Six people sit around a table and talk. About an important social topic. Controversial, but free of riot. Duels stay away, as well as verbal blows across the belt. No one hisses, "Let me finish, will you?" At times irritatingly expedient, what is discussed here, beyond the boundaries of party and world view away. People ask because they "would like to know" or "do not know yet". Then it is patiently explained to them.
It was as if Maybrit Illner was broadcasting from a parallel universe that evening.
Quantum physicists are still arguing about the technical means with which they have done this. All you need is a mark on the guest list. There were four women discussing with the presenter even five, and only one man - who promptly "as the only man in the round" signals that he has reflected his role as a guest of the Quota: "Is often the other way round".
However, it was about a topic that is still apostrophized as a "classic women's topic", which puts us right in the middle of the topic with all its problems: "Poverty risk children - today parents, tomorrow poor?" So "family and the whole fuss," as an SPD Chancellor once called it.
Unusually also the distribution of roles. With the responsible Minister Franziska Giffey and the sociologist Jutta Allmendinger two votes for the SPD. With the entrepreneur Marie-Christine Ostermann and the pension expert Johannes Vogel two votes for the FDP. With fairy left as the voice of single parents.
In the search for a voice for the conservative family portrait, the editors have apparently not found anything in the Union. Iris Dworeck-Danielowski, family policy spokeswoman for the AfD in North Rhine-Westphalia, took the place. No mobbing ruckus box. For a woman with very traditional views.
The role allocation in the partnership must be rethought
Because laws are now hopefully named after their intentions, there is the "Strong Family Law" and the "Good Kita Law". Franziska Giffey likes to explain both, the laws finally bear their handwriting. Party member Allmendinger nods.
Johannes Vogel recognizes the goodwill, but would like to unravel the "jumble" of responsibilities. With a uniform "child benefit money" for which the citizens are no longer "sent from office to office". One has to "make a big hit and modernize social policy," says Vogel. Sounds good and would certainly have long been a reality if the FDP had dared to take part in the government.
There is agreement on what constitutes an acceptable solution. The role distribution within the partnership. Who goes to work, who cares about the child? In addition, the lack of infrastructure. Where no kindergarten, as no full-time employment of both parents.
Incentive system to keep mothers from working
"Why is that so difficult?" Illner wants to know: "Who's on the brakes?". Allmendinger and Giffey declare in unison: "It's not us!" And no one is invited by the Union. So Dworeck-Danielowski takes over. The talk of freedom of choice is fine and good, but worth nothing, if only "the rent, the rates for the car" would have to be paid.
She is not even so far from Jutta Allmendiger, who expresses the same facts differently. She calls the spousal splitting as an example of an "incredible incentive system that mothers work less" than the older, more likely to earn more fathers. Thus, "purely economic negotiation principles" already penetrated the family.
In addition to the financial poverty, Allmendinger thankfully takes "also the educational poverty" in the view - a problem, which in addition to the children especially single mothers would concern. Currently around 2.7 million children from households with less than 60 percent of their median net income are considered "poor" in Germany.
Who is on the brake in the tax reform?
Ostermann also knows it from her everyday life as a boss, that "women often only want to come back part-time". That is understandable, but harmful in the current shortage of skilled workers "for our company, the labor market". It would be important "that women and men also come back full time to work".
Vogel nods in agreement, Allmendinger sees this and would like to know what incentives the FDP has in mind to motivate men part-time. Among other things, Vogel mentions the abolition of tax code 5. Another point where everyone agrees. Great idea! But someone is on the brakes, who could that be?
The AfD is not, that is opposition. What does she really think so when it comes to care and family policy? Appearance Beatrix von Storch, whose pertinent statements are cited by Einspieler. In it, Storch expresses her alleged fears that the state wants to "abolish the mothers" and replace their love with "all-day indoctrination".
The AfD wants to be there only for the "normal" families
Dworeck-Danielowski, who has to behave towards this educationally poor rhetoric, waves down annoyed. The Beatrix von Storch have no children and probably never seen a kindergarten from the inside, so: "What's the nonsense?". Illner hooks up and asks if the AfD does not have to take care of gay and lesbian parents.
No, says Dworeck-Danielowski, but there are already the Greens or the SPD: "We are the party that cares about the normal families." Allmendinger states that gays and lesbians and their children are "also normal families".
Not even that was quarreled that evening.
Maybe in the future should be stalked more often in testosterone poor constellations, sometimes like less "soft" topics. It would be worth a try.
