As a young feminist, I sometimes wonder: First, what do I owe to myself? And second, what do I owe to Hillary Clinton and her campaign?

To older feminists, these might seem like the same question. But in the generational divide between activist women, the way we treat these questions makes all the difference. Younger feminists need to at least understand where older feminists come from, while older feminists must realize that voting for Clinton on the basis of her gender alone does no favors for the feminist movement.

The clash between generations came to a head in February, when two of the most famous female leaders of our time gave feminism a bad name. Watching from the sidelines, I was deeply disappointed by feminist leader Gloria Steinem’s reasoning for the support young women have been giving Bernie Sanders. She told Bill Maher, “When you’re young, you’re thinking: ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie.’”

The next day, hearing “there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other” from Madeleine Albright was another blow, though thankfully temporary; Albright clarified afterward that she has used the phrase jokingly for years and that her remark was taken out of context.

Steinem apologized as well, stating she had misspoken. Still, these comments from some of our most famous older female leaders garnered backlash among younger feminists, and apologies could not erase that. Hearing that “the boys are with Bernie” was especially insulting. If the goal of feminism is to promote equality of the sexes, then implying a woman votes mindlessly because she wants a guy’s attention is a giant step backward.

On some level, however, I understand where Steinem, Albright and other older feminists come from. They have fought for not only the rights but also the culture surrounding women today. Without their work, the notion that women do not have equal footing with men would still seem laughable and go unrecognized.

They also must have watched as Clinton “suffered for being a feminist,” as The New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof put it. Clinton was mocked in 1992 for asserting that she refused to be “some little woman standing by my man.” One female voter was offended by what she called Clinton’s “bitchiness” when Clinton said, “I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession.”

I want other younger feminists like myself to understand that to older feminists, Clinton’s presidency is their right. Her candidacy is the closest any woman has ever truly come to the Oval Office. Her presidency would help solidify the hard-earned progress they have made as women. With all the sacrifices women have made to secure rights that seemed impossible not so long ago, Clinton’s presidency would symbolize a tremendous milestone.

Still, many millennial women are rightfully annoyed that Clinton seems to be pushing her status as a woman in their faces. Their own respect for their personal identities and the progress they have already grown up seeing may explain why.

Because the possibility of a female president is almost a guarantee to them, they simply do not identify with Clinton or feel as invested in her campaign as much as older feminists might. Those of them voting for Sanders might do so because they respect his platform and personality traits more.

At the end of the day, I’d love to see a female president, but she ought to be elected on the basis of her ideas rather than her gender alone.

In fact, based on the definition of “feminist” alone, some feminists would disregard Clinton’s gender entirely, though I still view her candidacy as an important step forward for women’s rights.

If I were eligible to vote, I would not feel that I owe Clinton something as a fellow woman. I would vote for any candidate because I owe it to myself and to my country to see a strong, well-qualified president of the United States.