The Swedish #MeToo movement took an unexpected turn

[thebeave]

When women are harmed or killed, it makes the headlines. Men...not so much. That's probably why you think men have managed to avoid violence, and women are the primary victims. As an example, I'm sure you heard of the kidnapping of the 276 Nigerian girls a few years back by Boko Haram. A horrible thing that grabbed the attention of the world, especially here in the US. But did you know there were boys who were kidnapped and murdered by Boko Haram? I bet not:

https://reliefweb.int/report/nigeria/missing-men-and-boys-nigeria-s-unfolding-tragedy

The tragic stories of men and boys who have been caught in the crossfire between Boko Haram and security forces have gone virtually unnoticed and the crisis continues to affect thousands of men and women. Just as the Nigerian public and international community demands the whereabouts of the Chibok girls, we should also ask, where are the men - the fathers, sons, husbands and brothers?

No one has suggested that men are not victims of violence. We aren’t saying that this is not a concern for men. We’re just pushing back against your assertion that girls and women don’t have much of a reason to worry about being raped or murdered by men

Where did I say women don't have much of a reason to worry about being raped or murdered by men?

 

[Toni]

No one has suggested that men are not victims of violence. We aren’t saying that this is not a concern for men. We’re just pushing back against your assertion that girls and women don’t have much of a reason to worry about being raped or murdered by men

Where did I say women don't have much of a reason to worry about being raped or murdered by men?

My apologies. I should have written ‘the’ rather than ‘your.’

Why did you feel the need to bring up Boko Haram violence? I doubt that you will find anyone on this entire forum to disagree that Boko Haram is responsible for unspeakable violence. Yes, there are more headlines about school girls being kidnapped and used as sex slaves or into forced marriages. I don’t know whether such stories are more likely to be written because society feels more sympathy towards female victims or whether society is deeply uncomfortable with the notion of male victims (except of priests). Perhaos society is just more comfortable with the narrative of girls and women as victims as a means of controlling women : be careful or men won’t protect you (from men). Perhaos Perhaps there are fewer headlines or it’s less sensationalized when the violence is make in male for similar reasons that there is less reporting of black on black violence: just let them to deal with their own problems.

Edited to add: I would very much welcome discussions about male on male violence, the toll that male violence takes on men and boys, what might be causes of such violence and how society can address these issues and better meet the needs of all people.

 

[Emily Lake]

And white men say exactly. The part about white men mattering more is silent.

The older I get, the more of an old-school feminist I become. And I do mean feminist, not femme-men-ist. And I have begun to lose all patience with this newest wave of young millennials that call themselves feminists, but who preach that feminism is really about everyone, and that by helping every intersectionally-disadvantaged group on the planet, we are really helping women too. It's bollocks. By centering every other group in feminism above actual females, it just anchors that insulting assumption that women are supposed to take care of everyone else, to sacrifice their own needs for the comfort of everyone else.

Feminism is about females. It's about fighting for females to share equally in society, economics, and politics. That means destroying gender roles and gendered expectations of behavior, it means teaching young girls that they can - and should! - say no whenever they want, and that they shouldn't allow their boundaries to be pushed or fuzzed. It means that women of all ages need to stand up and stop being objects for male attentions and sexual fantasies. And it means that we push back on the judicial system, and we treat rape and sexual assault as exactly the violent transgression and affront to basic human dignity that it is.

 

[Emily Lake]

I think this is an unhelpful male vs female dichotomy.

Men are way more likely to victimize other men. Men are inherently violent. For good or for worse. While women, less so. Yes, it sucks for women that they risk getting raped when they're out jogging. But sure beats getting murdered. Which is what can happen to men who are out jogging alone. Serious physical assault and murder of men is way more common than rape of women.

Men have way more reasons to be afraid than women when out jogging alone. So I think it's unhelpful to see this as a uniquely female thing to have to worry about.

Worth noting is that men worry less than women about getting assaulted. Women are much more afraid than men about getting attacked while having less reasons to be afraid.

When it comes to violence I think it's a bit touching how our various human societies place so much emphasis on protecting women and children while we treat men as largely disposable.

I too think this way. Our newspapers seem to do it as well. If you read how these kinds of stories are framed men are only given attention when they fight back.

I think it's basic human instinct. In Lacanian/Freudian terms, the way we think of this is that men protect the tribe, while women are the tribe. An attack on a woman or a child is an attack on something sacred. While men are seen largely as cannon fodder to be sacrificed to protect the greater good. Which I suspect is the reason why men more often start pointless fights. As well as assault women. They rarely value themselves as highly as women do.

Hmm... interesting. Let's try a thought experiment.

You're going to get into the ring with an opponent. Your objective is to physically dominate them without weapons, and there are no rules of conduct. You get to choose your own sex, as well as the sex of your opponent.

If your objective is to win... Do you choose to be a male or a female? Do you choose your opponent to be male or female? Why did you make those choices?

 

[Emily Lake]

When women are harmed or killed, it makes the headlines. Men...not so much. That's probably why you think men have managed to avoid violence, and women are the primary victims. As an example, I'm sure you heard of the kidnapping of the 276 Nigerian girls a few years back by Boko Haram. A horrible thing that grabbed the attention of the world, especially here in the US. But did you know there were boys who were kidnapped and murdered by Boko Haram? I bet not:

https://reliefweb.int/report/nigeria/missing-men-and-boys-nigeria-s-unfolding-tragedy

The tragic stories of men and boys who have been caught in the crossfire between Boko Haram and security forces have gone virtually unnoticed and the crisis continues to affect thousands of men and women. Just as the Nigerian public and international community demands the whereabouts of the Chibok girls, we should also ask, where are the men - the fathers, sons, husbands and brothers?

Call me crazy, but I think that the boys and the girls may have been abducted for different reasons.

The boys and men were abducted to be trained as fighters. The girls were abducted for a completely different use. Both are suck and against their will... but I'm sure you'll forgive me for having a bit more sympathy for the unwilling sex slaves and brood mares, yes?

 

[Emily Lake]

Toni is correct. The article that I linked mentioned that most of the women who were attacked, were raped and murdered. I've yet to hear of a man being killed while jogging, other than perhaps the incidents of Black men jogging in a mostly White neighborhood, being attacked by a racist. I'm sure that there have been incidents where a male jogger is attacked, but to be honest, I've yet to have read of a man being attacked while jogging alone. It's very common for women to be attacked while jogging in rural areas, or at night.

Maybe it's different in your country. Sure, men kill each other here. We have too many guns and lately, people, mostly men, seem to be using guns to settle arguments. Just yesterday, a female cashier in a grocery store in the Atlanta area was shot and killed by a male customer after he got into an argument with her. He probably would have killed the cashier even if it had been a man, but that's not the same as a lone woman jogging and being attacked and killed by a man.

It's not stuff I heard. It's well established statistics. She's repeating a common myth.

The chances a woman is randomly attacked outdoors by a stranger is so low its negligible. The chances a man is randomly attacked outdoors is four times higher. Outcomes are statistically worse for men.

The reason you don't hear about men attacked is because we don't talk about it.

Attacking women is an extreme taboo in our society. That's why we talk about it. Attacking men isn't a taboo.

Women are also more neurotic, on average, than men so will, on average, worry unnecessarily about dangers than men. I think that's why we talk more about assault against women more.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex...ere more likely to,-related homicides (94.6%).

From your link...
Males were convicted of the vast majority of homicides in the United States, representing 89.5% of the total number of offenders.
Females were most likely to be victims of domestic homicides (63.7%) and sex-related homicides (81.7%)
Males were most likely to be victims of drug-related (90.5%) and gang-related homicides (94.6%)

Across the board, males are the vast majority of the perpetrators of crimes. And women face a particular type of crime that men are very rarely the victims of.

I don't think it's "neurotic" to be on guard against a known danger.

 

[Emily Lake]

Toni is correct. The article that I linked mentioned that most of the women who were attacked, were raped and murdered. I've yet to hear of a man being killed while jogging, other than perhaps the incidents of Black men jogging in a mostly White neighborhood, being attacked by a racist. I'm sure that there have been incidents where a male jogger is attacked, but to be honest, I've yet to have read of a man being attacked while jogging alone. It's very common for women to be attacked while jogging in rural areas, or at night.

Maybe it's different in your country. Sure, men kill each other here. We have too many guns and lately, people, mostly men, seem to be using guns to settle arguments. Just yesterday, a female cashier in a grocery store in the Atlanta area was shot and killed by a male customer after he got into an argument with her. He probably would have killed the cashier even if it had been a man, but that's not the same as a lone woman jogging and being attacked and killed by a man.

It's not stuff I heard. It's well established statistics. She's repeating a common myth.

The chances a woman is randomly attacked outdoors by a stranger is so low its negligible. The chances a man is randomly attacked outdoors is four times higher. Outcomes are statistically worse for men.

The reason you don't hear about men attacked is because we don't talk about it.

Attacking women is an extreme taboo in our society. That's why we talk about it. Attacking men isn't a taboo.

Women are also more neurotic, on average, than men so will, on average, worry unnecessarily about dangers than men. I think that's why we talk more about assault against women more.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex...ere more likely to,-related homicides (94.6%).

Wow.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvv.pdf

The disparity is shocking.

but apparently we're "neurotic" for wanting this to change.

 

[Toni]

When women are harmed or killed, it makes the headlines. Men...not so much. That's probably why you think men have managed to avoid violence, and women are the primary victims. As an example, I'm sure you heard of the kidnapping of the 276 Nigerian girls a few years back by Boko Haram. A horrible thing that grabbed the attention of the world, especially here in the US. But did you know there were boys who were kidnapped and murdered by Boko Haram? I bet not:

https://reliefweb.int/report/nigeria/missing-men-and-boys-nigeria-s-unfolding-tragedy

The tragic stories of men and boys who have been caught in the crossfire between Boko Haram and security forces have gone virtually unnoticed and the crisis continues to affect thousands of men and women. Just as the Nigerian public and international community demands the whereabouts of the Chibok girls, we should also ask, where are the men - the fathers, sons, husbands and brothers?

Call me crazy, but I think that the boys and the girls may have been abducted for different reasons.

The boys and men were abducted to be trained as fighters. The girls were abducted for a completely different use. Both are suck and against their will... but I'm sure you'll forgive me for having a bit more sympathy for the unwilling sex slaves and brood mares, yes?

I actually don't have less sympathy for the boys who were captured and forced to fight. It's dehumanizing and extremely damaging, even if they survive.

Using children this way is as indefensible as using girls and young women as sex slaves and brood mares and spoils of war. If there is some difference in level of horrific, I don't care to try to parse it out. There are some levels of horrific and inhuman and indefensible and downright evil after which it simply doesn't matter what those different levels are, if they can even be determined.

 

[Toni]

And white men say exactly. The part about white men mattering more is silent.

The older I get, the more of an old-school feminist I become. And I do mean feminist, not femme-men-ist. And I have begun to lose all patience with this newest wave of young millennials that call themselves feminists, but who preach that feminism is really about everyone, and that by helping every intersectionally-disadvantaged group on the planet, we are really helping women too. It's bollocks. By centering every other group in feminism above actual females, it just anchors that insulting assumption that women are supposed to take care of everyone else, to sacrifice their own needs for the comfort of everyone else.

Feminism is about females. It's about fighting for females to share equally in society, economics, and politics. That means destroying gender roles and gendered expectations of behavior, it means teaching young girls that they can - and should! - say no whenever they want, and that they shouldn't allow their boundaries to be pushed or fuzzed. It means that women of all ages need to stand up and stop being objects for male attentions and sexual fantasies. And it means that we push back on the judicial system, and we treat rape and sexual assault as exactly the violent transgression and affront to basic human dignity that it is.

I'm a with you but: I do see feminism as being for all persons. ALL of us are better off when ALL of us are treated equally, although I suspect there are a few billionaires and despots who would disagree.

I also take the point that early feminism was mostly (but not entirely) voiced by white women. After all, generally speaking, white women were better educated and had more ties and inroads into power, had a bigger voice than did persons of color or the unacknowledged and to many/most not known, much less understood members of what we now call the LGBTQ community. I think it's right to allow those voices to speak as well and as loudly and prominently. After all, I know that I see things from my perspective and while I might have or think I have some understanding and empathy with what it is to be a woman of color or LGBTQ, I'm still white and cis and straight. I don't walk in those skins/bodies. My experiences are different and I'm limited in what I can speak with any authenticity about.

Absolutely yes to allowing women and all people to share equally in society, politically, economically, socially, legally. Yes to destroying gender roles and gendered expectations of behavior. Yes, girls and boys and all people can say no whenever they want and not be subjected to unwanted touch or sexual use or sexualization. People are allowed to establish and to stand up for their boundaries! All people need to stand up and stop being objects for attention and sexual fantasies. We do need to push back and insist that rape and sexual assault are violent transgressions and basic affronts to human dignity, no matter the age, sex, or gender of the victim or perpetrator.

 

[J842P]

When women are harmed or killed, it makes the headlines. Men...not so much. That's probably why you think men have managed to avoid violence, and women are the primary victims. As an example, I'm sure you heard of the kidnapping of the 276 Nigerian girls a few years back by Boko Haram. A horrible thing that grabbed the attention of the world, especially here in the US. But did you know there were boys who were kidnapped and murdered by Boko Haram? I bet not:

https://reliefweb.int/report/nigeria/missing-men-and-boys-nigeria-s-unfolding-tragedy

The tragic stories of men and boys who have been caught in the crossfire between Boko Haram and security forces have gone virtually unnoticed and the crisis continues to affect thousands of men and women. Just as the Nigerian public and international community demands the whereabouts of the Chibok girls, we should also ask, where are the men - the fathers, sons, husbands and brothers?

Call me crazy, but I think that the boys and the girls may have been abducted for different reasons.

The boys and men were abducted to be trained as fighters. The girls were abducted for a completely different use. Both are suck and against their will... but I'm sure you'll forgive me for having a bit more sympathy for the unwilling sex slaves and brood mares, yes?

Most of the boys weren't abducted. For example, in the schools that made the news, the boys were herded into buildings and then the buildings were burned down.

 

[Emily Lake]

Call me crazy, but I think that the boys and the girls may have been abducted for different reasons.

The boys and men were abducted to be trained as fighters. The girls were abducted for a completely different use. Both are suck and against their will... but I'm sure you'll forgive me for having a bit more sympathy for the unwilling sex slaves and brood mares, yes?

I actually don't have less sympathy for the boys who were captured and forced to fight. It's dehumanizing and extremely damaging, even if they survive.

Using children this way is as indefensible as using girls and young women as sex slaves and brood mares and spoils of war. If there is some difference in level of horrific, I don't care to try to parse it out. There are some levels of horrific and inhuman and indefensible and downright evil after which it simply doesn't matter what those different levels are, if they can even be determined.

I agree that it's all horrific. I just see a bit of a distinction between some children being abducted in order to be drafted and made to become members of a given society against their will... and some children being abducted as objects treated as non-human property.

 

[Toni]

Call me crazy, but I think that the boys and the girls may have been abducted for different reasons.

The boys and men were abducted to be trained as fighters. The girls were abducted for a completely different use. Both are suck and against their will... but I'm sure you'll forgive me for having a bit more sympathy for the unwilling sex slaves and brood mares, yes?

I actually don't have less sympathy for the boys who were captured and forced to fight. It's dehumanizing and extremely damaging, even if they survive.

Using children this way is as indefensible as using girls and young women as sex slaves and brood mares and spoils of war. If there is some difference in level of horrific, I don't care to try to parse it out. There are some levels of horrific and inhuman and indefensible and downright evil after which it simply doesn't matter what those different levels are, if they can even be determined.

I agree that it's all horrific. I just see a bit of a distinction between some children being abducted in order to be drafted and made to become members of a given society against their will... and some children being abducted as objects treated as non-human property.

Eh, I don’t think the abducted boys were not treated as non-human property—killing machines, to be exact.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm a with you but: I do see feminism as being for all persons. ALL of us are better off when ALL of us are treated equally, although I suspect there are a few billionaires and despots who would disagree.

I think it's a difference in the approach. Modern liberal feminists seem to take the approach of "If women help other people first, it will help women in the long run" and thus, they prioritize and center groups other than women at the forefront of their goals. The cede space to other causes on the assumption that the benefits to those other groups will trickle down to women eventually. Classical feminists seem to take the approach that "If women make progress, other groups will also benefit from the progress we make" and they keep equality for women and girls as their focus.

To make a bit of a parallel... Modern liberal feminists are like the folks who argue that "All Lives Matter" at a BLM rally. Classical feminists are the folks who show up and say "BLACK Lives Matter because that's where the problem is".

I also take the point that early feminism was mostly (but not entirely) voiced by white women. After all, generally speaking, white women were better educated and had more ties and inroads into power, had a bigger voice than did persons of color or the unacknowledged and to many/most not known, much less understood members of what we now call the LGBTQ community. I think it's right to allow those voices to speak as well and as loudly and prominently. After all, I know that I see things from my perspective and while I might have or think I have some understanding and empathy with what it is to be a woman of color or LGBTQ, I'm still white and cis and straight. I don't walk in those skins/bodies. My experiences are different and I'm limited in what I can speak with any authenticity about.

You're right on that. There are causes that I focus on because they are universally applicable to ALL female humans - abortion rights, consent, violence against women, etc. But I also know that as a white woman, I've already reaped the benefit of what my foremothers fought for (what's not being scraped away at least), and that the benefits have been starkly disproportionate. I view my personal goal as doing the best I can for the women who have the furthest yet to rise. Sometimes that's fairly direct contributions and activities for Lesbian or Women of Color causes... sometimes that's just listening and learning and not imposing my personal experiences on the situation. For example, the level of misogyny in the black community is much worse than among white people. But there's not a lot I can do for that directly. It's not like I can go boycott black men . But I can, and actively do, give an ear and a shoulder and financial support to my black sisters, and I'm there to get their backs when they need me to be.

Absolutely yes to allowing women and all people to share equally in society, politically, economically, socially, legally. Yes to destroying gender roles and gendered expectations of behavior. Yes, girls and boys and all people can say no whenever they want and not be subjected to unwanted touch or sexual use or sexualization. People are allowed to establish and to stand up for their boundaries! All people need to stand up and stop being objects for attention and sexual fantasies. We do need to push back and insist that rape and sexual assault are violent transgressions and basic affronts to human dignity, no matter the age, sex, or gender of the victim or perpetrator.

100% agree.

That said, when it comes to prioritizing my efforts, I will fight *first* for those most deeply affected - and that generally means girls.

 

[Emily Lake]

I agree that it's all horrific. I just see a bit of a distinction between some children being abducted in order to be drafted and made to become members of a given society against their will... and some children being abducted as objects treated as non-human property.

Eh, I don’t think the abducted boys were not treated as non-human property—killing machines, to be exact.

I admit to not having an in-depth knowledge of this. In most cases of child soldiers, if the killing machine performs well, they receive honors and status and are promoted within the army. They have the possibility of being eventually treated as equals worthy of respect.

Don't get me wrong - it's still horrifying and I am strongly opposed to it. It is something I wish never happened in the past, and would never happen in the future. I just don't think it's identical to being stolen to be a slave with no humanity and no rights and no agency of any sort.

 

[J842P]

Wow.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvv.pdf

The disparity is shocking.

but apparently we're "neurotic" for wanting this to change.

I'm confused. Those graphs / figures seem to show that in terms of violence, men are more likely to be victimize by strangers, friends, and acquaintances, and women more likely by intimate partners and family. Men are more likely to be victims overall.

 

[Emily Lake]

Wow.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvv.pdf

The disparity is shocking.

but apparently we're "neurotic" for wanting this to change.

I'm confused. Those graphs / figures seem to show that in terms of violence, men are more likely to be victimize by strangers, friends, and acquaintances, and women more likely by intimate partners and family. Men are more likely to be victims overall.

Sure... they're more likely to be victims of other men. And again, the type of victimization is different. Men are more likely to get beat up by other men as a result of criminal activity, for example. So if you're not a criminal, your risk exposure is substantially reduced. Men are more likely to get into random fights with other men who are strangers.

Do you think men are more likely to be raped by a stranger? To be sexually assaulted by a stranger?

Additionally... In the event that a man is violently attacked by another man... he at least has some reasonable chance of effectively fighting off his attacker. Do you think the same thing is true for women?

 

[Toni]

Wow.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvv.pdf

The disparity is shocking.

but apparently we're "neurotic" for wanting this to change.

I'm confused. Those graphs / figures seem to show that in terms of violence, men are more likely to be victimize by strangers, friends, and acquaintances, and women more likely by intimate partners and family. Men are more likely to be victims overall.

Yes, women are more likely to be victimized by people they know. So are men.

Women are more likely to be victimized by men. So are men.

One would almost think that men are the problem.

The emphasis has never been that men need to be careful how they act, how they treat other people, how they are perceived.

The emphasis has always been that women need to be careful how they act, how they treat other people, how they are perceived. Maybe because that way it is easier to avoid the conclusion that men are the problem, not short skirts or high heels or plunging necklines or a dinner late or cold on the table or any of the other excuses that are used to batter, rape and murder women. And children.

 

[Toni]

I'm confused. Those graphs / figures seem to show that in terms of violence, men are more likely to be victimize by strangers, friends, and acquaintances, and women more likely by intimate partners and family. Men are more likely to be victims overall.

Sure... they're more likely to be victims of other men. And again, the type of victimization is different. Men are more likely to get beat up by other men as a result of criminal activity, for example. So if you're not a criminal, your risk exposure is substantially reduced. Men are more likely to get into random fights with other men who are strangers.

Do you think men are more likely to be raped by a stranger? To be sexually assaulted by a stranger?

Additionally... In the event that a man is violently attacked by another man... he at least has some reasonable chance of effectively fighting off his attacker. Do you think the same thing is true for women?

Speaking as someone who has been attacked while wearing grungy jeans and tshirts, sitting in a friend's apartment, or dorm room, or simply hanging out at a family member's home when I was too young to have even thought about kissing a boy--it's not what I was wearing or how I was acting or anything else except some guy thought he could do something that he couldn't do because he was a lot bigger and stronger. Turns out they were wrong. Yeah, I stopped that shit. Cold. Few times, someone besides me ended up on the ground.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm confused. Those graphs / figures seem to show that in terms of violence, men are more likely to be victimize by strangers, friends, and acquaintances, and women more likely by intimate partners and family. Men are more likely to be victims overall.

Sure... they're more likely to be victims of other men. And again, the type of victimization is different. Men are more likely to get beat up by other men as a result of criminal activity, for example. So if you're not a criminal, your risk exposure is substantially reduced. Men are more likely to get into random fights with other men who are strangers.

Do you think men are more likely to be raped by a stranger? To be sexually assaulted by a stranger?

Additionally... In the event that a man is violently attacked by another man... he at least has some reasonable chance of effectively fighting off his attacker. Do you think the same thing is true for women?

Speaking as someone who has been attacked while wearing grungy jeans and tshirts, sitting in a friend's apartment, or dorm room, or simply hanging out at a family member's home when I was too young to have even thought about kissing a boy--it's not what I was wearing or how I was acting or anything else except some guy thought he could do something that he couldn't do because he was a lot bigger and stronger. Turns out they were wrong. Yeah, I stopped that shit. Cold. Few times, someone besides me ended up on the ground.

First response: {hugs} I'm sorry you went through that.
Second response: {cheer} Hooray for being strong and standing up for yourself!
Third response: {clink} This is what all women should feel empowered to do!

 

[Toni]

Speaking as someone who has been attacked while wearing grungy jeans and tshirts, sitting in a friend's apartment, or dorm room, or simply hanging out at a family member's home when I was too young to have even thought about kissing a boy--it's not what I was wearing or how I was acting or anything else except some guy thought he could do something that he couldn't do because he was a lot bigger and stronger. Turns out they were wrong. Yeah, I stopped that shit. Cold. Few times, someone besides me ended up on the ground.

First response: {hugs} I'm sorry you went through that.
Second response: {cheer} Hooray for being strong and standing up for yourself!
Third response: {clink} This is what all women should feel empowered to do!

I don't fool myself. Any of those situations could have turned out differently. My advantage was that the guy vastly underestimated me. And was only looking for easy pickings. They did not expect me to fight back, much less lay them out. If any of those incidents had happened in a more isolated place where there was zero fear of being discovered or anyone coming to my rescue, or if any of the creeps had been more psychopathic, it could have been so much worse. So I never, ever, ever blame someone for deciding not to fight back and to live. Heck, if I had thought a second, that might have been what I did. But in terms of fight/flight, I'm fight, as it turns out. Luck genes.