Backing a woman purely for the sake of her being a woman is not feminism. Backing a woman for her ideas, her influence, and her capabilities embraces the concept of feminism far more than adhering exclusively to your gender ever could. Now, supporting women because you are a woman and would love nothing more than to see them succeed is not wrong in the least, but it must be merited in order to constitute calling other women out for not doing the same. Recently, the controversy surrounding Gloria Steinem’s and Madeleine Albright’s opinions on supporting Hillary Clinton in her bid for the Democratic nomination has been less-than-feminist fuel.
The two made remarks at a New Hampshire rally on Feb. 6, just days before the millennials of the state showed their preference for Bernie Sanders. Steinem, a journalist and leader of the feminist movement, and Albright, the first female secretary of state, not only praised the woman who followed in Albright's footsteps less than a decade later, but chided any woman supporting her opposition. Steinem stated that young, millennial women are abandoning their feminist duties and transferring their support to Democratic hopeful Sanders because “Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie.”
Hillary runs her campaign on the fact that she is a woman; certainly, her platform is composed of more than fashionable pantsuits and continual reminders of the "wo" in front of "man" -- she delves into strengthening labor unions and holding large Wall Street moguls accountable to promote small business growth, hoping to uphold the Democratic desires and principles of America -- but that does not stop her from capitalizing on her gender as a point in her political agenda. Within feminism is an underlying aspect of being proud of your gender, as Hillary openly and clearly represents; the potential of females is expansive and promising, but relying on this to carry a campaign does not ensure support or merit.
To suggest that women should automatically and unthinkingly throw their support toward Hillary is an unfeminist act in itself. Feminism is defined as advocating the political, social, and economic equality of the sexes, and taking that equality away from a candidate who presumably gained support from women because of his political stance, not his draw to men, does a disservice to the movement, itself. This statement implies that women desire men more than they care about their future or the well-being of their country, an outdated myth that women worked hard and long to dispel. And frankly, how different is telling women that they should stop chasing boys from telling them to only support women? Each statement removes the element of educated thinking and free will, two concepts feminists embrace after being forced to repress them for so many years. Particularly in relation to the political realm, where we have a documented rule unlike any other that affirms women’s right to vote in the political spectrum, the freedom to choose a candidate based on opinion rather than obligation is monumental, and with this statement, Steinem effectively tries to restrict that freedom.
For Albright to assert that “there’s a special place in hell for women who do not support other women” pushes the advances of feminism out the door. The idea that women should rescind every double standard that they’ve had to break down in the past 100 years since being given the right to vote in the first place by reducing their reasoning, views, and choices to which candidate is of the same gender is not only preposterous and counterproductive, but not in the foundation of feminism to begin with. Although not exclusive to this discussion -- Albright unleashes these words frequently -- their inclusion in this particular New Hampshire rally not only undermines Hillary’s initiative and goals, but also the reasoning of women.
Consider, perhaps, that women do support Hillary for her efforts in this race, just maybe not her views. Bernie’s proposals on managing college tuition, raising the minimum wage, and social equality are all issues that have a greater effect on the millennials Steinem is condemning than choosing a president of their gender will benefit them. Regardless of candidates’ genders, these women are likely thinking of what agenda will improve their own lives, not how they can improve Hillary’s.
