Ana Paula Valadão’s unholy selective indignation and boycott of C&A;

By Hermes C. Fernandes
After Malafaia proposed that his faithful boycott Boticário products, Feliciano suggested the boycott of Natura, it is time for the pastor and singer Ana Paula Valadão to use her influence in the gospel world to ask her fans to boycott C&A stores. According to the pastor from Minas Gerais, the network’s last advertising campaign would be an affront to the family and Christian values, suggesting that its true intention would be to propagate what it calls “gender ideology”.
From an advertising point of view, the piece is beautiful. Impeccable location and photography. There is talk, between the lines, of gender equality and freedom of choice, values ​​that are increasingly dear to Western society. However, Ana Paula sees nothing other than the dissemination of everything that is contrary to her faith. She suggests to the faithful to promote a boycott similar to what the American evangelicals did to the Target department store chain, earning him a historic loss.
According to some sites dedicated to the evangelical public, what would have motivated the singer would be revenge since C&A would have refused to hire her as a poster girl after she asked for a trifle of three million reais.
Commercial interests aside, what bothered them most conscientious evangelicals was the false moralism proposed by the campaign. What should shock and cause what she called “holy indignation” are not men wearing women’s clothing or vice versa? At no time did Ana Paula mention the recent scandal in which the store became involved in the use of slave labor. In his narrow-minded religious view, he should boycott the store for encouraging permissiveness, shamelessness, shameless nudity. Why should we care about slave labor? Why be shocked by people huddled in clandestine workshops, including illegal immigrants and even children? Judging by the profile that the gospels draw from Jesus, what would he really care about? With a commercial that promotes more than just consumerism or with the exploitation and oppression to which hundreds and even thousands of people are subjected in clothing that supplies the big department stores like Zara and C&A itself? This is immoral. That which should cause us indignation (I didn’t even have to be holy!), Regardless of creed. But, apparently, the indignation of the singer, besides not being anything holy, is also selective. 

As long as such a modest mentality prevails among most evangelicals, much more importance will be given to the sexuality of others than to the suffering of others. What is the use of being beautiful, modest and homey and losing the tram of history, plunged into alienation? 
What’s the use of appearing in an apron and wooden spoon on social media in support of the country’s interim first lady, but not having a critical social sense? 
It is past time to stop straining mosquitoes while we have dromedaries crossed in the throat. Less false moralism and more social awareness. Less self-righteousness and more solidarity. Fewer revanchist boycotts and more conscious consumption. Less grudge and more, much more love. One last suggestion for Ana Paula and her entourage: How about we worry less about men dressed as women or vice versa and more about wolves dressed in lambskin?