Despite the advances women have made in politics and business, it is still acceptable for critics, male and female, to attack a woman’s appearance when they don’t agree with her actions. Consider the truly savage campaign against Katherine Harris, Florida's Secretary of State, who has the thankless task of certifying Florida’s vote.

Robin Givhan, a Washington Post fashion writer, for example, ridicules Harris’s “berry-red lipstick” and her “homogenous spikes of false eyelashes,” claiming that her makeup appeared applied “with a trowel.” Not hesitating to draw a conclusion from Harris’s fashion choices, Givhan explains, “She looked as if she were wearing a mask … The American public doesn’t like falsehoods, and Harris is clearly presenting herself in a fake manner… Why should anyone trust her?”

As though unusually qualified to judge, Givhan adds, “One wonders how this Republican woman, who can't even use restraint when she's wielding a mascara wand, will manage to … make sound decisions.”

One wonders what character traits the eloquent Ms. Givhan would extrapolate from, say, Bill Clinton’s choice in jogging shorts, or Colorado Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell’s ponytail. The reality is, men are not attacked for their grooming habits or choice of suits and ties.

Someone should publicly admonish all offending parties. That someone should be the feminist movement. It is a cornerstone of the feminist fight to seek freedom from the ridiculous expectation that a certain feminine demeanor and appearance is a symbol of worth. Yet, in this case, the feminists seem unwilling to raise their fists.

If past actions are examined, however, it isn’t shocking that the feminists refrain from outrage on behalf of Harris. Like the insincere claims of the National Education Association to be working to help children, so the National Organization for Women and other victimization feminists are disingenuous when they beat their drums in the name of women. These organizations pursue specific goals—to increase the government’s scope and reach to protect one or two cherished issues. In NOW’s case, those issues almost uniformly unite them with the champions of government expansion and paternalism.

The radical feminist movement continues to drift further away from its original goals and is now little more than the women’s auxiliary of the Left. For example, while the Clinton administration made a mockery of women, usually vocal feminists stayed silent, taking action only when female Democrats met with harsh criticism.

The Virginia chapter of NOW was the only chapter to protest anything about the Clinton administration, choosing to support women who alleged that the President had sexually assaulted them. NOW’s national leadership had nothing but scorn for the chapter’s efforts. As Robin Givhan put it, why should anyone trust them?

Instead of fighting to elect a president who treats women like adults capable of running their own lives, feminists have used their formerly good name for the benefit of a political party. This breed of feminism has stopped working for women of intelligence and true independence. It is time these groups either recaptured their desires to help all women or adopted truth in advertising.

Meanwhile, as the election wrangling continues, it has at least been made clear that Katherine Harris is not the only one who paints her face for public appearance.