As our generation takes the torch of feminism, we are sprinting in a new direction.

Last week, prominent feminist icons Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright criticized young female voters for supporting Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In the process, they have created a feminist civil war between generations of women voters.

On Feb. 5, Steinem appeared on Bill Maher’s HBO show and stated, “[Women are] going to get more activist as they get older … And when you’re young, you’re thinking, ‘Where are the boys?’ The boys are with Sanders.” Albright, the first female secretary of state, stoked the controversial discourse a day later, telling a New Hampshire rally for Clinton, “Young women have to support Hillary Clinton … and just remember, there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.” 

Both have since backtracked their statements, stating that we may have taken their words out of context and they did not mean to belittle women’s preferences. But the suggestion that young women must vote for Clinton because of their gender and the bid’s historic potential highlights a generational divide between female voters.

In the New Hampshire primary, 82 percent of younger women aged 18 to 29 years of age who voted picked Sanders. Meanwhile, 56 percent of women over 45 years old voted for Clinton. The trend is not exclusive to women — 85 percent of young voters supported Sanders overall.

Steinem and Albright’s condemnation of young female voters supporting Sanders reduces the feminist cause to uplifting fellow women. In reality, the movement is so much more than that. Feminism is about the political, economic and social equality of all men and women. A symbol for women’s rights is not enough to achieve that. Steinem and Albright surely know this. But as representatives of a still-necessary movement, others may accept their throwaway remarks as the basis for real political decisions.

Furthermore, Steinem’s accusation is also using a false argument that reinforces blatant sexism by implying that young women base their beliefs solely on popularity or male agreement. The offensive remarks could even alienate  young voters who feel like political leaders are devaluing their earliest policital decisions.

Ironically, by pitting younger and older women against each other, she is hurting the feminist cause. When she denounces young women for using their agency to choose instead of blindly following a woman for the sake of female solidarity, she is misleading them about what feminism is truly about.

It’s true that older women have endured far more discrimination. They grew up during the second wave era of fighting for workplace equality, new family roles, reproductive rights, Title IX, sexual liberation — all steep, uphill battles. Their desire to see a woman represent the success of their fight is well understood and justifiable.

But we have come to a point where all candidates in the Democratic race strongly support women’s rights, so we must compare their policies and reforms.

Media outlets, including The Washington Post, often portray millennials as being optimistic idealists, which is supposed to explain their support for Sanders’ radically viewed positions.

I would argue the opposite, though. This depiction overlooks Sanders’ longtime support for women’s rights. Many of his policies push further than Clinton’s in fighting for gender equality.

The misplaced idea that a female president would pave a path for women all over the country and solve gender inequality through leadership is an illusion in itself. 

Back in 2008, similar hopes developed with Obama’s presidency in regard to race.

Racial inequality still persists to this day and we are still figuring out how to deal with the systemic inequities. Obama’s election was historic and symbolic, but presidents don’t change anything by just being the first of a group to occupy the office. Congress, and much of the public, are no friendlier just because you represent a milestone to others. 

Steinem and Alrbight didn’t create this kind of assumption among women, but as influential leaders, they should be actively dispelling it.

What we need are policies that extensively benefit all women, not just an inspirational figure of hope to speak for us all. Although Clinton’s presidential win would shatter the ultimate glass ceiling for women, we can’t measure the fight for gender equality by the unprecedented accomplishment.

Women’s rights are still under attack, given issues like defunding Planned Parenthood, equal pay for equal work, affordable childcare, paid maternity leave, sexual violence and political and corporate representation. 

Several of Sanders’ policies would address these issues more aggressively than Clinton’s. Raising the minimum wage to $15, subsidized child care, free college and universal health care would greatly, and disproportionately, impact women for the better.

Sanders also has a more consistent, longer record of supporting civil rights, LGBTQ+ rights and underprivileged Americans — all of which feminism has adopted over the last few decades.

Voting based on policies and commitment to change is not an insult to older women and the second feminist movement. It is a step toward a political environment that promotes women’s rights — not hinders them.

Millennials are not dismissing all the challenges that women have faced and the hard work they’ve done in order to get where we are at today. Instead, we are embracing the strides they have made and using it in to support all women, not just a single successful one. The fact that gender is not the only basis for voting for or against a candidate is itself a victory.

Our generation is looking at all the factors of each candidate and making decisions for ourselves. We must never forget the barriers that women once faced just to be visible in politics. Older feminists opened the door for us and allowed more opportunities for women to succeed in politics. We now have the ability to choose candidates for ourselves.

That being said, when Clinton faces sexist criticism such as being “shrill” or not warm and friendly enough, we should defend her. To the same end, if young women want to focus on policies more than gender solidarity, we should defend that, too.

Only laws and policies will enact tangible change in the long run. Whether a man or a woman enforces those laws as president should not matter. A female president may inspire hope and motivation for many women, but hope is simply not enough to me. For other women, it might be.

Thankfully, that is their choice.

Kirsten Wong primarily writes on social justice issues and education for The Pitt News.

Write to her at [email protected]