believe quotas should only be used as a last resort.
I think that the early feminism at least overlooked the fact that partnership and children can provide happiness. It isn't the only way but for very many people it is the most important way.
I never wanted to express my independence by dressing in a particularly masculine way or appear particularly boyish.
The person who sits at his or her desk the longest is not necessarily the best. In fact, he or she might also be the least efficient. It's also often the case that people with family responsibilities are particularly productive at work.
