Mrs Tazi-Preve, how are children and a career compatible?

Ms Tazi-Preve, women should increase their working hours and work 70 per cent for as long as possible - not only business representatives are calling for this, but recently also equal opportunities officers. What do you think of such demands?

It's a bit like holding out a carrot to a donkey, which it will never get anyway. The next demand is that women - despite having children and running the household - must work full-time. But this is problematic because women are usually still primarily responsible for the household and childcare. It is also a fact that women across Europe still earn up to 30 per cent less than men. In addition, childcare work is rarely credited to their pensions.

Why do equal opportunities officers put working mothers under even more pressure?

Equality women epitomise liberal feminism - and it is fully committed to neoliberalism. This means that only profit counts, the state should be downsized and the welfare state in particular should be cut back. Everything is to be privatised and there is an appeal to personal responsibility.

The so-called compatibility of career and family - that has nothing to do with the advancement of women?

When it comes to the so-called reconciliation of family and work, one must always bear in mind the economic system and politics: The interest in the female labour force has nothing to do with equality or reconciliation, as it is called today. It's all about increasing the company's profit or the country's economic growth.

Who benefits if we all work more and more?

Globalisation shows us that incomes are only rising in the top segment, while the middle class is shrinking. Perhaps we need to take a closer look at the history of labour. The separation of work and family from politics took place in ancient times.

For a long time, the economy developed with the family - the crafts took place at home with the family. It was only in modern times, with the beginning of industrialisation, that production and reproduction were separated. People worked outside the home in factories, where women earned half of the men's income.

On what grounds?

They were told that they didn't need to support a family - even if they had children. Even back then, the prevailing image of motherhood required women to be good mothers on the one hand, but on the other they had to work ten hours in the factory - this combination of work and family never worked out. What's more, work was something for the people anyway and not for the elite, who still don't work today. The wealthy let people work, they delegate. They can also easily afford to have a large number of children. Nevertheless, they are still the guardians of the system by demanding that people who are dependent on gainful employment work more and more.

In addition, the female labour force still does not count as much as the male ...

Where women work, they earn less. Women are mostly employed in «labour-intensive» jobs, as sales assistants, hairdressers and assistants - in other words, in the low-wage sector. If they move into professions that were previously in the hands of men, such as teaching, psychology or medicine, these professions lose prestige and pay levels fall.

The world of work has become brutalised. It demands more and more.

So the economy is the enemy of families.

For a long time, we were under the misconception that work should liberate us. This has now turned out to be a huge mistake. The stress scenarios show that health problems are increasing alongside low earnings. It is a new phenomenon that in America the death rate of white women between the ages of 30 and 50 is rising - in other words, just at the time when they have to juggle children and work.

But most of us are dependent on work. What can we do?

One solution would be for men to join in and get involved in both childcare and housework. But this is not happening. Men continue to work full-time, thereby perpetuating this imbalance. They submit to the neoliberal system because they believe it is normal.

This is why families in particular are suffering under these circumstances. They have little time for their children and hardly any energy left. Why is there hardly any criticism from their ranks?

Those who are in the system will not criticise it, on the contrary: they defend their way of life. But there will never be a solution within the system, because it's always about power and money. This of course contradicts all the needs for empathy and security in a family life. So we should say to young women: stop believing in the fairytale of a career, in the supposed power that you will never have. Young men also need to rethink their career plans. It's outrageous what a sacrifice in quality of life it means to have a career. Many are disillusioned at the age of 40 or 50 and believe in their own personal failure, which is wrong. The world of work has become brutalised and demands more and more. For example, «flexibility» or being available at all times and standing up for principles that only serve to maximise profit. The whole thing is then called «progress» and sanctions are imposed if it is opposed.

Society constantly demands children, but doesn't look after them.

What value do children have in our performance-orientated society?

Society constantly demands children, but doesn't take care of them. However, bringing up children is a task for several people. In principle, even two people are too few for one child.

What would be the solution for a better life for all?

Since the 1970s, there have been experiments in living arrangements where many things - childcare, food preparation, laundry - were shared. Although this form of living would relieve both women and men of family work, many such communities have now disappeared. Fundamentally speaking, we cannot avoid a debate about the increasingly difficult world of work, i.e. securing a livelihood, in connection with the problem of the next generation. In addition, a culture of sharing paid work and childcare must become the norm - otherwise we will never make any progress towards equality.

How can women be relieved?

Empirically, the female social network - mother, sisters, friends, other mothers - is the most valuable way of relieving the burden on women in the long term. We can't really expect any help from the political side either, as today it's all about the buzzword «compatibility of family and career» - in particular, ensuring that there are enough daycare places available. However, this is not enough help for working mothers. She still has to pick up and drop off her children and then do the shopping, cooking, washing and so on. Most of the management remains with her.

Empirically, mothers, sisters, friends and other mothers help the mother the most in relieving the burden. In other words, her female social network.

What do you suggest?

The first is that women and men stop believing that the nuclear family is the ideal place to raise children. The second is that mothers are beginning to understand family as «matrilineality» (matrilineality, Latin for «in the mother's line», refers to the passing on and inheritance of social characteristics and possessions exclusively through the female line from mothers to daughters, editor's note). This means that women understand the help and support they receive from their mothers, sisters and other mothers as essential and not as a substitute for the often absent partner.

Where will we be in this debate in five years' time?

We are a significant step closer to an «equal share society» and a questioning of the meaningfulness of the labour market. People will increasingly want to demand non-exploitative labour, i.e. they will strive for meaningful work that does not harm themselves, other people or nature. The distinction between paid and unpaid labour will become obsolete. Raising children is now seen as one of the most valuable activities that society performs.