The Most Dangerous Sales Rep

The Most Dangerous Sales Rep

Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting (RADAR) recently issued an alert of great importance pointing out how Avon’s sales representatives (of which Reese Witherspoon is the newest pitch-queen) are doing things tremendously damaging to women around the world.

I was shocked to see an intelligent woman like Reese Witherspoon drumming war paint as the Global Ambassador and honorary chairwoman for Avon, in conjunction with UNIFEM, to ostensibly end global violence against women.

AVON (AVP) CEO Andrea Jung went on the record claiming that “domestic violence a "pandemic" that affects up to one billion women worldwide.”[1] Andrea is just throwing words around; in another video she adds “sexual abuse” into the claim [2] – still an unbelievable assertion. With a world population of 3.27-billion females of all ages,[3] Jung is claiming that one in three females alive are seriously abused by men. This is an incredulous assertion requiring very close scrutiny because there is no science-based study on earth to support it.

These frantic assertions (based on self-selected and occasionally non-existent surveys conducted by funded women’s advocacy centers) fall flat on their face when held up to peer-reviewed scientific research. Professor Murray A. Straus [4] -- who originally called for solid domestic violence legislation in the 1970’s -- proves feminists are wrong in his study "Dominance and Symmetry in Partner Violence by Male and Female University Students in 32 Nations."[5] -- the most exhaustive international study done to date. This study proves that international domestic violence is essentially evenly-distributed with respect to gender. Straus calls for substantially different approaches to domestic violence intervention than what is being forced on the world today by power-crazed feminists. RADAR has published the data from this study on its website.[6]

Suze Orman of Avon exposed the oedipal insanity of Avon’s supremacist end game, nervously spouting, “Women are the foundation of the world. And, if you can’t empower women with who they are and what they have, this whole world is going to disappear.”[7]

Feminist reports are not remotely credible because they are often based on surveys that ask only the questions women’s advocates want to ask of women who are pre-selected to answer questions a certain way. By the same model, if you go to a Hillary Clinton rally tonight and ask 127 of her supporters what they think of John McCain, you know in advance what the results will be.

Feminists often take raw data about calls to police (which includes calls made by men about women’s violence), calls to women’s abuse hotlines, or quantities of restraining orders issued and then claim these raw numbers somehow constitute actual findings of abuse.

By the same token, you could not count the number of phone calls made to a computer manufacturer’s support hotline to broadly claim that brand of computers is junk. Restraining orders are granted almost automatically – no evidentiary hearings or juries are needed. Could you likewise believe that everyone being audited by the IRS this year is guilty of tax evasion?

The findings of feminist studies are not representative of community samples used by objective scientists -- whose studies are published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The majority of feminist studies are published in freewheeling advocacy publications or books by feminist authors that are not peer-reviewed for accuracy of the data or the methodology used.

Feminists then manufacture histrionic statements (as spouted by Avon) by performing mathematical extrapolations on these feminist “studies” – while intentionally ignoring real science -- to create the false realities that inure to the benefit of the ideological entitlement machine.

The persistent conflation of allegations with fact common throughout feminist domestic violence literature, combined with a lack of objective fact supporting their claims, leaves feminists propelled by nothing more than fanatical rationalizations – which are the preeminent feature of interviews by Avon spokeswomen.

The feminist rumor-mill has been astonishingly effective substituting visceral cognitive distortions for science by emotionally hyper-inflating false claims about domestic violence, magnified by repetitive recycling though a network of thousands of federally-funded advocacy organizations. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is perhaps the most notable and destructive piece of federal social legislation ever passed in American history, as will be proven later in this article.

Avon has been a leading proponent of VAWA for many years, which (as also documented later in this article) has been proven both fraud-ridden and detrimental to women. Avon also backed the false documentary “Breaking the Silence,”[8] which was withdrawn by PBS and subsequently replaced for violating PBS standards of journalism, partially because at least one the alleged female victims was, in fact, repeatedly found to be the abuser after years of litigation in a court of law.

After careful consideration, it is easy to see that Avon’s rationalizations are simply socially-correct excuses for socially-unacceptable behavior.

Is VAWA Effective?

There is a growing body evidence that VAWA is not only ineffective, but exacerbates the problem in some victim classes.[9] Review of historical trends in Intimate Partner Homicides (IPH) display that the enactment of VAWA resulted in the diminished decline in IPH in all victim classes, by race and relationship. These trends also provide concise evidence that the entire “women-as-victim” myth that provided the justification to current abuse policies was not just a little off target -- the facts illustrate the complete reverse was the truth. At the beginning point of the shelter movement until 1985, women murdered their intimate partners more often than males (See figure 1).[10]

Figure 1

In spite of its apparent failings, VAWA does help support a critical factor to any business strategy -- market stabilization. As with any business venture, the “women-as-victim” myth needed two things to survive and expand; market stabilization and indicia that a growing problem exists to support increased funding to organizations supposedly committed to ending the problem.

Since real statistical evidence runs against feminist agenda, feminists manufactured evidence from thin air – predominantly by surveying each other, mis-citing irrelevant literature, and then repeating the claims in circular fashion to create an appearance of truth.

With the consistent decline in IPH victims (a declining market) and no supporting facts for the “women-as-victim” model, myth supporters would have a hard time winning donors and federal entitlements. VAWA provided market stabilization by maintaining status-quo in IPH rates, thus ensuring continued funding streams for unproductive feminist-inspired programs.

Figure 1 demonstrates that IPH decreased steadily in all victim-relationship classes until the enactment of VAWA, keeping the problem alive and stabilized to generate continuing cause for federal funding of ineffective feminist enterprises.

The tragic fact of this business model is that women have to die or suffer great injury unnecessarily.

Today, we see more white female IPH than black male IPH. This is a polar reversal of these gender-race statistics over a 30-year period (See Figure 2).[11] Documentation and discussion of the IPH trends will be expanded upon in the forth-coming True Equality Network (TEN)[12] report, “Dead Girls Keep Stockholders Happy.” TEN President and CEO, Terri Lynn Tersak remarks, “Of all the trends in IPH, the lack of decline in the IPH of white female victims is the most perplexing.” She calls this, “The Murder Paradox.”

This year marks an astonishing turning point: there now more female IPH victims than male victims, even when stratified by race.

For the first time in history, supporters of VAWA will be telling the truth about the success of their approach: More women of all races are killed by their intimate partners annually than men of all races.

Figure 2

Who Is Reese Witherspoon?

Reese Witherspoon had been struggling for some time to find (or redefine) herself in the perplexing diaspora of convoluted feminist theories. Anyone who attempts this transformation must reinvent the “Id” according to the didactic, paradoxical, and often incoherent messages that somehow all manage to fall under the word “feminism”. Women who pursue feminism often change from sensible, lovable, responsible, happy women who “do because they are” to bitter, insecure, inconsistent individuals who “do because feminism says we should.” This is the stuff cults are made of – and feminism is certainly no exception.

For Reese, this trek apparently began during filming of the movie “Walk the Line” While playing June Carter getting out of a car, Reese asked herself a fateful question: “who was stepping out of the car, you know? Who is that person?”. It is notable that her astonishing career ascent to become the highest-paid starlet in Hollywood occurred before she felt it necessary to transmogrify her real woman into an onion-pastiche layered of discordant politically-correct feminist labels.

“Who am I” is the awful question many women feel compelled to suffer daily living up to the fluid and fuzzy moving goalposts of contemporary feminism. Unfortunately, some answers are much wiser and more educated than others are. Reese got this one wrong -- perhaps because she did not do her homework studying politicized feminism, its roots, and its astonishing misunderstandings and messages about men, women, sex, and domestic violence spewed with confident, reckless abandon.

One-time A-list stars such as Jane Fonda, Susan Sarandon, Glenn Close, Bette Midler, Diane Keaton, Kim Basinger, and Goldie Hawn made the wrong choice years ago and paid for it with sagging box office revenues, declining careers, and ambivalence or flat-out rejection by former admirers.

These actresses share one common bond: they aligned with radical feminist elements years ago. In most cases, the messes they made of their personal lives came to reflect the quixotic roles they assumed in their acting careers. Careers of these and other femi-nuts actresses deflated with sexist movies such as First Wives Club (I am quoted in this 1996 Time Magazine article). First Wives Club received much negative attention for being “the greatest documentary ever filmed about sexism in America,” causing Universal to kill the sequel despite doing well at the box office.

Jane Fonda – the knarly “in your face” feminist of the 1960’s, watched her film career slough off in the early 1970’s and grind to a halt in 1990. She is now relegated to talk show appearances – spouting the “C” word to get her minute of fame -- and playing herself occasionally in television bit-parts. Kim Basinger ended up a personal tragedy in an ugly divorce perhaps outclassed perhaps only by Heather Mills.

There is a long list of anti-male movies, the majority of which did poorly at the box office. Take for example the Banger Sisters, which grossed only $30.2 million against the $242-million gross of “Bruce Almighty” – an entirely silly but male-positive comedy. Those who wish to dig deeper can compare film box office revenues using the New York Times “Ebb and Flow of Movies” interactive graphic.

While some of the early feminist movies were profitable because of the buzz they created, in the end viewers simply walked away from films featuring these poisoned actresses. I am just one of many viewers who bother to watch their movies because I know in advance that the repulsive feminist message will overwhelm the trite story line.

Witherspoon is now headed down the same sunset path. Her recent film, “Penelope,” in which Reese carefully constructed what she thought would be a reasonable feminist archetype of modern woman, was a miserable box-office flop taking in just $3.8 million on the first weekend. Variety kindly reported her role to be “inconsequential,” while Rolling Stone simply gave it 1.5 stars. The Fairfax Digital called it like it is, a “surprisingly strong feminist agenda” Consuela Francis, of the Charleston City Paper, accidentally revealed the film’s core problem (and with feminism itself) in her review: many of the traps set for contemporary young women are set by feminists themselves, who will do anything to prevent young girls from growing up to be real women capable of loving real men and having stable, close relationships with them. Audiences want their hearts warmed, thrilled, or captivated. Any movie that behaves otherwise is destined for the Z-list.

The Business End of the “Domestic Violence” Industry

The most active organization reflecting the facet of feminism Avon does not want you to see is V-Day.org. V-Day is an organization actively poisoning the romance of Valentine’s Day by serving up a frothing broth of feminist-supremacist agenda such same-sex marriage, lesbianism, marinated in a generic dislike or hate of men -- all powered by misanthropic imagery of “violence against women.”

Readers must come to fully understand how the industrial-feminist-complex works. The works of rabid male-hating lesbian radicals such as Valerie Solanas and Robin Morgan -- who are worshipped by radical feminist leaders -- end up transformed into broad victim-terminology demanding the federal funding and unconstitutional legal protections that lesbian feminists need to destroy marriage – in the name of “diversity”. In this case, V-Day activists are the guerillas, and Avon is the front end selling their agenda in a nice-looking package. Diamonds were once mined and sold like this too.

Avon and V-Day are connected at the hip: Salma Hayek is the lead spokesperson for Avon’s $1-million “Speak Out Against Domestic Violence” program,[13] which includes international work under the guise of selling cosmetics.

Salma Hayek is also a lead attraction for V-Day’s ballyhooed 10^th anniversary celebration.[14] V-Day goes well beyond VAWA: it is now calling for passage of the International Violence Against Women Act (I-VAWA).[15]

Feminists are gearing up to bulldoze Congress into enacting the International Violence Against Women Act -- a carbon-copy export of VAWA. I-VAWA would send billions in direct federal entitlements to a fully autonomous radical feminist U.N. division that cannot be audited by anybody. The purpose of this U.N. division (in a nutshell) is the same as VAWA-funded organizations in the United States have been serving: to misuse federal funds financing abortion, destroying the institution of heterosexual marriage, establishing prostitution and Kinsey’s sexual attitudes as a women’s right and a man’s liability, and establishment of a world welfare-state built on intentional illegitimacy funded by forced child support labor culminating in same-sex “marriage” of doubly-entitled mothers.

Avon used its entire marketing structure to torture Congress into reauthorizing the VAWA. Salma Hayek led the testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, while this same panel refused to hear the testimony of renowned scientist, Professor Murray A. Strauss. This outraged proponents of sensible domestic policy improvements, and provoked the publication of classified ads [16] protesting overt bias displayed by the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Republican National Committee.

With Salma Hayek in a leading role at AVON, in Congress, and at V-Day, it is a foregone conclusion that AVON will lobby hard for passage of I-VAWA when feminists decide to launch their passage initiative in Congress.

Salma Hayek is perhaps the last oracle of science on earth. In an NBC interview, Hayek improperly claimed, “all violence begins in the home.”[17] This is a calculated lie: the vast majority of violence is male-on-male and never gets anywhere near the home.

As part of this interview, long-disproven lies about domestic violence, such as the false claim that “every nine seconds a woman is abused or beaten,” were recanted from dicta given to the interviewer. This number of seconds changes frequently, with 9, 14, and 18 seconds bandied about like Al Gore hurls false global warming proclamations. The truth about this hyper-inflated statistic is revealed in Murray Straus’s report, “Physical Assaults By Wives, A Major Social Problem.”[18] Straus reveals that the claim is based on estimates of abuse -- which in the feminist lexicon includes all minor spousal disagreements. When adjusted for injury rates – actual domestic violence -- the rate of abuse drops to one act of abuse every 167.7 seconds. This estimate does not include domestic violence against men – who are the victims of spousal physical violence half the time too.

Every major study on domestic violence informs us that women initiate serious physical violence in at least half of all spousal altercations.[19] When we fail to prevent violence by women, we encourage violence by women to the detriment of the losers of altercations that could have easily been prevented. The best way to prevent violence against women is to interdict aggressively regardless of the sex of the initiator.

It is now common knowledge that women are responsible for slightly more than half of all serious domestic violence, and that feminist responses are dangerously wrong. Yet Avon insists on funding brute sexism to the detriment of all Americans.

In December 2007, Avon gave a $30,000 grant [20] to “Rape And Violence End Now” (RAVEN), a St. Louis based organization. I am personally very familiar with this organization – where men are forced to go even when merely accused of domestic violence or rape. RAVEN incorrigibly believes that the male is always the perpetrator. In my discussions with their Director some years ago. he absolutely refused to entertain any discussion about the possibility that men forced into RAVEN’s counseling program might in fact be the victims. Male victims of domestic violence are doubly victimized and brainwashed into forced confessions and penance for things done to them.

The phony pandemic of college rape [21] began with a survey of college women who were asked a loaded question – did you sex with a person after he “got you drunk or high.” Feminists magically transmogrified this into a lie, still heard today on feminist websites everywhere; that one in four college women are subjected to rape or attempted rape while in college.

These are the attitudes that wrought the malformed legal machinery driving the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case – the most infamous abuse of law since the McMartin false child abuse trial. There are thousands of Duke cases that occur every year we never hear about, such as the college professor imprisoned for nine agonizing days and suspended from his job on false rape charges – the accuser sentenced to a mere 8 days behind bars. The Innocence Project has now freed 215 men falsely convicted of rape, men who collectively served 2,580 years in prison to satisfy feminist legal approaches.

AVON is also funding a Law Fellowship [22] with the American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence. Among other things, this fellowship is intended to grease the skids for women to immigrate illegally simply by claiming abuse by a male American citizen, and providing free legal services for any woman to do so. Our biggest problem with illegal immigration may not be at the border – AVON, feminists, and the A.B.A. have paved a superhighway for any foreign female who finds it easier to holler “abuse” than wander the desert or immigrate legally.

Avon has (unfortunately) aligned its business model with the radical feminist cartel. Feminists in entitled positions misuse the word “domestic violence” as a cover for every possible predatory social practice imaginable – or “Women’s Empowerment” as Avon calls it. Today, the vast majority of divorces result in sole maternal custody simply because the mother made a false allegation of child or spousal abuse that is never even heard by the court. Foreign women immigrate illegally simply by claiming some American guy abused her. Welfare and other benefits come automatically simply by claiming abuse. Employers cannot fire a woman who claims to have been abused no matter how awful her job performance is.

This is the face of radical feminism no intelligent person can endorse. Hurting women does not help them. Helping women hurt themselves hurts children. In the end, it hurts our entire nation.

To repetitively spout such volumes of claims about men, none of which have any statistical basis in science, and to intentionally brush aside science while pretending to serve some higher purpose, is worse than hate …. it is “calculated hate” that no humane individual can accept.

Certainly, domestic violence is a legitimate issue. We all agree strongly on this. Let us walk away from feminism, and begin to find solid ground on which to base public policy.

The Facts About Domestic Violence

RADAR recently issued an important alert identifying key aspects of VAWA indicating that VAWA must be reformed:

VAWA has had no positive impact on domestic violence in America, and places women at greater risk of subsequent violence.[23]

VAWA programs are rife with fraud, corruption, and misuse of federal funds.[24]

VAWA may be increasing partner abuse.[25]

VAWA programs make men fear women and marriage.[26]

U.N. and UNIFEM attempts to promote American-style thinking have been denounced by women around the world.[27] In 2006, the U.N. Third Committee unanimously rejected the Secretary General’s Report on Domestic Violence after RADAR discovered that the report’s primary basis, a UNFPA “study”, was a grossly-inaccurate advocacy survey conducted by a marketing research firm that was never published in any peer-reviewed journal.[28] [29] [30]

Despite the fact that women are just as likely as men to commit serious acts of spousal violence,[31] 85% of the 2-3 million ex-parte restraining orders issued annually are issued against men, and half of all restraining orders are issued without any allegation of physical abuse. [32]

Reliable research shows about half of all rape allegations are false. A false rape allegation is likely to destroy the family of other women and place children of the alleged perpetrator in poverty.[33]

In India, VAWA-like laws transmitted via the U.N. are under attack by Indian women who have “been disempowered and whose basic human rights are being violated by the police and judiciary in the name of women’s rights, protection and empowerment.”[34]

In its report “U.N. Report on Violence Against Women,”[35] RADAR compiled the body of evidence the U.N. Third Committee evaluated in rendering its unanimous rejection [36] of the U.N. Secretary-General’s Report on Domestic Violence.[37] Despite rejection of this report, UNIFEM, the U.N. Division for the Advancement of Women, Avon, and many other feminist NGO’s continue to illegitimately base their operations and claims on the report.

Scientific Research by True Equality Network

TEN has done more qualitative and quantitative research into actual operations of women’s shelter organizations than any other organization in America. A total of 3,146 women, who are members of True Equality Network were active participants in an 18-month undercover investigation of 417 women’s shelters representing 2.3% of the approximately 18,000 women’s shelters nationwide.

The just-released report, “Congressional Guidelines for Abusing Women”[38] reveals a substantial list of frauds and abuses commonly committed by organizations operating with VAWA funds under the guise of protecting women and children:

The confiscating of Food Stamps (EBT cards) and pooling of the grant monies to buy food for the staff and entire facility. These actions are in direct violation of federal law (see: 7 USC 2024(b), (c) and (g)), which is punishable by fines, imprisonment, and/or forfeiture of property. Moreover, these actions probably constitute violations of applicable Food Stamp program regulations and state level statutes and regulations.

Forcing women and their children who have sought refuge at the shelters to act as cleaning and maintenance staff for the facility without pay even though the shelters have full-time personnel who are paid for cleaning and upkeep of the facility.

Requiring the women and their children seeking refuge to provide labor to the shelter in order to get funds that they are actually automatically eligible for without providing unpaid work.

The use of abusive coercion tactics to convince the women they are "lucky to be tolerated" and have a place to stay when they object to being treated like prisoners of the state.

The withholding of grant monies and threats of, and actual eviction from the shelter if a woman legitimately objects to her children being used as unpaid laborers or speaks out against staff maltreatment of residents or their children.

Children, especially teenage boys often used as the emotional and verbal "whipping posts" by the shelter residents.

Residents were permitted, if not encouraged, to inappropriately expose children and teens to the details of their experiences of sexual abuse.

Counseling services for children and teens were not provided.

Theft and tampering of mail sent to residents, including items sent after they left the facility.

Residents who speak out against the maltreatment of their children or themselves are evicted from the shelter, then denied access to the facility to retrieve their belongings, which are placed in common access areas where other residents are allowed to look through and buy, or take their property (including personal information and vital records) or their property and vital records are kept by the staff.

Food purchased by women who, or their children, have special dietary requirements due to medical or religious reasons is confiscated and eaten by the staff or distributed among the other residents without the women's knowledge or permission.

Policies requiring a three to seven day "lock in" where new residents are not allowed to leave the facility for work or school, often causing the women to lose their jobs. No prior notice is given of this policy when women apply for shelter.

Women are threatened with eviction from shelters who are contacting their partners, when in fact the shelters are supposed to be neutral while providing safe haven to allow the client autonomy to make her own choice in regards to her relationship.

Women who choose to seek counseling and repair their families for religious reasons or personal choices are routinely accused of lying about the abuse and/or threatened with eviction from the shelter.

Women are threatened with eviction from shelters for disagreement with and refusing to participate in “lesbian experimentation” promoted as “emotional therapy.”

As punishment for speaking out against maltreatment, the shelter staff would freely discuss the contents of their clients' files with other residents, including specific detailed descriptions of sexual abuse and humiliation.

Some shelters falsely label themselves religious entities or non-profits simply to avoid having to comply with the tax laws.

Regulations regarding the training and employment qualifications for shelter workers were lacking often resulting in unqualified or poorly trained staff.

Women are routinely denied shelter admission or evicted from shelters for simply having a disability or if staff feels they are not independent enough. Many shelters label their programs as working on an "empowerment" model and claim that disabled women or their children who need assistance are not "empowered" enough.

Shelters maintain a "banned" list of residents even when they are the only abuse shelter for several hundred miles. The women can be placed on the banned list for:

Personality conflicts and disagreement with staff members.
Choosing to try to work things out with their partners.
Being suspected of speaking to their partner on the phone.
Being the subject of rumors spread after they have left.

The public is told shelter services are free to the resident, while many have per diem charges to residents, require they provide labor, the surrender of food stamps, and other public assistance benefits during their stay.

The complete absence of oversight of the distribution of donations of clothing, money, and other items needed by shelter residents, e.g., diapers.

Residents are required to use clothing allowance grant monies to purchase "dating clothes" to be worn at "Socials" held by the shelter for male financial contributors to the shelter, and the attorneys and law enforcement officers working the residents' cases. Cases where the shelter staff privately referred to these events as, "Buy a co-dependant night" were noted.

Requiring residents to accept physical beatings from staff members and other residents to "improve" the appearance and extent of their injuries for their court appearances.

Drug dealing and use being permitted within the shelters.

Consumption of alcohol being permitted within the shelters and in the presence of children and teen residents.

The operation of "call girl" services, using residents as the prostitutes.

Permitting and promoting "pandering" of residents into prostitution services, including cases where law enforcement officers were the "pimps."

Telling residents to go to local "strip clubs" and participate as strippers in "amateur nights" to help them "vent" their frustrations and hostilities.

The overwhelming body of living evidence collected by True Equality proves that America’s domestic violence policies and practices, in present form, cannot be supported by any intelligent or humane individual. VAWA must be fully reformed beginning with its name: “The Violence Against Women Act.” We must focus on serious domestic violence while perhaps providing positive counseling for both partners in situations where minor spousal violence is evident.

To demonstrate why VAWA is so dysfunctional by speaking to the paramount directional policy change need to effect. Drugs or alcohol are associated with 86% of serious domestic violence,[39] restraining order violations, and recidivism.[40] Treatment for this preventable and treatable disorder should be mandatory where abuse of mood-altering substances (including pharmaceuticals) is a habitual or chronic-phase factor.

Reputable chemical dependency programs such as Hazelden [41] (the basis of the well-known Betty Ford Center), have recovery rates as high as 75%. We can prevent a great majority of serious domestic violence by giving spouses the legal tools needed to get a troubled partner into treatment before serious chemical abuse results in full-blown family conflict. Subsequent reductions in crime, divorce, bankruptcy, youth problems, and child educational problems promise tremendous ripple-through benefits to taxpayers and all Americans.

This is just one of the wise changes we must make to our federal domestic violence laws. Washington (in particular Senator Joe Biden) must turn away from feminists and listen only to credentialed policy scientists and serious activists who avoid converting the issue into a simple matter of gender.

The IRS should pay close attention to the activities of Avon and the supposedly independent Avon foundation. Foundations are required to act independently of the for-profit entity, and not have cross-population of boards. Avon’s activities suggest a breach of these entities.

Avon shareholders should be very concerned about their investments. Avon is ruining its name promoting brute misandry and sexism. Most women dislike hate of men too – and avoid anti-male movies alongside men. Avon’s mixing of feminist politics with business will hurt Avon’s share price tremendously in the long term as consumer disaffection builds. While Avon generally enjoys good ratings from analysts, Channel Trend gave it a “Most Unfavorable” sell rating on 3/21/08. It seems that Channel Trend recognizes the warning sign.

Today, we sit on the precipice of possible global control of law and social policy by Internationalized radical feminists – with Avon a major financier of it. I have sincere doubts that Reese Witherspoon has any notion of the manifesto she bears as Avon’s World Ambassador.

I am confident that once Reese realizes what Avon is actually doing to women and to her own career, she will resign the position quietly. I believe her to be much more intelligent and humane than to continue fronting for the radical revolution that has senselessly destroyed at least half of all marriages in America, which has left more women and children in poverty than any other event in American history.

-------------------------------------------------

David R. Usher is Senior Policy Analyst for the True Equality Network, and President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition

References: