Natalie Portman Compares Eating Meat to Rape

[Guest guest]

Quoted from the anti-Natalie Portman article."Um, OK, Miss Natalie. We think you've gone one step too far by

comparing eating meat to rape. We get that she's just trying to tell

people not to be passive about their views. But this comparison is just

too ridiculous. Plenty of good, moral people eat meat."Really? I'd love an explanation of how eating meat (and I mean factory farmed meat, because I assume the writers of the article are referring specifically to these animals since the majority of animals raised for food come from factory farms) is moral from the authors. I think it's bold that such a prominent Hollywood figure spoke up and decided her beliefs are more important than being a little controversial. brookDate: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:24:15 -0700 Natalie Portman Compares Eating Meat to Rape

 

 

 

 

We all deal with these issues. Instead of rapists, she (we?) could have

said slave owners or sweatshop managers.

 

An interesting story about vegetarian Natalie Portman from an

unsympathetic source:

http://www.limelife.com/blog-entry/Natalie-Portman-Compares-Eating-Meat-to-Rape/24773.html

 

Peace,

Dan

 

Eco-Eating

www.brook.com/veg

 

The Vegetarian Mitzvah

wwww.brook.com/jveg

 

 

New Windows 7: Find the right PC for you. Learn more.

[Guest guest]

The comparison to rape, though sensational, is more apt that it may seem at

first. In some countries rape is not a crime, even the norm, just like eating

meat is normal here and everywhere. Of course, they don't call it " rape " in

those countries.

 

Perhaps a more precise analog would be female genital mutilation or marrying off

prepubescent girls, both widely practiced in some parts of the world, by people

who may indeed be OTHERWISE moral. But these practices remain nonetheless

abhorrent.

 

Henry

 

, Brian Grupe <tricksfortrends wrote:

>

>

> Quoted from the anti-Natalie Portman article.

>

> " Um, OK, Miss Natalie. We think you've gone one step too far by

> comparing eating meat to rape. We get that she's just trying to tell

> people not to be passive about their views. But this comparison is just

> too ridiculous. Plenty of good, moral people eat meat. "

[Guest guest]

We all deal with these issues. Instead of rapists, she (we?) could have

said slave owners or sweatshop managers.

 

An interesting story about vegetarian Natalie Portman from an

unsympathetic source:

http://www.limelife.com/blog-entry/Natalie-Portman-Compares-Eating-Meat-to-Rape/\

24773.html

 

Peace,

Dan

 

 

Eco-Eating

www.brook.com/veg

 

The Vegetarian Mitzvah

wwww.brook.com/jveg

[Guest guest]

Natalie Portman's well educated reference likely comes from the book, "The Sexual Politics of Meat" by Carol Adams. Google the book and you can read parts of it.Cay--- On Wed, 10/28/09, Brian Grupe <tricksfortrends wrote:Brian Grupe <tricksfortrendsRE: Natalie Portman Compares Eating Meat to Rapebrook, "Bay Area Veg Group" Wednesday, October 28, 2009, 5:05 PM

 

 

 

Quoted from the anti-Natalie Portman article."Um, OK, Miss Natalie. We think you've gone one step too far by

comparing eating meat to rape. We get that she's just trying to tell

people not to be passive about their views. But this comparison is just

too ridiculous. Plenty of good, moral people eat meat."Really? I'd love an explanation of how eating meat (and I mean factory farmed meat, because I assume the writers of the article are referring specifically to these animals since the majority of animals raised for food come from factory farms) is moral from the authors. I think it's bold that such a prominent Hollywood figure spoke up and decided her beliefs are more important than being a little controversial. brook (AT) brook (DOT) comWed, 28 Oct 2009 14:24:15 -0700 Natalie Portman Compares Eating Meat to Rape

 

 

 

 

We all deal with these issues. Instead of rapists, she (we?) could have

said slave owners or sweatshop managers.

 

An interesting story about vegetarian Natalie Portman from an

unsympathetic source:

http://www.limelife .com/blog- entry/Natalie- Portman-Compares -Eating-Meat- to-Rape/24773. html

 

Peace,

Dan

 

Eco-Eating

www.brook.com/ veg

 

The Vegetarian Mitzvah

wwww.brook.com/ jveg

 

 

New Windows 7: Find the right PC for you. Learn more.

[Guest guest]

1) Rape isn't the first comparison to meat I would make personally,

though I can definitely see the connection. I would, however, without

any offense to human beings who suffered, liken meat to the

concentration camps of WW2. People seem to " get it " when I call the

factory farms down on route 5 " cowschwitz " .

 

2) Natalie's comparison of meat to rape makes me want to ask the people

who scoff at her statement: " Why is it illegal to sodomize animals, but

legal to slaughter and eat them? " There is obviously a very big moral

disconnect between live animal treatment and what is on people's plates.

Thus prop 2 passed but people will still readily eat bacon, eggs and veal.

 

JASE

[Guest guest]

i suppose some on this email group might be hearing the comparison

of meat-eating to rape for their first time, but natalie is hardly reaching for esoteric

(in veg circles) analogies for communicating about her ethically vegan stance.

 

whether any of us vegans (natalie, or otherwise) use the comparison of nonvegan behavior

to rape, slavery, the holocaust, etc., the point of doing so is not so much to make a literal

translation of one to the other.

 

one reason for making these comparisons, in my estimation, is to help those nonvegans amongst us

to see things a bit more from our point of view.

 

another reason, is to assist nonvegans in adopting the viewpoint of the animals

we humans exploit.

 

clearly, neither of these groups (vegans, or the nonhuman animals) would likely object to these comparisons being made.

 

it might have been the first time her interviewers had heard this said in regards to veganism, but for us vegans it's "old hat."

 

actually, i find the rape comparison to be rather poignant. gary francione uses it to emphasize the rationale for his abolitionist

approach to animal rights. the argument goes something like this:

 

(i) animal exploitation is morally unjustifiable.

(ii) rape is morally unjustifiable.

 

(iii) would we ask a rapist to:

A. stop beating the rape victim?

B. to stop raping the rape victim?

 

(iv) should animal rights activist ask for:

A. "more humane" exploitation of animals?

B. to stop exploiting the animals?

 

i'd say most people would answer "B" for question (iii).

 

abolitionist animal rights activists answer "B" for question (iv),

based on the same reasoning.

 

that's the main reason I find natalie's comparison rather fitting.

 

~WB3

 

 

========================== ==== ==== ==== ==

============== ==== ================ ==== ==

======== ========== ========== ========== ==

 

me = (pythagorean + beans).

 

"I observed, sir, the contempt denoted by your manner of enunciating the word abolitionists;

but this does not affect me."

~ The Yankee Slave-Dealer; or, An Abolitionist Down South. A Tale for the Times by "A Texan."

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jason Harlow <jason.harlow Sent: Thu, October 29, 2009 10:07:10 AMRe: Re: Natalie Portman Compares Eating Meat to Rape

1) Rape isn't the first comparison to meat I would make personally, though I can definitely see the connection. I would, however, without any offense to human beings who suffered, liken meat to the concentration camps of WW2. People seem to "get it" when I call the factory farms down on route 5 "cowschwitz" .2) Natalie's comparison of meat to rape makes me want to ask the people who scoff at her statement: "Why is it illegal to sodomize animals, but legal to slaughter and eat them?" There is obviously a very big moral disconnect between live animal treatment and what is on people's plates. Thus prop 2 passed but people will still readily eat bacon, eggs and veal.JASE

[Guest guest]

The Definition of rape is: 1 a archaic : to seize and take away by force b : despoil. This definition surely applies to the meat industry's practices.

The legal definition of rape, " sexual assault, " applies as well when one factors in the rape racks for pigs and the raping of cows with needles, euphemistically called " artificial insemination. "

I think Natalie is right on with her comparison.Pat Cuviello

[Guest guest]

an interesting fyi:  the term rape rack " is widely used in animal ag.,  and if it's not an official name for the equipment, it certainly is used as if it was (i.e., in trade publications, etc.)  Stephanie

 

 

On 10/30/09, Pat Cuviello <pcuvie wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

The Definition of rape is: 1 a archaic : to seize and take away by force b : despoil. This definition surely applies to the meat industry's practices.

The legal definition of rape, " sexual assault, " applies as well when one factors in the rape racks for pigs and the raping of cows with needles, euphemistically called " artificial insemination. "

I think Natalie is right on with her comparison.Pat Cuviello

 

-- " Our task must be to widen our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. "   Albert Einstein

" The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the ways its animals are treated. "    Mahatma Gandhi

[Guest guest]

I empathize with Natalie Portman .... I recently made a very similar mistake!

Last summer a friend started a debate with me on how chickens are raised, and

whether or not they feel pain, etc (we were not talking about cheeseburgers at

all), and then she says, " Well, God gave us the ability to kill animals and turn

them into cheeseburgers, he should have expected this to happen. "

 

And I said to my friend, " That's not a smart rationale. That would be like

saying, God gave men penises, he should have expected rape to happen. " And she

was like " WHOA! You just compared cheeseburgers to rape! " And I calmly said

" No, I didn't. I could have just as easily said that God gave us the gift of

language, he should expect us to gossip, lie, and insult people. Does that mean

I'm comparing rape to gossip or lying or insults, or either one to eating

cheeseburgers? No, of course not. I was only pointing out that the flawed

rational of saying " God gave us this, so he should expect us to do bad things

with the stuff he gave us. " I was only pointing out that this is not a good

rationale, I wasn't comparing things.

 

To me, it was all very rational and logical, but at the mere mention of rape, my

friend's reasoning went out the window. She was so enraged by the connection

between rape and cheeseburgers (which was in HER mind; I had not connected them,

at least not out loud, to her), my logical arguments only infuriated her more.

So ... you can mark me down for a " big red F " in vegan outreach on that one.

That friend has not talked to me since that conversation last summer!!! Even

though I have left messages and sent e-mail trying to reestablish contact. She

is P.O.'ed.

 

*sigh* Ironically, even though she was the one who made the connection between

rape and cheeseburgers, when she said that, the first thing I thought, was

something like " Hmmm ... Well, being raped might not feel as bad, to the cow, as

being turned into a cheeseburger. " So, in a strange way, she was on to

something by comparing the two. I was tempted to go on a rant like: " Well, rape

is bad, but having your offspring ripped away from you and being forced to

provide milk for other beings who are also killing and eating your offspring,

before they kill and eat YOU, is also pretty bad, and that's what happens for

your cheeseburger. "

 

That went through my head, but I didn't say it, because I was trying to SOOTHE

the conversation, not the fan the flames. But it was too late already, she was

off in irrational la-la land. *sigh* If I had used the example of " language and

gossip " instead of " penises and rape " from the beginning, our conversation

*hopefully* would have gone much more smoothly!

 

So ... when I read Natalie Portman's review, I loved it, except I cringed when

she mentioned rape, because I thought .... oooh, probably not a wise idea to use

this *particular* example of " wrong behavior " ... not when you want your readers

to think rationally and thoughtfully about something. People like my friend

will go off the deep end because all of a sudden (in their minds) you're saying

they (the meat-eating readers) are " just as bad as rapists. " Even if you

weren't trying to make that point at all.

 

So ... I wasn't surprised to see the LimeLife article which pretends to be so

royally insulted by the idea that Natalie Portman feels she won't passively

agree to meat-eating at the table any more than she would passively agree to a

rape going on. Here again, Natalie didn't compare meat-eating to rape; the

implication is that she thinks that they are both bad things, and she won't

tolerate either one. It's the not the same as literally comparing the two. She

didn't say, " If you're a meat eater, you're just as bad as a rapist. " But, not

surprisingly, a lot of people interpreted it that way.

 

To be entirely clear, Natalie's comment is, in fact, a bit closer to an actual

comparison than the conversation I had with my friend. To expose the flaw in my

friend's argument of " God gave us X, he should expect us to do Z " , I could have

used ANY " bad thing we do " as an example, and it would have worked. I was

clearly making no judgment about how relatively bad any of those things are. In

Natalie's case, she is making a judgment that both meat-eating and rape are

above the threshold of tolerable bad behavior. So there is SOME comparison;

they are both in the group of things above the threshold. However, she never

said that meat-eating and rape are on the same level. To explain, there could be

10 levels of bad things, with 1 being the least offensive, and 10 being the

worst. If Natalie has decided she won't tolerate anything worse than level 4,

well ... all we know is that both meat eating and rape are above level 4. Who

knows, maybe meat-eating is Level 6 and Rape is Level 8, or maybe it's the

opposite, in Natalie's mind ... we don't know. But the limelife author just

assumed that rape and meat-eating are both at Level 9 or whatever. And that

irks me because that's not what Natalie said.

 

Actually, looking at it again, Natalie didn't explicitly say that she is against

rape.* She is just saying as example, that if you had some belief, such as

being against rape, you wouldn't be expected to forgo that belief, just to suit

your table-mates. She could have used " keeping Kosher " or some other belief.

It was just an example. Clearly she used rape because she assumed it was

something all her readers were against, so it would easily make sense to them.

Truly, I don't think her intention was to be sensational. In fact, she most

likely used it for the very same reason I used the example of penises and rape

when talking to my friend .... it's just one of those things that most everyone

would agree is wrong, so it naturally pops into our heads as an obvious,

non-controversial example to use. (Non-controversial because it's something

most people agree is bad.) But, unfortunately, people's irrational responses

make it an unwise example to use. So, my opinion is, it would have been more

effective if Natalie had use some other example, maybe animal abuse. (She could

have compared tolerating meat eating at the dinner table to something like: " I'm

against animal cruelty, but I'll let the host beat his dog senseless, just so

I'm not an inconsiderate house guest. " )

 

* Natalie didn't say that she herself is against rape; she only used a

rhetorical example of someone having such a belief. As long as we assume that

she IS against rape, and that she believed we'd assume that about her (both very

safe assumptions to make), my above paragraphs about levels, etc, are valid.

However, it's important to note that my paragraphs above ARE based on that

assumption, rather than strictly literal interpretation.

 

 

Now, that being said, that most people here agree that rape is wrong ... I take

offense at the idea that all rapists are immoral people. Or that any person,

for that matter, can be judged " immoral " by other, equally fallible, human

beings. Here's exactly what the limelife lady wrote:

 

" And then she gets quite controversial and says, 'consideration ... which has

more to do with being polite to your tablemates than sticking to your own

ideals, would be absurd if applied to any other belief (e.g., I don't believe in

rape, but if that's what it takes to please my dinner hosts, then so be it).'

 

" Um, OK, Miss Natalie. We think you've gone one step too far by comparing eating

meat to rape. We get that she's just trying to tell people not to be passive

about their views. But this comparison is just too ridiculous. Plenty of good,

moral people eat meat. Do you consider any rapists to be moral people? "

 

Am I the only one who is offended by this? Set aside the annoying thing that

the limelife writer thinks Natalie said meat-eating is at the same moral level

as rape, when she didn't (as explained above). How could the writer be so

culturally obtuse? Rape has been a part of life for human beings throughout the

centuries; most, if not all, of us are descendants of babies produced out of

rape when warriors raped and pillaged. The question I ask is: were our

great-great-great-great-great grandfathers really such bad people? Of course

not. Or at least I hope not. They were just doing what all the guys were

doing. Same as people going to KFC, McDonalds, and Pizza Hut today.

 

In another ironic twist, the limelife writer condemns Natalie Portman for being

too judgmental. But Natalie Portman didn't say that rapists are immoral; she

only implied that she would not passively allow a rape to occur. In response,

the limelife writer implies that all rapists are immoral, with the rhetorical

question " Do you consider any rapists to be moral people? " If she's assuming

we'll answer " No, " then she's assuming that anyone who has ever committed a rape

is somehow automatically an immoral person. So remind me ... who's the

judgmental one?

 

I guess " rape " has become synonymous with evil, something like " Nazis " in our

culture. Irrationally, people assume that all Nazis were monsters, and the same

goes for rapists. The truth is, we are all people, and we all do bad things.

Sadly, many of us are unaware that our personal food choices make us responsible

for way more suffering than if we had personally raped or murdered or physically

assaulted a human being. And even more sadly, some of us, after become aware of

it, refuse to change.

 

I guess that's why people like the limelife writer, and my friend, are so

irrational, and so offended, by the truth about food. It's sad.

 

UGH!

 

Thankfully, groups like Vegan Outreach and BAV are opening people's hearts and

minds, so lots of people ARE changing! I've heard the book " Eating Animals " is

selling like hot cakes right now ... I think that's a sign that things are about

to get a lot, lot better!

 

-Rachel D.

San Francisco, CA

 

 

 

-- In , DJ Brook <brook wrote:

 

> An interesting story about vegetarian Natalie Portman from an

> unsympathetic source:

>

http://www.limelife.com/blog-entry/Natalie-Portman-Compares-Eating-Meat-to-Rape/\

24773.html

>

> Peace,

> Dan