I completely support the points raised by Adek. Women's groups such as the All Action Women's Society of Malaysia (Awam) and Women's Aid Organisation are highly overworked and under-resourced.

Much of the problem lies in the fact that by and large, men aren't exactly clamouring to become involved in dealing with so-called women's problems, such as the violations of women's rights or violence against women (VAW) despite the fact that men are involved in causing these problems.

If more men were to shoulder the responsibility in dealing with these issues, perhaps women's groups would have the time to "get out of their posse once in awhile and mingle with the real people including younger males," to quote S and G. Or perhaps they wouldn't even need to.

It is not that I don't think Eric Paulsen and S and G should question Awam's strategy in reaching out to the public. Maybe they are right in thinking that Awam programme manager Manohari Subramaniam's statement that all men are potential rapists would put people off getting involved with the issue.

However, a case can be made that, given the numerous cases of girls and young women who were raped after trustingly befriending a man or a group of men and following them to another location, it is necessary to really hammer home the point that it is impossible to tell just from looking at a man whether he is a rapist, even is this means resorting to 'extreme' statements.

Also, if people were really committed to reducing violence against women, surely they would not let themselves be deterred by one statement?

And speaking of strategy, I was extremely disturbed by Eric Paulsen's comment that Manohari's statement is akin to saying that "All women are potentially marriage breakers, but not all women break up marriages by seducing men.

The only common denominator among women who break up marriages is that they choose to use their sex appeal to entice married men to leave their wives and children for them. Why choose an analogy that blames women for breaking up marriages?

Shouldn't Eric Paulsen have taken his own point that allies from both sexes who can be won over to champion (his cause) are turned off by (his sexist) rhetoric?

In fact, the aggrieved and injured tone of Eric Paulsen's and S and G's letters suggests that the overriding impetus for both of them is not a concern about Awam's strategy; but hurt egos. That men can have delicate egos, and can be run by them, is of course nothing new to anyone who has worked to counter the oppression of women.

We encounter this all the time, whether in the religious leader who insists that women should be subservient to men, or in the husband who beats his wife, or in service providers who tell a rape survivor that she must have invited the rape in some way.

Fortunately, however, there are some men who do not let their egos blind them to the larger picture - realising that the situation of rape and VAW has reached terrifying proportions in this country; and that the responsibility for addressing this issue does not belong only to women, or to NGOs.

Man.V, Awam's network of men against VAW, is testimony to this. If Eric Paulsen and S and G (and others who feel the same way) really want to be of help, they should follow the example of these men. If not, there is no reason why Awam or any other women's organisation should pay any attention to their bleating.

After all, women have been subjected to men's violence for centuries. They are still being subjected to it. So pardon us if our hearts don't bleed over some hurt male egos.