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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."