For liberals, advocating women's rights is not sufficient to be in the feminist club.

A few months ago nobody disputed what a feminist was. It was clear that a feminist was someone who believed in equal rights for women in all aspects of life: social, sexual, political, and economic.

Now, liberals are rushing to redefine feminism because someone whose views they don't like meets every requirement. They fear that if they accept Sarah Palin as a feminist, they are also accepting all of Palin's other views, as if a woman must be totally accepted for all of her views or totally rejected. Instead of seeing her as a multi-faceted successful woman, they see her as a threat to their political movement.

N.O.W. PAC chair Kimm Gandy said of Palin: "she is a woman who opposes women's rights."

Katherine Marsh of the New Republic wrote in "The Working Mothers' Case Against Sarah Palin:" "In turning herself into Everywoman, Palin is significantly misrepresenting most every woman . . . The underlying point of the Biden story is that he made sacrifices . . . Palin's parenting story is not about sacrifice or even the struggle for balance but about blithely doing it all. This vision of parenting is not only unrealistic — it devalues the job."

Ms. Marsh is implying that Palin is not a bona fide feminist because she has not sacrificed enough, and that her accomplishments are to be disregarded because Palin had help from her family. ("But the reason most of us are not Sarah Palins has nothing to do with lack of effort or of desire. We also want it all. It's just that we have less to work with.")

Ms. Marsh is saying that real feminists do it all by themselves, so Palin's accomplishments won't earn her a feminist badge. Marsh goes on to say: "Palin, by contrast, has a six-figure salary and an incredible support system — a husband with flexible jobs rather than a competing career, a close-knit community, and a host of nearby grandparents, aunts, and uncles to lend a hand on the domestic front."

From a philosophical perspective, Marsh, and other mainstream feminists, reject Palin's conservative views, and thus will not allow her a seat at the table of feminism.

We must therefore conclude that to be an advocate of women's rights is not sufficient to be in the feminist club. You must also accept liberal political views. (This is the same way mainstream civil rights leaders feel about conservative blacks. They are not legitimate blacks unless they support liberalism.)

Now that they have opened up debate on what a feminist is, let's examine what Marsh is advocating.

Marsh wrote, "she said nary a word about affordable child care," as if it is a foregone conclusion that the government is supposed to subsidize her day care costs.

Let's break this down to street level. The government does not have any money that didn't come from us. What would you say to Ms. Marsh if she showed up at your doorstep demanding that you kick in for the day care of your neighbor's kids?

Ms. Marsh reveals her hole-card with this: "Feminism is not just about having the opportunity to do it all. It's also about having the support to do as much as you can. This is why, in the end, feminism needs to be tied to not just an identity, but to an ideology that encourages that support."

What Marsh is actually doing is redefining feminism to be whatever Palin lacks. She is also revealing that at the heart of her efforts is increased government control over our lives; women's rights are just the means. For she admits that unless you are working to have the government (read that as you and me) pay your health care, child care, family leave, etc, you are not a feminist.

Katha Pollitt, writing for The Nation, seeks to belittle Palin.  Her recent article was entitled "Lipstick on a Wing Nut." Obviously, Pollitt does not consider Palin a member of the sisterhood. She begins her article, "McCain chose the supremely under-qualified Sarah Palin as his running mate . . .."

If this were a boxing match that would be a low blow. I thought we were supposed to treat women with respect?

Pollitt continues her pummeling with, "Count me as a feminist who never believed that being PTA president meant you could be, well, President."  Referring to Palin as a PTA president is like calling Bill Clinton the attorney general of Arkansas. She just can't give Palin her proper respect by calling her by the highest title she has achieved.

The article also insults Palin by asking a series of disingenuous questions like what is the European Union, and the Federal Reserve. She also asks how old Palin thinks the world is (a jab at the religious) and implies that Palin may be too stupid to understand that global warming is caused by humans.

She also asks, "Suppose your 14-year-old daughter Willow is brutally raped in her bedroom by an intruder. She becomes pregnant and wants an abortion. Could you tell the parents of America why you think your child and their children should be forced by law to have their rapists' babies?"

Why does Pollitt find it so disgusting that some people are against abortion? Why does that make them horrible people? To answer her question, if one believes that abortion is categorically wrong, then how could they be for it in cases of rape? The child is still innocent. If their position is based on their belief that life begins at conception, then consistency dictates that they oppose all abortions.

Is there no such thing in the eyes of Pollitt and Gandy as a woman who opposes abortion but supports women's rights?

They would be more genuine if they said that in their view feminists are those who advocate abortion at will and socialist government policies under the guise of womens rights.