Both Eric Paulsen and RR should have read my letter properly and made sure that they understood the points I was making before responding.

One crucial point that both of them missed is that I did not say that I supported the statement made by programme manager Manohari Subramaniam (to the effect that all men are potential rapists).

What I said was that Manohari/Awam may have had a plausible reason for making such a statement. Whether or not we think the reason justifies the statement is open to debate, but surely we should try to understand the context in which the statement was made before dismissing it out of hand.

And, as I also said in my letter, I don't question Eric Paulsen's right to oppose this statement. So Eric Paulsen's long diatribe about Nik Aziz, racism, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, gays, etc, is unnecessary.

What is necessary but still lacking is an explanation from Eric Paulsen as to why he resorted to using a sexist analogy, one that blames women for breaking marriages, to make his point in his previous letter.

Similarly, RR's statement that "not all men are rapists, potentially or otherwise, and not all of us are egoistical morons either," only serves to demonstrate his failure to comprehend my letter. As I have mentioned, at no point did I say that I think all men are rapists. Neither did I say that all men are egoistical morons.

In fact, I said the opposite and pointed out that there are some men, such as the members of MAN.V - the network of men against violence against women initiated by Awam - who, far from being "egoistical morons", are working to end violence against women.

Eric Paulsen and RR may be adherents to a method of arguing where it is okay to simply ascribe certain beliefs or positions to a perceived opponent and then to argue against them, but I think most people subscribe to the notion that one should actually understand what one is arguing against before doing so.

Also, with regard to RR's statement that the prevention of violence against women (VAW) movement does not need my opinions, I would like to ask RR how does one know what the violence against women movement need or does not need? And when was he elected spokesperson for the movement?

I have, you see, been involved in the VAW movement for about a decade and I am sure I would remember it if we had elected RR as our spokesperson. Of course, as RR's identity is hidden behind initials, it's hard for me to be sure. I am pretty sure though that we have never elected a man as our spokesperson.

And given the my years in the VAW movement, and the fact that I know many of the people involved in it, I am far better placed to understand the needs of the movement. Even so, I am not so arrogant as to speak for the whole movement or to take it upon myself to decide what it needs .

RR's admonition that I should `wake up and smell the coffee' suggests that I am not aware of the complexities of the issue. My perspective on the subject come not only from having studied women's issues up to a postgraduate level, but also, as I said, from years of working on the issue.

I have therefore both an academic and a grounded understanding of the subject. I don't have to wake up and smell the coffee: I have been drenched in it for years. What about RR? What basis does he have for his understanding (or, more accurately, misunderstanding) of the subject? Or is he just talking out of his hat?

Does RR think that just because he has read Catherine McKinnon's 'Only Words' he is qualified to make proclamations for the VAW movement? Even if he had read it properly, he would not be qualified to do so.

The fact that he has actually misread the book only strengthens my impression that RR has a problem understanding the complex issues and arguments.

I should actually thank RR, because his misreading of the book gave me the best laugh of my week. McKinnon's basic premise in 'Only Words' is that, when it comes to issues such as sexual harassment, words can be as damaging as actions.

She argued against people's tendency to only take physical acts of harassment seriously, and said that words should not bee seen as `only words' because they are extremely powerful and can inflict considerable damage. Thus they should also be included in definitions of sexual harassment.

RR convincingly demonstrated his inability to understand the book when he ended his letter by saying that "Alina's installment (is) nothing more than Only Words." What he meant to say was that my opinions don't count for much.

What he ended up saying, given McKinnon's ironic title, is that my opinions are extremely powerful. Well, thank you, RR. It's nice to be appreciated.

In the spirit of nurturing healthy debate, I would like to raise one final point:

Even though we are inundated with sexist statements and images about women, few men - even those who like Eric Paulsen claim to be interested in the protection, preservation and promotion of all human rights - speak out against it or do anything to challenge it.

Yet, when one statement places men in a negative light, they rush out of the woodwork and churn letters out giving vent to anger, annoyance, hurt, the works. Fine, nobody is challenging their right to be hurt or write letters or whatever. But if they are really as concerned about women's rights as men's, how about doing something to fight the negative perceptions of women for a change?

So - can I expect Eric Paulsen and RR to be as vocal and passionate in challenging the negative representations of women in our society in future as they have been over this issue? Or is this all a case of 'sound and fury, signifying nothing?'