I'm not sure that most definitions of liberal feminism would agree with points 1, 2, and 3, to be honest, Bertrand.
I've always used Helen's definition, though I'd say that liberal feminists don't necessarily think existing structures don't have to change, they just believe that fundamental liberal principles are adequate as a foundation for women's rights - and there's nothing in that which supports points 1-3. So it's rather that they believe in fundamental liberal principles and therefore call for women's rights by way of those fundamental principles being extended to women.
I don't think there's necessarily anything in that that would suggest Liberal feminists don't think there are structural barriers, etc., to women's progress - quite the opposite, really. They would be arguing, in the name of a given liberal society's own protestations of equality of opportunity, to 'widen' access and 'remove' impediments to women's progress. What they might not be arguing is that there is no sovereign individual behind that call for women's rights, or that violence is necessary to answer a hidden and necessary structural violence that necessitates women's exclusion.
Similarly, I think you're doing liberal feminists a disservice thinking they agree with point 2. Only very, very dim people think/argue that. Liberal feminism is quite capable, within itself, of offering a critique of patriarchy-supporting women. Similarly, Liberal feminism was deemed to be somewhat blithe about post-modern critiques of rationality - which took issue with the idea that politically-positioned subjects would necessarily espouse a discourse of their own interests and introduced the idea that people can and do act and think against their own interests and those of their political class - but that battle has pretty much been won, and I doubt that any self-identifying Liberal feminist would have such an uninflected position.
Your third point, well, there would be no political project at all if that were the case, would there? And Liberal feminists - the kind who got together and worked within existing power organisations to extend/enact legislation that empowered women - definitely had a political project and saw a need for communal action and change.
I wonder if 'Liberal feminist' isn't something of a floating signifier these days, used to discredit feminists who aren't deemed radical enough?
Certainly, I think what you describe in points 1-3 wouldn't really hit the mark of feminism for me at all. They describe someone very individualist, who hasn't any kind of political project in mind at all.
Like Helena, though, I think of myself as 'feminist', not falling into a category, and wouldn't be prepared to die on a hill for my definition either.
