Historically, feminism has survived and thrived when feminists unite together to achieve a common goal. Through doing this, the movement has been able to strongly and effectively fight for causes such as suffrage, the closing of the wage gap, and reproductive rights. This joining together has been a fundamentally defining aspect of feminism as a whole. However, modern feminism has begun to see the issues that propelled first and second wave feminism forward. Many have been heavily criticized for supporting their fellow feminists unconditionally. There is no denying how important it is for this movement to remain united. Still, it seems a new question faces modern feminists. When is it more important to stand for ideals than to stand together?

From marches used to fight for women's suffrage to social media campaigns used to promote sexual assault awareness, the progress of feminism has always strongly relied on unity. But as the movement itself becomes more varied and diverse, this unity becomes more difficult. Modern feminists often disagree on both the issues that need attention and which should take priority. For example, many can agree on the issues of the wage gap and rape culture, however, many disagree on which is more important. In addition, if feminism could agree that the wage gap takes precedence, there would still stand the issue of the wage gap between white women and women of color. So, how can this problem be solved? Should those who believe rape culture is the most dire concern stand with those who want to prioritize the wage gap for the sake of feminism?

Another aspect of this issue arises with the complication of individual feminists. When Hillary Clinton announced her run for the presidency first in 2008 and again in 2016, a dilemma was quickly brought to the public eye. Many wondered if it was a feminist's duty to stand with Clinton, simply because she was the only female contender. The election of a woman president would undoubtedly mark a great milestone for feminism. Still, Republican and Democratic feminists alike found themselves wondering if they should support a candidate who did not share their ideals, in the name of female progress. This is a question that will haunt many until the moment they step into the polling booth. Which takes precedence, personal ideals or the feminist movement?