I don't really need the old guard of feminists making assumptions about why I, an American woman between the ages of 18-34, would not want to vote for Hillary Clinton.

When Gloria Steinem, in conversation with Bill Maher, said that many young women are siding with Bernie Sanders because, “That's where the boys are,” I kind of gagged in the back of my throat. Come on, Steinem. It's a little hypocritical to want women to be taken seriously and then not taking the political leanings of those same young women as serious. That's not to say that there hasn't been a hell of a lot of misogyny aimed at Clinton by some “Bernie Bros,” as they're called, but really? Young women pick their candidate based on the men surrounding them? I didn't realize that I wasn't allowed to make a decision not based in any interest I may or may not have in men.

Steinem's not the only feminist to make remarks like this, though. In New Hampshire, Madeleine Albright made the remark that “There's a special place in hell for women who don't help other women,” which is offensive in a bunch of different ways including that, because Hillary Clinton is a woman, and because I am a woman, I should automatically support her. But I can't help but think back to when Clinton was against gay marriage, can't help but think about how her opinion really only started changing when pro-gay marriage sentiment was becoming the popular party opinion. Ms. Albright, if there's a special place in hell for people who won't help other women, what about people who actively fight against the rights of other women who are gay? I'm not saying that people can't change, but give me a break. Steinem doesn't really see trans women as actual women and won't help them—is she going to hell, too? Or do some women just not count?

Older feminists like Steinem and Albright might see the rise of Hillary Clinton to presidency as the ultimate fulfillment of their goals. I don't really think the path to female empowerment ends with a woman as president—it didn't when Margaret Thatcher became the first female British prime minister in 1979, and we all know how that turned out. Having a female president in the United States might be revolutionary, but America hasn't has a Jewish (or any non-Christian) president before, either. If Hillary Clinton (a white, upper class, Christian, cis woman) for President is the epitome of feminist success, that's not very indicative of intersectionality at all.

There are plenty of reasons for young women not to want to vote for Clinton. Steinem believes that women become more radical in their politics as they age, and that's why us young women aren't into Clinton, but let's be honest with ourselves: policy-wise, Clinton is the much more moderate of the choices between the Democrat front runners. I mean, young women might also be aware of the current scandal regarding Clinton's private email server, or the conflict with how Clinton handled Bengazhi. They might be uncomfortable with a politician who's been caught lying (even if we know everyone does it).

A suggestion for those older feminists: stop dumping on other women because their politics don't align with yours. If your feminism wants women to help each other, but you immediately insult the people who you want to take your place, you're being hypocritical. You want to act like because we're young, we can't make our own decisions, but get real with yourselves; you telling me that I absolutely must vote for Hillary Clinton because she's a woman is a lot like an old man telling me what to do. You want women to be able to make choices—trust them to do it.