Meghan Daum sparked a semantic debate last week when she declared, "If [Palin] has the guts to call herself a feminist, then she's entitled to be accepted as one."  Kate Harding counters:

There's a difference between a big tent and no boundaries whatsoever; if Palin's "entitled to be accepted" as a feminist just because she says she's one, then the word is completely meaningless as opposed to merely vague and controversial.

Jessica Valenti tries to find some basic criteria:

[S]he ran on a presidential ticket that supported business' right to discriminate on the basis of gender, that opposed increased funding for SCHIP and that supported cuts to the Family and Medical Leave Act. And, of course, Palin is anti-choice - she even opposes abortion in cases of rape and incest, and is against emergency contraception. And while I'm sympathetic to the idea that abortion shouldn't be a litmus test for feminism - I believe, for example, that one can be personally pro-life and feminist - there is simply no way that you can advocate for the limitation of other women's rights and access to health care and call yourself a feminist.

Sara Rubin stitches together the current debate and the one started when Palin was picked as a running mate. Hanna Rosin also made waves recently by suggesting that the Tea Party is a feminist movement.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to