Message to Avon Sales Reps: Why Marketing Feminist Ideology is a Bad Strategy

In the 1930s, the German National-Socialists (NS) promoted laws that were officially supposed to protect women from even coming into social contact with ideologically undesirable males while promoting a government-approved mating regimen.

In 2008, Avon Corporation thinks it can market cosmetics by promoting its efforts to pass laws to protect women from even coming into social contact with ideologically undesirable males while promoting a government-approved mating regimen.

While the NS crowning legal achievement was the passage of the innocent-sounding Nurnberg Laws of Race and Citizenship of 1935 (with progressive amendments passed later in 1938 most notably the Decree Providing for Marking of Passports , Oct. 5, 1938, RGB1, I, 1342), Avon Corporation is proud to have pushed for the US Congressional passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1995 with some serious progressive amendments passed later in 2005.

Both laws sought to curtail contact between domestic males and Russian women.

Now you, as a potential Avon sales rep, might say that VAWA certainly could not require that certain classes of American males wear yellow stars as they walk in the streets. But VAWA, by forcing Americn males to travel the Internet with background checks on hand, practically does this. The Nurnberg Laws never went as far as requiring the yellow stars for Jewish men. They did not have to. The very existence of the Nurnberg Laws ended any real freedom for anyone in Germany, man, woman or child. As an afterthought, the Yellow Star rule for Jews was created by the German military in September 1941 as an exigency of a hot war. 

One major difference between the Nurnberg Laws and VAWA is that VAWA basically demonizes American men in general as opposed to Jewish men in particular. The US law, passed via eunuch male politicians like Senator Joe Biden, says that all the world’s women must be extremely wary of American men and read their background checks (yellow stars) before being allowed to communicate with them.

The part of the VAWA law that does this might sound good to you. It is the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA) where the word broker is a sinister sounding synonym for dating website. IMBRA states in its preamble that American men who are not entirely focused on meeting and marrying only American women are a suspect class. It says that a dating site that deals with men who seem to prefer dating foreign women, must not allow those men to meet the women unless US government regulations are followed involving the foreign women signing the background checks of each man who wants to say hello to her…even if it is impossible for the woman to sign anything (because she only has a phone). 

If the foreign woman (the feminist dictionary says this is a synonym with victim) does not have an email address with which to provide real-time consent to contact with an American man, it is now illegal for her to meet him in real time if at all, even when both people are in Russia and the US government should be minding its own business (many Russian women buy $5 phone number chips and install them into $40 phones to make chatting with new friends easy and safe – but IMBRA makes it illegal for the foreign woman to broadcast her phone number).

The radical feminists behind this part of VAWA provide no credible evidence that there is any reason to suspect mostly upper middle class and multiple language speaking American businessmen of being bad to women…except by noting that American men who might consider an alternative to marrying an American feminist must have something wrong with them. There is, of course, no correlation between online dating activity and sex trafficking despite IMBRA’s bizarre word association to that effect. Sex trafficking is defined by feminists to include all forms of prostitution, not specifically slavery, and almost all existing figures for trafficked women you will find via Google will actually be statistics on how many voluntary prostitutes are working in any given region of the world. It is hurtful to see feminists make the implication that foreign women who like to meet American men online are prostitutes (and thus somehow trafficking victims).

By promoting IMBRA, Avon Corporation thinks it can market cosmetics by saying it wants to protect the world’s women from even coming into social contact with (what to Avon are) ideologically undesirable males while promoting a government-approved mating regimen.

Now let us assume that all of the above is somehow OK with you. Let us say that you so much want to apply the dangerous nanotechnology behind the new Disappearing Color Sunscreen Lotion on other women’s faces, that you are willing to ignore the rights of your fellow Americans whom you may incorrectly assume don’t have any interest in you anyway (as if his saying hello to a Russian woman online proves a man could not be interested in you).

So, since you do not care about my rights as an American male to say hello to others without US government regulation, I will have to explain to you how you also do not care about many of your precious rights. Let us take a look at a list of rights losses that VAWA and IMBRA will have wrought if a vicious Supreme Court actually upholds these monstrous laws.

1. Avon (via legislation like IMBRA) has stolen the right of anonymity from Internet communications despite the fact that we are all anonymous (still) when we say hello to each other on the street. IMBRA forces even the most inconsequential chat room hello to come with a positive ID and background check of the American citizen (but not any foreign males because they do not yet fall under the jurisdiction of the United States). If this concept is upheld by the Supreme Court, it will only be a few years time before technology advances make it possible for the government to identify each individual to each other on the street as they pass each other and say hello.
2. Avon (via legislation like IMBRA) has made it illegal for people to lie to each other socially. Heck, if government can make sure the guy you are talking with really is 35 and unmarried, why not? Of course, Avon is also insisting that no woman can ever lie about her age as well. Avon wants to make sure no woman can ever cheat on her husband or boyfriend. No problem, right? Small sacrifices for the greater good. Keep plugging that Skin So Soft Bug Guard Plus.                                                                                                                                                             
3. Avon’s feminist managers want to show they care more about their status as so-called protectors of women than for the US First Amendment Right to Assemble with other people or the UN Charter on Human Rights clause to the same effect. They will openly say that Americans do not have a right to say hello to strangers, even when those strangers are standing there with a sign over their heads asking Americans to talk with them. To uphold IMBRA in 2006, they got a Republican judge to say *There is no fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner*. Remember that this judge’s statement applies to your right to say hello to anyone in a foreign country.
4. Avon Corporation does not believe that non-Americans should be allowed to decide their own level of security when talking with Americans. Avon thinks Americans are too dangerous and foreigners too stupid to allow everyone to use their own discretion. IMBRA forces foreigners to sign documents in order to communicate with Americans, when those foreigners may have enough pride to ask why the US government and Avon presumes to force them to do anything.
5. Avon Corporation believes that the US government has jurisdiction over all Americans regardless of where they are in the world. Americans apparently now belong to the state.

Now the Avon managers want these principles applied in criss-cross fashion to all the world’s people via the new International VAWA (I-VAWA) that the US Congress will vote on in 2008. They do not want any man in the world to have a fundamental right to say hello to any woman. Although there is a men’s rights movement trying to fight back and most of the UN member nations oppose this, the UN Secretariat cares little about what its member nations think and the US Congress certainly does not listen to males (especially pesky veterans like myself). 

Here is the bottom line: Avon Corporation is a public institution answerable to shareholders not Marxist professors at Wellesley who think non-American women are their wards. Marketing cosmetics should not involve being part of an out-of-control Marxist feminist movement.

Please write to your up-line colleagues and ask them what type of army you are supposed to be marching in and what you are really selling: bath lotion or ideology?

Avon managers do NOT represent the world’s women. They should not emulate the German National Socialists as the big sisters from the better civilization telling others how to evolve and manage their private communications with males who are forced to provide background checks just to say hello.

The book 1984 dealt with a government interfering with a relationship between a man named Winston and a woman named Julia where “disclosing” important information to Julia ultimately broke up the relationship.

Do you want to sell the idea that this is a good thing along with the Anew Contouring Eye System?

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 3rd, 2008 at 2:57 pm and is filed under Feminism, Men and Mating, Vox Populi. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. | 203 views | Trackback | Print this page |

| More from Jim Peterson