Since the publication of Rachael Hills's article "Who's Afraid of Melinda Tankard Reist" (and see her reflections two weeks later) at least ten on-line and print media articles have joined in a public dissection and commentary along the lines of, "she's a conservative religious fundamentalist" and "she's pro-life and can't be a feminist."

The subliminal context of the attempts to bring Melinda Tankard Reist to her knees and destroy her work is of course the elephant in the room: if her considerable impact on educating the public about the harms of the sex industry could be reduced, the pornography and prostitution promoters and profiteers would rejoice.

As her publishers at Spinifex Press, Australia's only feminist publishing house (and secular), we take issue with these portrayals of Melinda Tankard Reist. It is easy to try to dismiss someone by smacking on a "fundamentalist" (whether Christian or Muslim, Hindu or Jewish) label and thereby dismiss the arguments that a person makes. What is less easy, but more ethical and intellectually rigorous, is to examine Tankard Reist's views - which are shared by many feminists and other advocates for social justice and human rights - and to see what the factual arguments for those views are.

Even a cursory examination of her writings and the books she has edited for Spinifex Press such as Big Porn Inc: Exposing the harms of the global porn industry (with Abigail Bray), Getting Real: Challenging the sexualisation of girls and Defiant Birth: Women who resist medical eugenics make clear that what Tankard Reist stands for is for women and girls to be treated with dignity and respect in all ways. She stands for women to be able to break free of anti-feminist cultural trends that elevate sex, fashion and beauty at the cost of spiritual, emotional and intellectual development; and for the violence and harms inflicted on women caused by the advertising and the global pornography and prostitution industries to be exposed.

In Defiant Birth, Tankard Reist investigates crucial questions about eugenics and the medicalisation of birth (such as the use and misuse of prenatal screening). She advocates for the human rights of people with disabilities. As radical feminists, these are feminist causes we are proud to support. And we are eager to support their discussion more widely.

We met Melinda Tankard Reist in 1993 at a feminist conference against population control in Bangladesh. Since that time, our respect for her work has only grown over time as she has fearlessly taken up issues of great importance both to the broad community and to feminists. That this discussion is happening publicly is an indication of its importance.

The charge that Melinda Tankard Reist speaks to a range of different audiences is an odd one. It appears that only feminists are attacked if they speak to audiences other than themselves. Feminists speak to all manner of people, including those we know we disagree with. How else do you change the world?

So we applaud Melinda's ability to speak with many different groups, from faith-based and community organisations to schools and feminist conferences: we see it as part of her strength.

We have watched over many years with dismay as a number of false statements have been made about Melinda and about ourselves (Renate Klein has even been described as Australia's best known pro-life - and anti-abortion - feminist, when she has always supported a woman's decision to access abortion).

Portions of the now defunct 2007 Unbelief blog, to which so many commentators refer in a circular fashion, have recently been resurrected and has been posted on Leslie Cannold's blog, labelled as "a Biography" of Melinda Tankard Reist. But its content has never been checked with Tankard Reist and it is full of erroneous and/or outdated statements - among others, concerning her religious affiliations and beliefs and incorrect assertions about ourselves.

The media has portrayed this as a one-off stoush between feminists, when in fact it highlights differences between various kinds of feminism. Those attacking Melinda Tankard Reist are by and large liberal and often libertarian in outlook. Indeed, Anne Summers asserts, "As far as I am concerned, feminism boils down to one important principle and that is women's ability to be independent."

The independence of women is an important principle, but it does not only mean the independence of individuals. Radical feminists believe that we have collective goals, and indeed, that is why we have a feminist movement and not just feminists.

The shortcomings of this liberal/libertarian feminism include its ongoing support for the continuation of prostitution as "work" - a job like any other - even though millions of women worldwide are trafficked, exploited, violated and made into profitable commodities. Radical feminists want to change the social structures and institutions so that women are not exploited by any industries or ideologies. Indeed, we put forward the radical proposal that women are human, people with full human rights.

Abortion is an even bigger divider between feminists. For liberals and libertarians, the "choice" of access to abortion is the defining factor, hence Summers' statement: "Can you be 'pro-life' and a feminist? I say an emphatic, No."

We disagree with such absolutist pronouncements. We too want abortion to be accessible and as safe as possible (though it can never be entirely safe). But to define feminism by an act that often causes so much heartache and regret and is a hard decision, not a "choice"?

The question of abortion needs political context. Who undergoes terminations, and why? What are the medical procedures like? What is the aftermath of an abortion? What are the structural conditions of women's lives (poverty, male dominance, problem of accessing safe contraception, and so on)?

Many so-called third world feminists find western AID programs demeaning and a form of re-colonisation. As Farida Akhter from Bangladesh put it: "The right to choose only means women's decision to reduce their fertility not the right to refuse harmful contraceptives." (For more on this neglected topic, see Klein's article here.)

We find Melinda Tankard Reist's "pro-life" actions inspiring as she seeks to support women with unintended pregnancies by, for instance, offering them the option of supported accommodation and general assistance. (For the record, Melinda does not support the criminalisation of women for having abortions.)

What is wrong, even for people who support a woman's access to abortion, to look into the complex issues that women face when they contemplate and/or undergo an abortion? How could abortion be the defining factor of feminism when there is no reliable and safe contraception for males or females, and when sex is often coercive?

Instead of stifling debate, pro-choice campaigners should be mature enough to discuss the many grey areas and complex reasons why women undergo terminations. This is what Melinda Tankard Reist has done for years, especially with the publication of Giving Sorrow Words .

But instead, misinformation gets published and republished time and time again. For instance, one commentator after another - the most recent being Kate Gleeson - repeats that former Senator Brian Harradine (to whom Tankard Reist was an advisor) "stopped" RU 486 coming into the country. This is blatantly untrue. To this day no drug company has ever made an application to import and market RU 486 in Australia. It remains illegal to use except in medical clinics that have obtained authorised prescriber status from the Therapeutic Goods Administration.

Access to safe and legal abortion has been a key demand of the women's movement and we agree with this demand. But RU 486 is not safe. RU 486 has numerous adverse effects and women have died as a result of its use. We called it the new backyard abortion against which feminists in the 1970s campaigned. It removes responsibility from doctors to look after a woman's well being. Give her pills and send her home is not what feminists want. Rather we demand respectful and reliable medical care.

Melinda Tankard Reist's criticism of RU 486 (and its second ingredient prostaglandin) has centred on questions of medical responsibility and the two drugs' adverse effects. Shouting down these concerns under the banner of "Christian-fundamentalist-speak" does disservice to demands for best-practice procedures and shows disrespect for women's health.

As for allegedly attempting to control women's sexuality and access to pornography, once again the liberals and libertarians are prepared to sacrifice women pulled into the pornography industry for some elusive "freedom" of the individual.

Eva Cox says that Melinda Tankard Reist is infantilising women by trying to protect them. In fact Eva Cox is infantilising men who are "free" to act whenever they are "unable to control" their sexual urges and must have the latest hit of porn.

We believe it is time that men took responsibility for their behaviour, their habits and their speech. There is plenty of research in the public domain that shows precisely how problematic the widespread use of pornography is for young people and for adults.

As Gail Dines has written, the recent claim that it is "home-made porn" that is mostly being accessed in Australia (and elsewhere) is ludicrous and contradicted by research. Just as legal brothels are a front for the illegal prostitution industry, "amateur" porn is a front for commercial companies who fund amateur porn and market it to new users who are then funnelled to the paying sites.

So let us be substantive about the arguments, rather than attacking personalities. If you are on Twitter, look for yourself at the sexual violence in many comments against Melinda Tankard Reist. They include repeated threats of rape, death threats and exude an almost incomprehensible vitriol.

For example, children's scriptwriter, Duncan Fine - called a "rusted on feminist" - retweeted this message: "So, has anyone found naked pictures of #mtr? She is rootable in that religious feminist way." And from ethicist Leslie Cannold: "Have an abortion, too. Then she'll really hate u RT @geofflemon: Going to watch porn this week to piss @MelTankardReist off #qanda."

These are not arguments, they are misogynist slurs. They are not appropriate in a democracy that purports to uphold sexual equality. Many amount to hate speech.

Much of the social media and conventional media comment perpetuate falsehoods about Tankard Reist. It is the perpetuation of these falsehoods for which Melinda Tankard Reist is requesting an apology and retraction of some defamatory posts that a blogger, Jennifer Wilson, has spread about her. To date there is no case in the courts, simply the first step in the process followed under Australian law for correction of untruthful and defamatory comment made in public.

Perhaps Leslie Cannold could voluntarily lead by example by removing from her blog the unbelievable Unbelief "Biography" of Melinda Tankard Reist that is the source of so many of these falsehoods and rumours.

Melinda Tankard Reist and her many initiatives, like Collective Shout: for a world free of sexploitation, deserve to be applauded and be supported instead of being vilified.

The personal is political. We must not forget that these intensely personal attacks against a "tall poppy" in the end only serve the pornography and prostitution industries, which would be delighted to see an influential critic cut to her knees.

Meanwhile, we will continue to support Melinda Tankard Reist and look forward to publishing her next book.

Dr Susan Hawthorne and Dr Renate Klein are publishers and directors at Spinifex Press. Both have academic backgrounds and are widely published. Renate Klein was Associate Professor in Women's Studies and Director Australian Women's Research Centre at Deakin University. Susan Hawthorne is Adjunct Professor in the Writing Program in the School of Arts and Social Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville.