The claims of unwavering feminist alignment leveled at the leadership of Germany’s CDU and CSU parties – namely, Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Bavarian Premier Markus Söder – are drawing scrutiny amidst ongoing debates surrounding gender equality within German politics. Research Minister Dorothee Bär, formerly a prominent voice on family policy within the Union factions, has publicly lauded both men with exceptional scores on a self-proclaimed “feminism scale” assigning Merz a robust “11” and Söder an even higher “12.
Bär’s assertions, published in the Funke-Mediengruppe newspapers, highlight Merz’s consistent advocacy for women and family matters, specifically referencing his support for a shift in CDU policy regarding prostitution. She underscored his participation as a keynote speaker at an event focused on “sex as a weapon” an event she personally organized.
While Bär’s public endorsements are striking, they are not without potential complexities. The praise for Merz, particularly given his historical stances on certain social issues, could be interpreted as a calculated strategy to mitigate criticism regarding the CDU’s sometimes-uneven record on gender equality. Söder’s strong female representation within the CSU, including four out of five deputy leaders and his active promotion of women into ministerial and state secretary roles, provides a seemingly demonstrable record of support. However, critics argue that such representation alone does not equate to substantive feminist policy or a dismantling of ingrained patriarchal structures within the party.
The Minister’s assessment, coming from a former advocate for family policy within the Union, emphasizes the performative aspects of prioritizing gender equality. A deeper investigation into the actual impact of these leaders’ policies, beyond symbolic gestures and representation targets, is necessary to determine whether these impressive scores on Bär’s personally defined “feminism scale” reflect genuine commitment or merely strategic political maneuvering in an increasingly sensitive political landscape. The question remains whether such pronouncements translate into meaningful systemic change, or represent a calculated effort to deflect criticism and bolster public image.
