I imagine not many people of our generation really have a firm understanding of who Madeleine Albright is. Just as a brief introduction of the woman: she is a well-known politician who is most famous for being the first female Secretary of State who was sworn in during Bill Clinton's administration in 1997, capturing 99 out of 99 Senate votes. Of course, this is a big deal. As a female who looks up to other females who manage to earn positions of notable power, she is something of a figurehead in the feminist world. And, as such, knowing her level of influence, Mrs. Albright has notably endorsed Hillary Clinton in her run for U.S. Presidency. That, in and of itself, is just fine. It makes sense. One former Secretary of State understanding the plight of another woman, also a former Secretary of State, in achieving what -- prior to Obama's breakthrough in becoming the first African American President -- seemed impossible: to become the first female President in U.S. History.

Listen, when I was growing up, my father told me that there are a few subjects you never discuss with people you don't know, and among those subjects was politics. It was basically taboo to discuss political affiliations. These days, however, we live in a very partisan country. I refuse to not only hide my opinions on matters I find important, but I won't even beat around the bush about it. I am a liberal. As long as I can remember, I have had a very liberal mindset. I am not the kind of liberal who will, without being provoked, attack conservatives simply for being conservative, but I also don't shy away from discussing what I believe in. Because of my openness to these subjects, I do my best to educate myself, so that I will never be caught in a situation where I squirm to find a rebuttal. I'll admit when I'm wrong; I have no problem with that. But ultimately, here's the issue: while a liberal, Hillary Clinton is not my candidate of choice. I don't hate the woman; I simply don't agree with many of her issues that have been brought to my attention. I am not concerned with Benghazi, or with this ridiculous email controversy. I don't support Hillary Clinton because I question her commitment to any position she claims to hold. In one of the Democratic debates late last year, she defended herself for flip-flopping on her opinion of the LGBT community, and her explanation does make sense: people, given new information, faced with new experiences, have the ability and the right to change their minds. Isn't that what we all fight for when we have a debate with someone we know on a contentious point? For example, my father and I disagree vehemently on several subjects, and when we debate our points, I'm sure each of us hope to sway the other person on their stance. But the problem I see for Clinton is that there is not one single pivotal issue that she sinks her feet into that cannot be shown, with evidence, to be in opposition to something she has previously stated.

Furthermore, in more recent debates -- and specifically the debate that aired on PBS on February 11th of this year -- she, noticing that Bernie has gained traction on her, even beating her out in some polls -- has started to modify her rhetoric to almost mirror that of Bernie's, but she always takes it up a notch. I feel that her platform at this point is simply reworded and regurgitated ideas that Bernie first put forth. And it makes me wonder, what even is her mission? Does she have any ideas of her own? Or has she simply been in the political sphere so long that she feels she is somehow owed the presidency at this point, and she will do or say whatever it takes to get it? And yes, the woman has worked hard for many decades at what she does, but seniority does not equate to being the most qualified for such a powerful position, in my view.

So, back to the original point. Mrs. Albright, as influential as she is, took the opportunity when introducing Hillary at a recent event to exclaim that there is a "special place in Hell" for women who don't help one another -- basically implying that if I, as a woman, don't vote for Hillary, am a failure as a feminist, and will burn in hell for it.

Around the same time, Gloria Steinem, who is famous for her journalism, political activism, and being a figurehead in the 1960s women's liberation movement, has -- despite her insistence that she was misunderstood -- suggested that women who support Bernie Sanders do so because that's where the boys are, and that women, of course, only care what boys are interested in, and follow suit for the attention... I have just come to the conclusion that feminists are sometimes their own worst enemies as far as moving their cause forward.

I don't need to be told I cannot consider myself a feminist if I don't vote for a female candidate (based solely on her being a female.) I don't need to be accused of only supporting Sanders because the boys do. I'm a grown woman with a strong enough sense of self to make my own choices based on my own logic and reasoning.

And, I am a feminist. I'm just not THAT kind of feminist, nor do I want to be. In my opinion, these kinds of statements are far from feminist in nature. To imply that women cannot think for themselves, and only care about what boys think, is basically an accusation that women are stupid, gullible, and easily swayed. That sounds fairly inflammatory against one's own gender to me.

To tell women what to do, or how to think, when voting, is the same as telling a woman to completely undermine her own faculties of reason and logic. And, again, this sounds an awful lot like questioning whether women are capable of intellectual thought at all.

Ultimately, I would absolutely love to one day have a female president. And if Hillary wins it, great! But she's not my choice, and her gender does not change my opinion.