I got an invitation from a publicist to see a documentary premiere in New York last week. The film is called What’s your point, honey? and the filmmakers are Amy Sewell and Susan Toffler.

I take a look at the summary and I’m intrigued by the topic of female leadership, so I accept the invitation. The next thing I know I’m sitting in a dark theatre and up on the screen I see a shot of great shoes topped by perfectly creased, wide-legged pants as they walk a dog along a Manhattan sidewalk. As it turns out, they belong to Gloria Steinem.

I gasp, hopefully not too loudly.

Flash back to April 24. I attended an event at the Paley Center called From Bella to Hillary: Women, Media and Politics. Gloria Steinem was on that panel. The very next day I called a dear friend who loves Steinem and left this message on his voicemail: “I have to tell you, Gloria was inspiring. It was great. But I also have to tell you something I can’t say in public--she looked fabulous. Head-to-toe black except for a gold buckle on her belt, beautifully cut pants. No way she got those at Target. Ha Ha.”

Well, now, here it is in print for the world to see. I said it. Gloria Steinem looks fan-freakin’-tastic. Sewell and Toffler wanted to start a conversation with this film, so here goes.

How did we let the "feminist" mission get hijacked? Or is it sidetracked? Is the fashion issue just one way resistance to a misunderstood label manifests?

Why is it that I am embarrassed to say that the most recognizable face of feminism looks great? Why is it that a spirited young woman in the audience during the post-film Q&A session told the filmmakers that they’ve “already changed history” because the seven young women featured are all beautiful and smart as well as feminists? When did those two things become mutually exclusive? Are we still back there?

A bit of context is in order here. Sewell and Toffler made a film in which, as Sewell put it, they are “painting portraits of possibility.” They did so effectively and movingly, mostly by weaving together the stories of the aforementioned seven young women with recurring segments of a trio of spirited ‘tweens and a classroom of teenagers. The filmmakers balanced the smart lightheartedness of those age groups with historical perspective by interspersing sit-down interviews with Steinem, Marie Wilson (president/founder of a non-profit called The White House Project, which fosters female leadership) and Ruth Rosen (a professor at Berkeley).

The focus of the film is the seven women who make up Project 2024, a Cosmogirl! magazine initiative launched six years ago with the support of The White House Project. The idea is to get more women involved in politics by choosing seven college-age women each year to groom for a potential leadership role. The name derives from the year 2024 as a projected date for a female president of the United States. The film--which compellingly takes the viewer to each woman’s hometown environment--was shot before Sen. Hillary Clinton became a presidential candidate.

Sewell and Toffler--both married with two daughters and one daughter, respectively -- had independently been thinking about making a documentary that would provide a marker in time, a frame of reference to how far women have come and how far they still have to go. They decided to partner on the project.

“We use the presidency in a metaphorical way,” Toffler said. “Amy and I look at this film as a gift to our daughters.”

“It was illogical to me that women are still not equal,” Sewell said. “I’m not blaming society or men. What is it about the oppressed mind? If we have 80 percent of the purchasing power and we’re 51 percent of the population and there are all these women-owned businesses, what’s going on? I couldn’t understand why we’re so important and why we don’t matter.”

To be clear, this is not about victimhood. The film idea was sparked for Sewell one day when she told her daughters she wanted to ride a Harley. One daughter replied, “But mom, girls can’t ride motorcycles.” When probed, she went on to say she had never seen a girl on a motorcycle.

“So we wondered, what else don’t they think is possible because they don’t see it?” Toffler said of their daughters’ generation.

This is where it gets tricky. What these girls see are sexy media images that focus on makeup, clothing, and flirting to get boys’ attention, plus mothers who are stressed from trying to juggle what the feminist movement made possible – work in the home, work outside of the home, children, spouses, and social activities. But they also have mothers whose names are on their mortgages and credit cards because of that same movement. They see Danica Patrick and Mia Hamm and Serena and Venus Williams, too.

Sports is, in fact, one of the universal themes in the film, as most of the women in Project 2024 participated in athletics at some point. Having spent the bulk of my career covering (often stridently) women’s sports and Title IX, I have witnessed the shift that occurs when a generation of parents sees its daughters learning confidence, well-roundedness and team spirit on a playing field. I have also seen a soccer player sprint from the soccer field to get changed so she can get to the football field in time to be a part of the homecoming court.

“I don’t think we need to not be into makeup to be feminists,” Lexie Mitter, one of the Project 2024 women, said in the post-film Q&A session.

Which brings me back to the hijacking of the feminist mission. How did we let this generation think it was about being anti-makeup and man hating? Or that it is irrelevant? Toffler, in her 40s, laughingly admits she wanted to make a documentary about feminism without saying the word. But there’s a point in the film where Cat Wilson, another of the 20-somethings, talks about challenging some young women about why they won’t call themselves feminists. She explains that if you’re for equality, you’re a feminist.

Ironically, the generation Toffler hopes will run with the proverbial baton taught her a big lesson along the way. “I had a hard time identifying with the word,” Toffler said. “But when Cat said it that way, I learned something. It’s really that simple.”

“A lot of young women don’t know they’re not equal,” Sewell said. “But like Ruth [Rosen] said in the film, it’s not up to older women to tell younger women what they need. We wanted to start a conversation.”

They have, one that will continue as they promote the film with a grassroots approach in screenings around the country. It will be interesting to see how their fresh feminist message is received as the momentum builds.

In my interviews with Sewell and Toffler, I explained my Gloria Steinem pants moment.

“Truly, Amy and I were obsessed with her nails,” Toffler said. “They’re gorgeous.”

I had to laugh.

Fashionable. Feminist. Filmmakers. Fan-freakin’-tastic.

Nancy Colasurdo is a practicing life coach and freelance writer. Her Web site is www.nancola.com. Please direct all questions/comments to FOXGamePlan@gmail.com.