Pickup Artists’ Rape Survivor: ‘I Had to Do My Part to Break the Cycle’
These PUA (Pick Up Artist) guys are sexist swine and dirt bags.
Pickup Artists’ Rape Survivor: ‘I Had to Do My Part to Break the Cycle’
These PUA (Pick Up Artist) guys are sexist swine and dirt bags.
Emotional Labor and Female- On- Female Emotional Exploitation
I was thinking about possibly writing a post or two more about the concept of Emotional Labor in the future.
First, here is a primer from another site explaining a little bit about what this issue is about, with a few comments by me farther (way farther) below it:
Emotional labor is the exertion of energy for the purpose of addressing people’s feelings, making people comfortable, or living up to social expectations. It’s called “emotional labor” because it ends up using – and often draining – our emotional resources.
Now, don’t get me wrong: Asking friends for advice, reaching out to people in your line of work, and other actions I’m about to mention can be part of a healthy relationship. The issue arises when it’s not reciprocal.
Many marginalized people can tell you that people frequently make demands of them that cross the line from participation in a mutual relationship to work – and unpaid work, at that.
Because we’re assumed to be naturally emotionally intelligent and nurturing, people don’t always understand that this is work for us. And because we’re expected to put others before ourselves, a lot of people don’t even care.
Here are just a few of the many ways that women and femmes, in particular, are expected to perform emotional labor without compensation or acknowledgement throughout their lives:
2. Friends offload their problems – sometimes serious problems that we’re not equipped to handle – onto us before we have agreed to talk about them, often expecting an immediate response.
3. Casual acquaintances and sometimes complete strangers do the same, often over the Internet and often sharing triggering details
6. When we have relatives or friends with physical or mental illnesses, they and their loved ones are more likely to reach out to us than men to take care of them.
The Selfish, Lazy Husband Who Kept Blowing Off His Stressed Wife to Go on World War 2 Reenactments – Male Entitlement in Relationships: Why Women Divorce Men – and Churches and Culture Support This Male Entitlement
This may be the start of a series. I may do more posts like this as I come across more examples. I kind of already did a part one a couple of years ago (Part 1). This post was not the Part 2 I had in mind, not really.
The things this post covers pertains to one of my big pet peeves as related to men, dating, marriage, culture, church, and relationships.
First, here is the story, (and then below, I’ll analyze or comment why this bothers the hell out of me).
Over a year ago, I watched an episode of the TV show “Restaurant Impossible,” hosted by Chef Robert Irvine on Food Network.
This married couple owned a restaurant that was failing financially, so they had Chef Irvine come in to rescue their business.
I don’t remember all the details of the show, the couple, or their restaurant. I don’t remember their names or where they were located. I cannot recall if both the husband and wife wanted the business, or just the wife did, or what.
The wife was having a nervous breakdown from all the stress of being a restaurant owner. She was running all aspects of the restaurant by herself (with a small staff who helped cook), but the vast majority of the responsibility for the restaurant was on her shoulders.
Although the wife kept begging her spouse to help her, because she was at a breaking point, he would not help her. He would sort of promise or act like he agreed to coming in more often to help, but he would bail on her.
If I am not mistaken, the husband did not hold down a regular job at this time. I think he had quit his regular “9 to 5” job to be in the food business with the wife.
However, the idiot (the husband) spent all his free time chasing down his passions and hobbies, which included stuff like parachuting out of planes on weekends with other men as part of a World War 2 para-trooper re-enactment group, and I think the guy was also part of a barber shop singing quartet the rest of the time, or something.
Continue reading “The Selfish, Lazy Husband Who Kept Blowing Off His Stressed Wife to Go on World War 2 Reenactments – Male Entitlement in Relationships: Why Women Divorce Men – and Churches and Culture Support This Male Entitlement”
American Christians, Liberals, Liberal Pet Groups, and Persecution
(This post has been edited and updated, especially towards the bottom, to add more commentary or links)
For about the past year, I have thinking about blogging about this topic but put it off until now.
I have seen liberal Christians, ex-Christians, left wing Non-Christians, and moderately conservative Christians complain or mock American Christians who claim that American Christians are being persecuted in the United States due to being Christian.
In the past, I’ve seen liberal Christian blogger RHE (Rachel Held Evans) comment on this subject on her blog, on her Twitter account, as well as the Liberal, quasi- Christian, Stephanie Drury bring this up on her (Link): “Stuff Christian Culture Likes” Facebook group from time to time.
I’ve also seen moderately conservative Christians I am acquainted with discuss this in Tweets or on their blogs.
To reiterate a point I’ve made before, I do sometimes agree with SCCL’s Drury on some issues, and I even periodically Tweet her links to news stories I think she may want to share on her Twitter account or on her SCCL Facebook group.
However, I totally part ways with Drury on some topics – like this one.
The view of liberal Christians, ex-Christians, liberal Non-Christians, and even some moderately conservative Christians, is that American Christians are not under persecution in the U.S.A. for being Christian, or for practicing Christian beliefs.
I am not sure if the liberal or moderate conservative disagreement on this issue pertains to semantics (the terminology involved), or if they are actually blind and oblivious to the harassment that Christians, especially conservative, or traditional valued, Christians, face in American culture.
It is my position that American Christians do in fact face harassment – especially from the left wing – in the United States for being Christian, for wanting to practice their faith and carry it out in public, and for defending it in public.
If you are a liberal who objects to the term “persecution,” how about, instead, the words or phrases, “harassment,” “bullying,” “picking on,” “hounding,” or other terms?
I do not see American Christians getting a free pass in the United States to hold certain views or to practice their beliefs.
The left (and I’d include severe anti-theist atheists here, on this point, regardless of their political standing) insist that Christians keep their Christian faith walled off, private, and separate from all other areas of their lives.
She changed his flat tire. He never called her again. Is this a case of a fragile male ego?
[Man and woman go on date; woman changes their flat tire]
“I figured if I can, why not do?” Ukpo said by phone of the date she first wrote about on the blog (Link): Madame Noire. “I don’t subscribe to this idea that because I’m a woman, I have to play this damsel in distress thing.”
It’s at this point in the story that Andrew Smiler, communications director at the Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity and the expert I called to discuss the fragility of the male ego, began chuckling.
He knew where the tale was headed — and why. Like me, he’s heard countless stories like Ukpo’s, where confident, well-intentioned women are trying to help, but a dating disaster ensues.
For clarity, I asked him, “What exactly is so funny?”
Smiler laughs again and explains: “We give people some really messed-up messages about gender roles. Even in the early 21st century, we have this supposedly egalitarian culture, and guys are taught that they should never show weakness or ignorance or inability to do a task. And in various ways they should ‘wear the pants’ in the relationship.”
Evangelical Russell Moore Criticizes Other Conservative Christians For Supporting Sexually Smarmy Donald Trump but Moore Has Attacked Adult Virginity
In the midst of the current election season, we have some conservative Christians who are upset with other conservative Christians for supporting Republican nominee Donald Trump.
The media have been reporting around the clock the last couple of weeks with all sorts of allegations that Trump has groped women and so on. In spite of some of this questionable to clearly sexist behavior, some conservative Christians have spoken up to defend Trump in public, which really angers Russell Moore.
Considering that Moore has criticized adult, Christian virgins in the past (see this post and this post), I find it pretty rich that he wrote an editorial, which was carried by the Washington Post recently, criticizing other Christians for not supporting biblical sexual ethics in light of Donald Trump’s smarmy behavior towards women.
I have additional commentary below this long excerpt:
(Link): If Donald Trump has done anything, he has snuffed out the Religious Right by Russell Moore
…Journalist Mark Halperin (Link): noted this weekend that virtually all of the “reaffirmation of support” for Trump, following the disclosure of his sexually predatory recorded comments, were from religious conservative leaders. This is a scandal and a disgrace, but it should not be a surprise.
…We know nothing new about Donald Trump. He has told us about his view of women, his view of sexuality, his views of marriage and family for more than 30 years. He has gloried in reality television decadence before reality television was even invented, in his boasts to tabloid reporters. He reaffirmed who he is over and over again, even during this campaign — from misogynistic statements to racist invective to crazed conspiracy theorizing.
And yet here stands the old-guard Religious Right establishment. Some are defending or waving this away, with the same old tropes they’ve used throughout this campaign.
Sexism, Protecting Women, Family Values, and Christians Placing Biological Family Above Everyone Else
by K. Du Mez
….I’m reminded here of the poignant words of Madeline Southard, one of the leading proponents of women’s rights in the Methodist church in the twentieth century. In her 1927 book, The Attitude of Jesus toward Woman, Southard raised precisely this question.
For centuries, Southard noted, women had been considered “the creature of her sex-relationships and of the resultant blood relationships.” As such, a woman’s status had been determined by her being “the wife, mother, daughter, concubine or mistress of some man,” but not as “a person in herself.”
No, Focus On the Family, I Do Not Want to Civilize a Barbarian – via Biblical Personhood Blog
There is certainly nothing wrong with marriage or the nuclear family, but often times, in attempting to defend the nuclear family or the institution of marriage, a lot of Christians and conservative groups (such as Focus On The Family) err too far in making an idol out of both and denigrating singleness (or childlessness) in the process.
I have taken Focus on the Family to task before on that issue and one or two others.
Another blogger, Biblical Personhood, caught wind of a Focus on the Family blog post by Glenn T. Stanton – well, it’s on a blog called “First Things,” which the lady blogger of Biblical Personhood says is an off-shoot of Focus on The Family.
I have discussed Stanton on my blog before, such as in these posts:
Based on what I remember about Stanton, he can veer a little bit too much into idolizing marriage.
At any rate, here is the link to the blog post by Biblical Personhood, with some additional comments by me below this excerpt:
(Link): No, Focus on the Family, I do not want to civilize a barbarian via Biblical Personhood blog
Here is an excerpt from the opening (please click the link above to visit the other blog if you’d like to read the entire page):
From Biblical Personhood Blog:
(Link): Focus on the Family recently suggested something that seems, at first glance, to flatter women. I did not feel flattered at all. They suggested women are the number one way to change men for the better:
/// start quote
… the most fundamental social problem every community must solve is the unattached male. If his sexual, physical, and emotional energies are not governed and directed in a pro-social, domesticated manner, he will become the village’s most malignant cancer. Wives and children, in that order, are the only successful remedy ever found. – Glenn T. Stanton
/// end quote
This is highly problematic, to say the least.
From the theological perspective :
Have Focus On The Family never heard of Jesus and being born again? Surely Jesus is better at changing humans – even the alleged “malignant cancer” called unattached males – from the inside than any woman is? How could a Christian™ organization say that women, not Jesus, is the only remedy for men’s bad tendencies?
(( read the rest here ))
If you are an unmarried man (and you either want to stay single for the remainder of your life, or are aware you may never marry, even though you may want a wife), I’m sure you must really appreciate guys like Stanton saying you are basically a raging animal, or an immature man-baby, unless you are married to a woman.
You, if you are a single (unmarried) man, are a nothing, an incompetent, immoral loser unless you have a wife, is how Stanton’s reasoning comes across. You must have a wife and possibly father a child by said wife to count or to be a “real man.” This is pretty insulting stuff, especially bearing in mind that the Bible that Stanton likely would say he reads and agrees with, says nothing of the sort.
I did read over the Biblical Personhood blog post a day or two ago, but I don’t remember exactly everything that blog author wrote.
I will here add my own thoughts about the Stanton penned blog post. Some of my observations may be similar to those by the Biblical Personhood blogger.
Women create, shape, and maintain human culture. Manners exist because women exist. Worthy men adjust their behavior when a woman enters the room. They become better creatures. Civilization arises and endures because women have expectations of themselves and of those around them.
I disagree with just about everything he said there, on different levels, and for different reasons.
Most cultures are patriarchal, and this has been the way the world has been for thousands of years.
Women are not allowed to shape or maintain politics, marriage, or church – let alone culture, because men hold all the power. Women are taught by parents and culture from girlhood that this is normal, that men should be in charge, and females are conditioned from childhood to accept this and go along with it, especially Christian girls.
As much as I dislike blatant sexism, where men sound like cave-men and make loud, rude, condescending claims, such as women are not as logical or intelligent as men (this is used to justify limiting women in the workplace and so on)-
I also do not appreciate this (Link): benevolent sexist, noble-sounding, sappy and fouffy writing that tries to convince women that being subservient to men, allowing men to lead and protect them, and thus they can and should give up self-determination and their agency, is in their best interest, because dang it, women are so much more morally superior creatures to men.
This sort of writing is sugar-coated sexism. It’s asking women to give up their personhood, identity, or their independence, in exchange for something else (in this case, the betterment of men or culture).
I’m really tired of how sexists keep demanding things of women, and nothing of men, of expecting women to fix men, or to fix society.
Revolting Attitudes Towards Abused Wives From a Southern Baptist Seminary Student – Southern Baptists Don’t Make Marriage Sound Appealing / Christian Singles: Dump the Equally Yoked Teaching
Please consider that if you found this blog post from someone else sharing it on Twitter or Facebook, that the person (especially if a Christian) may not necessarily agree with all my statements and opinions in this post! They might only agree with portions of this message.
Earlier today, Christian Janeway (whom I follow on Twitter) re-tweeted someone else’s post about this guy’s post on Facebook, and awhile after that, Amy Smith (WatchKeep on Twitter) also shared screen caps of this guy’s Facebook posts.
You can see the guy’s post here (mobile Facebook page): (Link): Wife Beating
Here is the link to the regular (non mobile) version: (Link): Wife Beating
This “wife beating” post is in a group called “Friends of Biblical Counseling.”
I have warned readers of my blog before to stay away from Biblical Counseling (sometimes called “Nouthetic Counseling”) in a previous post, when I was giving Christian singles reading this blog this message:
I think the screen name of guy who posted this is named ‘Corriell Savannah Brotherwood,’ and his Facebook bio says he studies theology at SBTS (The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary).
God help us all, or any abused woman this joker may counsel, should he become a pastor or counselor.
Wiki description of SBTS:
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Louisville, Kentucky, is the oldest of the six seminaries affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention.
This Brotherwood individual states in his post that he does not believe that a husband hitting his wife is sin, nor does he think the Bible permits an abused wife to divorce her husband.
Continue reading “Revolting Attitudes Towards Abused Wives From a Southern Baptist Seminary Student – Southern Baptists Don’t Make Marriage Sound Appealing / Christian Singles: Dump the Equally Yoked Teaching”
‘It’s Not Me, It’s You’: A Loser’s Guide to Dealing with Rejection by The Guyliner
(Link): ‘It’s not me, it’s you’: a loser’s guide to dealing with rejection by The Guyliner
Advances in technology, and the urge to express ourselves as loudly as possible, mean rejection has never been so easy to dole out. Swiping left on Tinder, blocking on Twitter, marching to the polling booth: a firm no is never far away, but the bitter sting never fails to shock.
We’ve witnessed an unusually high level of public rejection over the last few turbulent weeks, from politicians discovering their posses were lacking compadres and feeling their ambition turn to ash in their mouths, to the much-maligned EU, sadly opening its Dear John letter from 52% of the UK, all calls going straight to voicemail.
Rejection can teach you a lot about yourself and those around you. “No” may never be music to your ears, but you can learn to take it with dignity. Or, at the very least, store up ample fuel for your revenge.
….On a dating app
“Why don’t they love me?” I’d cry when I was single, throwing myself on to a fainting couch whenever someone I’d contacted didn’t reciprocate.
Why does society still view childless women like me with suspicion?
(Link): Why does society still view childless women like me with suspicion? by E. Day
Actress Jennifer Aniston Responds to Media’s Constant Fixation on her Reproductive Status
I’ve said it before, but women face much more scrutiny and pressure to have children than men do.
This is by actress Jennifer Aniston:
(Link): For The Record
Sexual Assaults or Harassment Carried Out by CIS Men Taking Advantage of Trans-friendly Bathroom Policies – Collection of News Stories
I actually have a long list of such examples in a (Link): previous post of mine on the blog, but because some pro-Trans activists on Twitter are so lazy or stupid (they are incapable of finding those links in that post), here is a stand-alone on the topic.
I will continue to amend this post to add new links as I come across them. Should this post become way too long, I may make a part 2.
As an aside, out of my last 2 and a half or so years on Twitter under the “Solo Loner” account, the rudest, most intolerant, hateful, and vitriolic groups I have encountered on Twitter have been militant atheists(*) and pro-Transgender activists.
(*Please note I said “militant” atheists – I’ve run across a few non-militant atheists who were polite and agreeable.)
It doesn’t matter how non-inflammatory or polite my Tweet is in regards to atheism or transgenderism (even if all I am doing is re-tweeting a link without comments of my own), both those groups over-react and will send nasty, hate-filled rants. They are doing more damage to their respective causes than good.
Anyway, here is the collection of links to news stories about pro-Trans laws and regulations making it easier for CIS men to rape or otherwise sexually harass women and girls:
Examples of CIS Men Taking Advantage of Pro Trans Policies to Sexually Harass or Assault CIS Women and Girls
The Conservative, Christian Case for Working Women by J. Merritt
Some of the few complementarian Christians I follow on social media did not like this article at all. They seem to find any criticism of their position, or any suggestion of other options for women, to be a great affront to complementarianism itself, or to God or the Bible. Why do they feel their movement is so fragile?
Christian women who reject complementarianism – some of them may go by various labels, such as “Jesus feminists,” or “egalitarians,” or “mutualists,” don’t seek to limit women the way complementarians do. Non-complementarian men and women do not mind if a woman chooses to be a stay at home wife and mother.
However, complementarians do not truly afford all women, and especially not non-complementarian, women this same courtesy.
Much complementarian content will pay “lip service” to respect a woman’s right to choose to work outside the home and so on, but often times, from what I’ve seen, that very same site, or authors on some other complementarian site, will cry and clutch their pearls in sorrow or grief that more and more Christian women are choosing to stay single, not have children, and/or to work outside the home.
Notice that in this article, at one point, complementarian Owen Strachan, who is a spokes-head for complementarian group CBMW, comes right out and says egalitarianism, or any departure from complementarianism, is supposedly a sin.
Egalitarians are all about giving women more choices, telling them to go after their dreams, and doing whatever they feel God has led them to do.
Complementarians really chaff at that. Complementarians want women in boxes. I wrote a much older post saying that (Link): this is one reason of several I really have been struggling with holding on to the Christian faith. I was raised in a Christian family that bought into many of these complementarian ideas, and it’s not something that worked out well for me in my life.
(Link): The Conservative, Christian Case for Working Women by J. Merritt
Please Stop Asking Me When I’m Getting Married and Having My Own Kids – by E. Barnes
I believe I first saw this link on Melanie Notkin’s Twitter:
(Link): Please Stop Asking Me When I’m Getting Married and Having My Own Kids – by E. Barnes
Women, Stop Listening to Sexist Relationship ‘Experts’ by D. L. D’Oyley
If you are not already aware, Steve Harvey, whom this author discusses, is a Christian. He is sometimes a guest speaker on Christian network TBN.
(Link): Women, Stop Listening to Sexist Relationship ‘Experts’ (page 1) (Link to Page 2) by D. L. D’Oyley
Salvation Army Bans Duggar / Quivering Cult’s ‘Retreat’ (Called ‘Get Them Married’) that Promoted Arranged Marriages for Teen Girls – Quivering Advocates Are Anti-Adult Singleness and Anti-Celibacy
Before I present you with the links to the news reports about this story (which are much farther down the page), I wanted to make some introductory comments in general, and a few specific comments refuting a few points from a pro-Quivering page about celibacy.
In regards to the specific news story I am blogging about today, this Quivering group is completely overlooking Apostle Paul’s comments in (Link): 1 Corinthians 7 that it is better for people to remain single than it is to marry – and Paul does not say that this teaching is in regards only to “a few,” or only a “minority” of people.
The Bible nowhere states that marriage is “a norm,” or that God expects or wants all, or most, people to marry.
It just so happens that in other cultures thousands of years ago, most people did happen to marry – one should not deduce from this cultural situation that God supported it or wanted it to be so. It just was what it was.
If the Bible said that all or most ancient Jews painted their bodies green once a year and balanced weasels on their heads while jumping up and down on a watermelon one week out of a year, one should not assume from this that
The Quivering group’s position on marriage, celibacy, and singleness is unbiblical, not to mention disturbing.
According to this article (linked to much farther below), the Quivering group was going to call this event, (where they set up marriages for little girls to marry), “Get Them Married.”
Why not have an event called, per 1 Corinthians 7, “It Is Better To Stay Unmarried”?
Am I opposed to marriage? No.
Is the God of the Bible against marriage? No.
But the Bible does not say that being married is better or more holy for girls, women, or culture, than being single, but a lot of Christian groups, and these wacky Christian cults, insist otherwise.
Christians need to do a better job of recognizing adult singleness and celibacy as legitimate, godly, biblical lifestyles and choices for all persons (and not only meant for a small minority of people who were supposedly “gifted” with it), instead of promoting marriage and natalism as the only legitimate avenues or as ways of fixing culture, the nation, or as pleasing God.
Continue reading “Salvation Army Bans Duggar / Quivering Cult’s ‘Retreat’ (Called ‘Get Them Married’) that Promoted Arranged Marriages for Teen Girls – Quivering Advocates Are Anti-Adult Singleness and Anti-Celibacy”
Liberal Identity Politics, Transgenderism, & Disregarding the Safety of Hetero Cisgender Women
(This post has been edited a few times to add a few more thoughts or new links)
The “Arguments by Liberals” Section is located about one-fourth down this page; look for the sub-heading “Arguments by Liberals”
I have a friend on Twitter who I sometimes have private conversations with via Direct Messaging on Twitter.
One very disturbing and annoying tendency among liberals has grabbed her attention and mine, that we’ve discussed privately:
Many Liberals not only build a hierarchy of which groups of people they believe are more worthy of protection, consideration, and respect than other groups (which I find odd and troubling), but they further go on to almost always place hetero, cisgender (and ones who happen to be caucasian) women at the very bottom of this hierarchy.
Women in general seem to go at the bottom of this liberal pyramid, regardless of ethnic group, skin color, or nationality – I guess it can depend on the specific context under consideration.
We’re All Visual – Responding to Common Christian Claim that Only Men Are Visual – via God Loves Women blog
Someone on my Twitter re-Tweeted a link to the link below.
The e-mail from Gross (that is mentioned at the other blog) also shames and blames women whose husbands are using porn; he actually tells them that their husbands are still owed sex, they should not “put walls up” with their spouse and treat their husbands with suspicion in all areas of their lives, and so on.
Gross’ comments were inappropriate and insensitive to women who find out their husbands are cheating on them by viewing pornography. You can visit this blog below to see those additional comments.
I’d like to add that this also goes to show the the Christian trope that Christian married sex will be hot, steamy, and satisfying is false. Obviously, some Christian men (and married Christian women) are using porn, so they are not being fully sexually satisfied in the sack by their Christian spouse.
Also note that this disproves the Christian myth that married persons are immune from sexual sin. They are not. Married people are not more sexually pure than adult singles.
(Link): We’re All Visual
The Unsurprising Sexism of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz
I am right wing, but I have come to realize the last 2 or 3 years that yes, some right wingers harbor some sexist views towards women.
I used to regard left wing complaints about this to be fabricated or greatly exaggerated.
I do think in some ways, on some topics, liberals do unfairly peg right wingers with sexism, but in some other ways, depending on the particular situation or topic, I think there is merit to their charge.
There are small fragments of right wingers – like Quivering type families, or a Christian family the Duggars who believe in “Gothardism” – who do hold to some pretty outlandish, backwards views about women, but I do think that a lot of liberals go too far by ascribing labels such as “Christian Taliban” to all or most conservative Christians (yes, in years past, I’ve seen left wing Hollywood actors or commentators make such comments about all Christians, not just the small percentage).
Here is an interesting article about the sexism of Cruz and Trump – how they each denigrate the other’s wife.
I see that the treatment of women by both Cruz and Trump somewhat mirrors that of Christian gender complementarians – they treat women like sex objects, or as children, or as ‘lesser than’ men.
As physically unattractive as Trump is, I can guarantee you his wife, who, according to papers was once a supermodel, didn’t marry him for love. Maybe wealthy guys don’t care if they are loved for their wallets and not who they are.
It’s interesting and sad how an entire group of people – Republicans or conservative Christians – often present themselves as being “pro family,” but then their actions betray how sexist they are. Being disrespectful of women, who comprise some members of nuclear families, is not being pro- family values at all.
Christian gender complementarians play at the same game; they declare that women are of equal worth to men, but their actions betray this statement.
Christians often like to teach that marriage is necessary to make a person more godly and mature – here we have two married persons – Trump and Cruz – behaving quite immaturely and rudely on Twitter.
(Link): The Weaponization of Heidi Cruz and Melania Trump by Emma Green