Melanie Thut created the Feminist Federalist Project alongside Diletta Alese and other activists as an extension of her work as the President of JEF Germany, bridging the gap between each of the movements. Her fellow board member, Nina Höll, speaks with her in an exclusive interview for The New Federalist about the project so far, what it means for the future of feminism and federalism, and the implications of this new movement on a global scale.
Nina Höll: When you hear the term federal feminism, what does it mean to you personally?
Melanie Thut: For me, federal feminism means combining the struggle for liberation with the political structure that can actually sustain it: a federal society and a state that enshrines freedoms and rights. It is about the emancipation of humanity through dismantling hierarchical structures between people, while always thinking intersectionally and recognising the specific struggles of different groups, especially women.
On a very personal level, it brings together two of my passions, feminism and federalism, and creates something new at their intersection. I also believe the private sphere itself is federalist. Lived realities, local struggles, and personal experiences matter, and they can be transformed into a shared political project, even into a cause for a united Europe. The private sphere is federalist, making one’s own struggle the cause of a united Europe.
NH: Would you say that there is already a fixed definition, or is it more of an open concept that we need to fill together?
MT: I wouldn’t say that federal feminism is entirely undefined. Ursula Hirschmann already connected these ideas during her contribution to the Ventotene Manifesto and later through the Organisation des femmes pour l’Europe in 1975. Unfortunately, after she fell ill, the project lost momentum and largely went dormant.
Since then, there have been occasional initiatives, but never in a structured or sustained way. Today, fifty years later, we are in a different historical moment, one that allows for more openness, collective approaches, and shared reflection. That is why I see federal feminism as something we now need to develop together, for example through networks, dialogue, and a series of articles.
NH: How do you think federal feminism differs from “classical” feminism or other feminist movements?
MT: Federal feminism is clearly a political project rooted in participation and democracy. It combines structural change with an intersectional understanding of ongoing struggles. Rather than being a new wave of feminism, it is better understood as a new instrument, a political framework that allows feminist struggles to be carried out more effectively.
Federalism provides legal and institutional tools through the state to overcome inequalities and address injustices. It is also globally applicable and future-oriented. Feminism and federalism exist as distinct movements, but federal feminism works precisely at their intersection, where the two complement and strengthen each other.
NH: What values or principles would you see as the core of federal feminism?
MT: Nation states and patriarchal systems tend to divide societies and centralise power. In contrast, both federalism and feminism aim to distribute power more equally, enabling decentralised participation and freedom for all.
Nationalism often reinforces inequality - for example, by instrumentalising women’s bodies for demographic or ideological purposes or by limiting political rights. Federal feminism opposes this by opening space for diverse identities and shared power. At its core are peace, non-violent coexistence, and the conviction that everyone should be able to live in freedom and security and fully realise their potential.
NH: Federalism thrives on diversity and cooperation. Feminism thrives on equality and empowerment. How does that fit together for you?
MT: At the heart of both approaches lies the emancipation of the individual from oppressive power structures. Federal feminism is about equal rights for all and about creating the conditions for people to live freely, peacefully, and securely. These ideas fit together very naturally because they focus on people and their well-being rather than abstract institutions.
NH: To what extent can federal thinking, such as power sharing, subsidiarity, and networking, strengthen feminist concerns?
MT: Federal thinking offers a broader way of looking at society and everyday life. It brings decision-making closer to those affected, especially at the local level, where women are often strongly networked and deeply engaged in their communities.
Federalism also encourages thinking beyond national borders - in our case, across Europe - and working together to strengthen shared causes. A European framework, for example, can help guarantee rights where national governments fail to do so.
NH: How do you experience federal feminism in your own work or within your association?
MT: Within the federalist movement, there has long been a group of people engaging with these questions, inspired by visits to Ventotene and discussions around Ursula Hirschmann and others. Last year, however, we moved from reflection to action.
Through the Feminist Federalist Project, articles in The New Federalist, public readings in Ventotene, and street actions, we are actively reviving this legacy. Our goal is to build a network and continue this work. Figures like Petra Kelly are also a strong inspiration for me personally. These late-evening conversations and reflections are what really drive me and ignite my passion and I am excited to see what comes next.
NH: Do you have an example of where federal structures have supported feminist demands or where they have been an obstacle?
MT: A strong example is the My Voice, My Choice platform, a European Citizens’ Initiative advocating for safe and accessible abortion. It collected 1.2 million signatures across Europe and is still ongoing. Feminists from many countries came together, using a federal instrument to act where national governments have failed.
The initiative created enormous public visibility and shows how a European umbrella can empower feminist demands across borders. This is exactly the kind of approach we need more of, ideally anchored in a truly federal Europe.
NH: What elements should a handbook of federal feminism definitely contain?
MT: I’m not sure a handbook is the right format. Rather than defining a new, fixed feminist doctrine, I see federal feminism as an ongoing exploration of intersections and shared struggles. It is not a separate wave of feminism to be studied in isolation, but a space where common battles can emerge and be examined together.
Reflection, like what we are doing in this article series, is extremely valuable. Federal feminism can be fruitful, but not all feminists automatically see it as relevant, especially if they do not recognise a clear political project behind it. That tension is worth discussing openly.
NH: Federal structures are sometimes cumbersome. How can feminist concerns still be advanced dynamically and effectively?
MT: They can be advanced through strong instruments of citizen participation and through direct, continuous dialogue with civil society across different political levels. Creating public awareness is key, as is ensuring that federal feminism remains inclusive and genuinely representative of diverse perspectives, including intersectional, migrant, and queer voices.
NH: Could federal feminism be a model that has an impact beyond Europe?
MT: Absolutely. We can already learn a great deal from feminist movements outside Europe, such as those in Rojava. There, a confederal system has been established among different ethnic groups, including Kurds, creating a multi-ethnic political structure that actively includes minorities.
We have engaged with these ideas through discussions within the framework of the Israeli-Palestinian Federalist Peace Forum, and they show that federal feminism has global relevance and potential.
Follow the comments:
|
