This article originally appeared in Forbes.

With the Iowa caucuses days away, 2016 has the potential to be a historic year for American women and feminism. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party’s de facto candidate and the so-called political glass ceiling is in her sights. Ironically, the self-proclaimed feminist champion would have a better chance if she resists her modern feminist instincts. She has the opportunity to set a new standard for American women in politics. Here are three places she could start.

1. Leave the gender card in her purse

It must be tempting for the former First Lady to use the carrot of a historic victory to court American women into her column. At her first campaign rally last spring, Clinton said, “I may not be the youngest candidate in this race, but I’ll be the youngest woman president in the history of the United States.” While saying that people shouldn’t vote for her just because she is a woman, it’s clear that making history as the first female president is a centerpiece of Clinton’s campaign.

During the first Democratic debate in October, moderator Anderson Cooper of CNN asked Clinton how her presidency would differ from President Barack Obama’s. She said, “I think that’s pretty obvious. I think being the first woman president would be quite a change from the presidents we’ve had up until this point, including President Obama.”

Her campaign released a “44 boys is too many!” video advertisement in December full of little girls reading letters to Clinton encouraging her and calling her as an inspiration.

But basing a candidacy on gender undercuts a central premise of feminism—the goal of equality between the sexes. And it will only get her so far.

Already, playing the gender card appears to be failing with younger women. A recent USA TODAY/Rock the Vote poll found that Senator Bernie Sanders has a 19-point lead over Clinton among Democratic and independent women ages 18 to 34.

2. Thank the entertainers for their support, but don’t put them center stage

All candidates look for endorsements on the campaign trail. Clinton has signed up a list of celebrity endorsements and has even taken a selfie with Kim Kardashian. Actresses Kat Dennings from “2 Broke Girls,” Lena Dunham from “Girls” and America Ferrera from “Ugly Betty” have already voiced their support for Clinton.

We can’t blame Clinton and other candidates for highlighting famous supporters, since people look to celebrities to set trends. But Clinton runs a risk of further suggesting to the American people that the goal of her candidacy is to deliver a symbolic win for her gender, rather than provide leadership or policy solutions.

It is particularly telling when Clinton turns to Hollywood’s leading ladies to help her make dubious policy arguments. For example, Patricia Arquette celebrated winning Best Supporting Actress at last year’s Oscars by calling for wage equality. Arquette said, “To every woman who gave birth to every taxpayer and citizen of this nation, we have fought for everybody else’s equal rights. It’s our time to have wage equality once and for all and equal rights for women in the United States of America.”

The actress was parroting an often-made argument by those on the Left who claim to be fighting the Right’s so-called “war on women.” But economists and experts across the political spectrum have debunked the claim that the statistic that women earn just 77 cents for each dollar that men make is evidence of rampant discrimination. The wage gap myth doesn’t take into account choices that impact earnings, such as education level, years of experience and hours worked, among others.

Unfortunately, Clinton ignored the economic evidence and embraced Arquette’s remarks, “I think we all cheered at Patricia Arquette’s speech at the Oscars, because she’s right—it’s time to have wage equality.”

Women are better off hearing the truth, even if that means speaking out against popular entertainers.

3. Resist the temptation to label all criticisms as sexist

Recently, Lena Dunham who is campaigning for Clinton declared there should be a list of words that the media can’t use to describe female candidates, including “shrill, inaccessible, difficult, frumpy, plastic.” She continued, “If we were allowed to talk about male candidates like that, I’d have a f*cking field day.”

Drawing these linguistic lines in a perceived political gender war follows a trend of some writers throwing the sexism flag at seemingly innocent language. A Huffington Post writer argued that the word “too” is sexist when applied to women because women are “treated unfairly and always considered ‘too’ something.” National Review Online reporter Katherine Timpf wrote about a student who claimed that people make fun of pumpkin-spice lattes because, “It all comes back to sexism. People love to hate on what girls like.”

Let’s call out true sexism when we see it, but also call out faux sexism.

Choosing the feminist road seldom taken

Only 20% of Americans self-identify as feminists, according to a Huffington Post/YouGov poll. But perhaps that says more about what most of us consider feminism to mean. If it means viewing every political issue, and even our basic language to describe our political leaders, as a battle between men and women, it’s no surprise that a majority of American women reject that term. But if the true meaning of feminism is treating men and women equally, and judging every person on their merits, it’s likely more women would embrace the label. Clinton has a real opportunity to be a champion for a more empowering meaning of feminism. But that will require leaving today’s faux feminism and the gender warriors behind.