Comments on: Rape Is Cheaper Than Bullets

By: Rape in Armed Conflict: What Bemba’s Trial Means for Women « Stop Violence Against Women

Thu, 02 Dec 2010 18:23:29 +0000

[...] has shown us that women are victimized in the most heinous manners during war-time–as the Amnesty Campaign states, “Rape is Cheaper than Bullets”–but their perpetrators often go [...]

By: annag

annag — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 22:45:23 +0000

“I also think that it is important to note as well that there is a financial cost to rape. These women in the Congo need expensive surgeries to recover and extensive psychological treatment.”

The advert isn’t talking about the cost to the victims. It’s talking about the cost to the perpetrators – saying that for an army to wage war using rape costs less than it would using bullets.

I thought it was actually a very effective advert as it effectively conveys how horrible and calculating these rapists’ calculations are – deciding which life-detroying tactics to use on the basis of cost..

By: Alex

Alex — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:48:32 +0000

The Guardian comments include this gem of ‘what about the men?’ BS. The terrifying thing is that Guardian readers would think of themselves as liberal. God knows what else is out there. Also, why is it that rape apologists have such terrible grammar?

‘I remember when Amnesty International used to campaign against torture and to free prisoners of conscious – now it is just a feminist propaganda machine spreading victim feminism at every opportunity. This campaign basically says that it worse to be raped than to be killed. As 95 % of all fatalities are male, this is saying a womans suffering is worse that a mans death. Well you know what they are wrong. Rape is ruins lives but at least you have a life. I am so glad I resigned my AI membership and now refuse to give to them.’

By: Will_Full

Will_Full — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:20:19 +0000

I think it works. I really do. It’s a tube ad which means people will generally have plenty of time to read the rest of the copy at the bottom. It’s a big sensational headline which will grab the attention of bored commuters (exactly the kind of people this message needs to reach) and then they’ll read on. Very few will take anything more away from it than ‘rape is used as a weapon of war’ which will shock a lot of people.

Amnesty always used pop culture (and I include mainstream advertising techniques in that) to get the message across and it works. It gets people talking. Do you really think a sober statement of ‘Rape is used systematically as a weapon of war’ would have had the same impact on the average person on the street? Yes its an uncomfortable message and isolated and interogated with other facts and knoweldge the slogan doesn’t give the whole picture. But it’s only supposed to raise awareness and I think it will.

By: whatsername

whatsername — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 03:47:11 +0000

Very honestly, I don’t think most people know rape is even used as a tactic of war. If these ads help that awareness I’d say they’re doing a good thing. Doesn’t mean they couldn’t be done better though, and I think your concerns speak to that.

By: Rachel

Rachel — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 23:54:48 +0000

Well, and the large text never actually uses the word “war,” nor does the imagery – to move it to the “rape as a weapon of war” interpretation, you need to either already know about the issue or have your primary association for the bullet image to be war – rather than associating the bullet with violence closer to home, in the home or from the police, or with a hobby, or with a job. A bullet doesn’t automatically equal “war.”

By: Arum

Arum — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 00:03:28 +0000

My first thought, to be honest, was that it was some kind of rape advert. “Look lads – it’s cheaper if you rape the bitch! Don’t waste precious bullets!” It’s awful.

By: karak

karak — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 00:40:10 +0000

When the Nazis started the Final Solution, they had a serious problem: there weren’t enough bullets to do the job. They needed to come up with a faster, better way to kill. And that resulted in the gas chambers.

Killing everyone in a nation is expensive. Damaging, killing, and destroying them through rape? Absolutely free. The goal is destruction. The tool is rape. It’s not a by-product of war, it’s a weapon and a means to an end. Just like bullets, only cheaper.

That’s what I get, anyway. The same efficient logic that the Nazis used.

By: cats

cats — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:57:28 +0000

So, glancing at this article, I thought that you’d posted a shirt from t-shirt hell, not an ad from amnesty international.

Without any context (and that ad certainly doesn’t have any) it’s really just a threat. I think that’s the feeling that amnesty international is going for. Women will see it, and feel threatened, and then consider the circumstances of women in warzones and hopefully pass that empathy along. PETA uses similar tactics. It’s exploitive.

By: Cara

Cara — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:55:59 +0000

Obviously aggressors don’t care about the cost to their victims or they wouldn’t be aggressors.

This doesn’t make sense. When you’re fighting a war, you do care about the cost to your victims, and you want it to be as negative as possible. That’s how you win a war.