It is significant that younger women are going out for Obama. Not significant for the Republican party, or the presidential election, or the future of the country. What is significant about it is that it is a signal that somehow, once again, the mature women in this society have failed to build an intergenerational connection, to provide a legacy of cultural security for women as women, that stands up to the historical, political, and cultural connections that endure from those with men.

As a cultural group, women seem to disappear into the woodwork about as frequently as the childrearing cycle occurs, and again as frequently as the aging process takes down another generation of “women of a certain age” . You have heard the old saying: Men grow distinguished, women grow old. This bodes ill for political presence. Women of this new generation may have careers, retirement accounts, and assets, but they are voting with their emotions in mind, not their future financial wellbeing.

The youthful careerists like to talk about not depending on social security, about managing their own investment accounts, and about being financially independent. This is the same dream, of economic independence, those of us now in our fifties and older had in our twenties, thirties, and forties. This dream ends at about age 50 for most of us. For a generation of women who supposedly studied economics more than prior generations, I don’t understand how the recurrent history of the wage cycle has been overlooked by these voters.

At least 4 times since 1972, the retirement assets of most wage earners in the U.S. have been gutted by changes in political policy, economic policy, or corporate policy, or a change in all three. Any generation of workers in modern U.S. puts in approximately 20 to 30 years before the cards fold underneath them, leaving without the security they expected and worked for. This cycle has more of an impact on women, 100 years after the vote and 30 years after the Civil Rights Act, because they still make about 30% less than men on average—30% less to save, to invest, to spend on career enhancements, and to ensure their economic futures. Thirty per cent less to leave to their children than the average man. What kind of a legacy is this?

It is not a competitive one in the eyes of our children. Men’s role in society and politics is the benchmark. Even the Conference Board, the trade group for major corporation CEOs, recognizes the underutilization of older women that is reflected in the political fight going on in the Democratic party. A recent video-conference advertised by them suggested that corporations need to learn to “leverage” the skills and abilities of mature women in the organization. In the world of commerce as well as politics we are under-acknowledged for our contributions. When are we going to move ourselves beyond this stagnate position?

Maybe it’s no surprise that young women flock in droves to the candidate that is the symbol of hope to the younger voters-- HOPE is appealing to them. Hope can also be deceptive. Hope is a four letter word for all women who do not look carefully at past history and at the future. Look at the past and future of all mothers, grandmothers, and the plight of children in this country (for whom women, above all, are responsible, like it or not) as it exists today. This is the past history of only one generation.

The Civil Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act were in place when we left high school in 1972. This nation has had an entire work generation under this supposed equality. How many women do you know that have retired with anything more than modest security, or security that is not tied, inviolably, to their husband’s assets? Of the ones that did retire, what did they do their entire work life? Teach? Work for the government? How many of them have personal wealth from owning their own business, being an entrepreneur, or investing prudently over a long period of time? Still today, many more women than men of any age live in poverty. Without laws and lawmakers enforcing equality for women, not for minorities, it is still just a dream.

It’s easy to suggest that the so-called post-equality women are not in the same position as the older-than-fifty generation of women. That is a statement that is easily made without engaging the facts. If young women took a good hard look at their economic and social position relative to men’s today they would realistically be irritated into action. Women, more than men, quit their jobs—or lost them—in droves after 9/11 and were less likely to return to the same pay afterward. Their retirement funds were more likely to be disrupted and their savings more likely to be depleted. They are now more likely to be at home, dependent on the income of a male. Women are less likely to have regained good paying jobs in the newly created positions of the Bush administration.

Why do we older women continue supporting the delusion for our nieces, daughters, and children, that the future is wide open to young women? Economic facts show, over and over, that the promise of economic prosperity in women’s future has a short trajectory followed by a steep decline. Why aren’t older women able to make this connection with younger women to help them plan for a more secure maturity? I see young mothers and career women alike making the same erroneous assumptions that I made in my youth, and my mother made in hers.

When will we learn how to bridge this generation gap? We need to get out of our Red Hat societies and back into the real world to help build bridges to the future, for those like us who will reoccur in another 40 years. We need to learn, now, the lesson that supporting men in commercial or political arenas, is merely a distraction from our own livelihoods.