As someone occasionally accused of being a liberal feminist, I'll take the 3 main points here bit by bit, but I just think it is worth noting that 'liberal feminism' is a very vague term. Do you mean 'neoliberal feminism in the context of western neoliberal social/fiscal constructs'? Do you mean queer feminism? Do you mean kyriarchal feminism? What about womanism - I don't know if there are any black/of colour women on these boards?
(Forgive me, I sometimes get the feeling that 'liberal' feminism is used as a catch all term for anything which is not 'gender critical' - which itself is a bit of an umbrella term).
Feminism is a theology/theory, primarily of liberation, and like any theory of liberation, it is informed by the context. I don't know if anyone here reads liberation theology in a Christian context, but one of the central American fathers of Christian liberation theology is Gustavo Gutiérrez Merino, whose theology came from praxis (the intellectual framing came second, and is rooted primarily from in the doing/praxis of liberation), and he posited that the best liberation theologies are praxis first/theology second.
So I answer this on the basis of my feminism which is largely rooted in praxis (doing) first, theorising second.
- There are no - or very few - structural or societal barriers in the way of women's progress. There were, but since the passing of equality legistation they have been almost-if not completely removed
&
- That women hold the keys of their own empowerment in their own hands- they have nothing to fear but fear itself, to coin a phrase- and realising this is the touchstone to progress.
I take these two together because I would put these both in a context of 'neo-liberal' feminism, that has grown out of the neo-liberal capitalist context that particular women - broadly speaking, women whose socio-economic background was/is largely (though certainly not exclusively) financially privileged, or relatively so - live in. 'Lean In' feminism, which to seemed like an stage on from (as it was called in the 90's/early 00's), 'lipstick' feminism.
I will, briefly, say is that if your goal is equality with the patriarchy, and financial/human survival is not something you have to fret over, well, yeah, I can see the attraction. I'm not (I'll admit) very well versed in that type of feminism, in part because my experiences and work bear no relation to the type of environment that type of feminism comes from. I may have an unfair of assessment of it in someone's eyes here, apologies if that is the case.
- That any choice a woman makes is by definition a feminist choice.
The wording of this made me wince a bit, because I often see that kind of framing going along with 'you can't choose your way out of oppression' and I think both of those (and apologies if 'you can't choose you way out of oppression' wasn't something you were thinking about OP) miss a couple of things, and the reasons for that vary. So I again, I respond on the basis of my feminism and mine alone:
We all live under the patriarchy, but we do not all experience that patriarchy in the same way, for many reasons. Broadly (rather than personally), that is because different cultures mean some differences in how the patriarchy performs, and how people experience it relative to their position in society.
For example: I don't know if anyone here watched '12 Years A Slave'? (Like Schindlers List, I'm not sure I shall watch it a second time).
But in that film, the character of Mistress Epps (the slave owner's wife) is good example: she is subject to his physical abuse, but she also freely abuses her husbands slaves, and receives more preferential treatment socially of course, because she is white. Her choice to single out and abuse Patsey (the slave her husband is, effectively, raping) is less about Epps sexual preference for raping his slave, than it is about her ability as a white woman to choose patriarchal violence because she is white.
Nobody makes any choice independent of the patriarchal society in which they exist. And much like consent, it can only be exercised where there is the power to do so.
I'm a bit of an old fashioned feminist in some ways because bodily autonomy remains a hugely important feminist issue, and whilst we have been achieving that in terms of reproductive choices, we've been losing ground in the US, and whilst Ireland could well be on the cusp (Repeal the 8th!), people affected by period poverty for example are unable to exercise any choice at all in what they use. Rolled up socks and tissue is only the half of it: they have no financial ability to make a choice about what brand of tampon, towel or cup they might otherwise prefer. They are denied bodily autonomy. (I'll be cheeky - give some sanitary products to your local foodbank PLEASE. This is an issue for wc women, girls and more and more disabled women. Ta for the plug!)
So I would answer that question with an observation - if a woman has made a choice about her own body; if she has made that choice in defiance of the constrictions of patriarchal confines as she experiences them; if she has achieved or gained the power to make that choice where she would usually be expected to have none; and if that choice is made freely, and she is happy with it - frankly, I would celebrate that.
I would also personally add that I would want to interrogate my reasons for questioning another woman's choice quite thoroughly, but I always think that's good practice in any context.