It's not a nice thing to be labeled a "potential rapist". It hurts that my kids, my wife, my women colleagues, the "aunty" who lives across the street are being told to think of me as a "potential rapist".

In the context of trying to understand the ongoing debate, I took a look at Awam's (All Action Women's Society of Malaysia) pamphlet on 'Understanding RAPE'. It explains why rape happens and concludes with: "All women are potential victims as rape is an expression of power over women."

So maybe this "potential rapist" thing isn't really about men. Maybe it's about women. About how so many women and girls have had to face a world in which their fathers, brothers, boyfriends, male acquaintances, bus drivers, taxi drivers, etc, raped them.

Maybe it's about the women dealing with the fact that they are not safe at home, at the office, in a public car park, on their way to school, in school, in a bus etc (around 70 per cent of rapes occur in what we would assume as 'safe places').

Maybe it's about understanding the problem. Understanding that at the root of the problem, it is a question of gender roles and gender power. It's about a man exerting his version of control over a woman. It's not about sex. It is not an individual phenomenon.

Which perhaps offers me a clue as to Awam programme manager Manohari Subramaniam's assertion that all men are "potential rapists". In the context that a woman is vulnerable, even in presumed 'safe places', and even with persons she should normally be entitled to derive a degree of security from, perhaps it is possible to argue that for every potential victim, there is a potential rapist.

I do not claim to explain why Manohari said what she said, or to justify her statement. Perhaps it will help if she/Awam offered some elaboration on the thinking underlying the use of such a label. However, maybe it's useful to note how upsetting it can be to be the subject of a generalisation, e.g. "all Muslims are potential terrorists".

Statements like these are not helpful. We have seen in these times how generalised thoughts like these have been used to justify extreme measures/responses to a perceived situation.

If the strategy is to include men in the fight against violence against women, then men need to be encouraged to understand the issue and feel like they can contribute to a solution - not feel like they are the permanent problem.

If that is the impression that Manohari's statement has given - that all men are the problem - whether intended or not, then an explanation and response is needed from Manohari/Awam.

At the end of the day, perhaps the potentially disempowering implications of the whole exercise of labeling women as potential victims and men as potential rapists may not be helping to facilitate constructive appreciation of the problem.

Perhaps it is time to take another look at how best to approach this issue.