u/Inquiz_

That about sums it up. I do SEO, PPC, email marketing etc. I use GTM and really wanna get into server side tracking because of its utility to B2C/e-commerce, which is a big market for digital marketing services.

Anyone got any good courses to recommend - yes this includes paid - for GTM server side tracking?

There was another thread here yesterday on the topic of why women react either with zero understanding or outright vitriol to the issue - whether real or overblown by the media - of "lonely men", a term I think would be better replaced with "romantically struggling men". Feeling tempted here to go on a tangent about the gynocentrism of this "loneliness epidemic" terminology/framing but maybe another time.

The comments seemed to largely fixate on women's reaction to this whole thing in terms of the apathy/lack of care and, predictably, the discussion just kind of dissipated into a bunch of generic cliches (nobody cares about a bunch of strangers etc etc) and that was it. Pretty disappointing, because with the right context this discussion can be a lot more useful and yield far more insight. If someone bothers providing said context.

Now, women (plus gynocentric male archetypes like boomers and wifeguy Gen X/millenials in tow) don't just react with apathy or lack of interest. The visibly predominant female response is negative/critical/outright hostile, and they choose to frame men who can't get relationships as moral failures. This needs stating because the female posters on this sub frequently pretend like it's just the former, that it's just a lack of investment, so that they can steer the discussion into the aforementioned dead end of generic cliches.

That negative/critical/hostile framing of romantically struggling men is purposed with upholding the notion that romance and dating - the socioculturally-constructed systems and processes through which men go to find partners - are fair and just. And hence that men who "fail" in that process are bad people. Else they'd have succeeded. Mostly, anyway; always gonna be odd and unfortunate cases who can't succeed for reasons other than moral failing but generally women seem bent on depicting dudes that can't score as moral failures to varying degrees.

Women defend the dating & romance status quo in this way because it is an immense source of privilege and social power for them over men; not only is it not fair and just and equitable, it's rigged by design to extract the maximum for women out of men (attention/compliments and the tremendous ego and confidence boost they get from being pursued, especially by a great many men) while offering the least in return. Dating apps are a modern and recent manifestation of this dynamic. Dating, with its norms and established practices, is like window-shopping for women.

So whenever a man says that, for instance, he feels exhausted after multiple first dates that went great yet were followed up a few days later by that "not feeling the spark bye" text, or the inflation in women's looks standards for men or anything else, women instinctively depict him as some sort of maladjusted failure for not being OK with that because they want to enforce the irreproachability of dating against all critique. A very "shut up, don't question things" kind of response.

It's all privilege-guarding. Not just "not caring" and nonchalant disinterest.

This is one of those most common feminist soundbites you'll see practically everywhere; "without feminism you wouldn't be able to work!", used often in response to female voices skeptical of feminism in whatever way.

But this notion always seemed really odd to me, given that women participating in the modern economy is something that flows logically from the concept of the modern economy to begin with as it consolidated in the 20th Century; industries, firms, large pools of employees to draw from, more people 'contributing' and so on. Having half the population not do that is kind of antithetical to the whole notion. Then you layer on concepts like civic nationalism, cosmopolitanism and so on and it becomes even more evident that women were always going to get the right to work.

I saw a comment on this sub, one I've tried hard to find again yet can't seem to, that went into depth on this topic. I want to revisit the topic and invite people to share their various historical sources on when women got the specific legal allowances they needed to work in the modern economy like men do; how close or far is it from the feminist depiction?

User on X: "My own sister told me I was inherently violent and creepy to women for being a man when I was like 12 and I don’t think people quite grasp how many young men’s brain got broken by stuff like that happening during this period" / X

He's some feminist guy, and in the course of being absolutely dragged after he shared this tidbit about his sister condemning him for being male even tried to affirm this by saying shit like he likes *insert famous feminist misandrist figure here* and so on, but it didn't help much. The typical response by feminists/women to his tweet tell him to suck it up, tell him that he's part of 'the bad gender' and his sister 'the good' one so he should be OK with this, use ridiculous excuses like "somewhere some woman is getting raped so shut it with your sob story" and so on.

They even deliberately misquoted, or added to, his tweet an entire part where he supposedly says that this is what radicalized him or something. Again, dude's a feminist, and said no such thing.

67k likes as we speak on this particular tweet alone: “my sister was mean to me when i was 12 so feminism is bad!!!” do you people listen to yourselves https://t.co/HxtNtjvBma" / X

The whole episode is just a great example of how, contrary to what the liberal feminist women of this sub will tell you, misandry is extremely prevalent and continues to go unaddressed or properly recognized as something amoral/bad.

I NEED TO KNOW

IT'S SUCH FREAKING EPIC PIRATE MUSIC

What's at stake: the wellbeing of countless future kids and, to a lesser extent or level of urgency, the relationship prospects for men looking to marry and start families.

Now let me start by saying that even if you're deluded enough to think Clancy's innocent because she was quite literally mentally gone when she murdered her kids, YOU STILL DON'T FUCKING SAY SHIT LIKE #IAMLINDSAYCLANCEY. What kind of utter psychopath devotes remembrance of this tragedy not to the undeniably first-and-foremost primary victims of it, but to someone else - the perpetrator? Seriously? What an absolutely tone-deaf, horrible hashtag, and tone deaf and horrible is what a disturbingly large amount of discourse from women on the internet about this tragedy has been. Centering Lindsay as the victim, even if you believe she is one, is absolutely nuts. Those poor kids, who thrashed and cried as their own mom strangled them to death, yeah let's just forget them while our fundraiser for the murderer crosses $ 1 million plus!

Reality, of course, is that Clancy was more than coherent enough while she did internet research, pre-planned her husband's absence from the house and took her sweet time (5 mins on each child) maintaining her grip as she choked her 3 young kids to death. But none of this common sense matters to the people I described in the prior paragraph; oh no, their only concern is maintaining what OG mainstream feminism has always preached: the woman is always the primary victim.

Yes, it's bad she murdered her kids. But she is the ultimate victim of it. Even the saner feminists who'll be doling out all manner of flimsy damage control excuses over how Lindsay and her whackjob supporters aren't real feminists to exert damage control believe in patriarchy theory, and patriarchy theory will always hold women as the victims.

De facto female moral exceptionalism.

So why's this a threat then? Circling back to the opening sentence, women have primary access to their kids, and women who immerse themselves in the feminist ecosystem online - which is kind of hard not to do for them these days given how vast it is - will begin internalizing the logic that if a woman is having a rough time being a parent and decides to take it out on her kids, she shouldn't be singled out as a wrongdoer but treated instead as a victim. Which'll make these women a threat to their kids. And whichever of them start having dark thoughts like Clancy did, will 100% find nonstop validation, affirmation and encouragement from the #IAMLINDSAYCLANCY crowd.

On an even more disturbing note, a lot of the #IAMLINDSAYCLANCY crowd appears to be invoking some kind of weird woo woo you find on radical feminist spaces online about how women are part of this "Divine Feminine" shit and how as "life givers" they also have the right to "take life". Implications for the children are fairly obvious.

Similar to other seemingly always condescending-sounding terminologies for cues they believe men should take ("understand the assignment" etc) is the notorious "ick" women talk about. I've noticed mention of "The Ick" rising steadily these past few years in the femosphere and it is, IMO, a really good example of how women increasingly treat their narcissism as a virtue.

The crux of "The Ick" discourse is that women have this super advanced instinct to know when something isn't right and it gives them said Ick. And how men need to be deferential toward this and acknowledge its supreme wisdom. The application of The Ick seems to be fairly diverse, with things ranging from video games to certain dress styles among men to a whole bunch of other stuff that's hard to categorize apparently giving many women The Ick.

I find both the base concept of this term and how it's used to be some of the most blatant female narcissism I've ever seen. As recognized by the way this term is named, it's essentially a spur of the moment impulse, like the bare beginnings of a first impression of something that the woman in question just noticed. It simply cannot have that much thought or consideration behind it. But because it's coming from a woman it has to be treated as some sort of divine message from the heavens and that men must take a cue from it to alter their behavior in accordance with The Ick - while the woman must never reconsider, as would any remotely grounded person, the idea that The Ick might just be a kneejerk narrow minded impulse that needs to be tempered with reason and consideration of whatever thing's apparently generated said Ick.

Quite obnoxious discourse in general.

I haven't seen the diagrams so I'm not sure what they even are but 'hip dips' in women are currently being spoken about on social media by various posters in a way that deliberately mirrors female discourse around male height. And while this obviously includes the nasty, overt and intentional heightshaming, it also extends to how women who don't overtly or intentionally heightshame men talk about the issue and how they believe men should react to or feel about it. And that is where things get interesting.

Now, the hip dips trollers, professing solidarity against hiplet shaming, will say "uplifting" things the crux of which is that girls with hip hips are "hiplet queens" that shouldn't let it bother them, and that showing insecurity about it is a them problem, that they should compensate for it with their personality, that they might be hiplets but they can be spiritually hourglass figure. Obvious parallels to common female talking points about the heightshaming of guys.

Reactions from women to these talking points - which, again, absolutely mirror their own directed at guys in the heightshaming context - are not only funny in how they fail to detect the irony, but also very telling about just how entrenched their double standards are when it comes to social justice for men vs women.

You see, these reactions contain significant alarm at how the hip dips trollers' "hiplet-positivity" seemingly neglects treating hiplet-shaming as an issue that requires a social justice response. As in, addressing the prejudice.

Now let's turn to female discourse on heightshaming men. Once again, just to remind, we're obviously not talking about the heightshamers themselves, but the women who don't do that and are discussing this phenomenon with guys and giving them "advice" on how to deal with. These women are basically the ones that show up when they see men discussing this topic and have that air of "I'm trying to help" condescension, even if they are not intentionally putting it on. Let's look at their common talking points which revolve more or less around this:

"Stop complaining about it, you're being insecure/it makes you look insecure" i.e., identifies the guy feeling insecure about being shamed for aspects of his being outside his control as the problem - not the shaming itself - and advocate a 'solution' (stop complaining) for that problem. Completely and utterly precluded is the idea that heightshaming should be not only silenced, but addressed at any broader level whatsoever. No social justice for you + you are still the problem.

This is basically the crux of the common talking points from women on this matter and you can see the stark contrast between it versus how they're reacting to the 'hip dips' stuff right now. And how they gladly endorsed "body positivity" for overweight women as a social justice imperative in the past.

So, I made a post suggesting the formation of a central kind of space to counteract the persistent phenomenon of feminist writers shoehorning their ideological dogma into games and butchering beloved IPs, but I somehow managed to forget to mention the one thing that's pushed me to actually take this from something I think about to something I suggest be acted on so I deleted it. That thing is Gen Z.

Millennial and boomer and Gen X men have all, in every conceivable way, acceded to or failed to stop feminism's advance through academia, government, mass media, culture and basically everything. This is because their historical 'opposition' to feminism was always quite shallow; "women should raise kids men should work" type basic bitch conservative babble. And feminism's just gotten immensely powerful all throughout because its most critique-worthy aspects (misandry) somehow went ignored in favour of that babble so the type of critique that could directly undercut feminists' ability to guilt-trip their way into influential positions in industries like gaming ("what, you don't want EQUALITY?") simply never took off.

Enter Gen Z.

Gen Z are different since their coming-of-age is coinciding with what is a sharp spike in misandrist feminism across the board. Gen Z is also a generation where acceptability of gaming as a legit hobby worth talking about and taking seriously is at its unprecedented peak. Additionally, from what I've observed overall, Gen Z are far less concerned with the LARPish conservative critiques of feminism (again, that silly gender roles formula they treat as some sort of sacred thing) and far more ready to call out the misandry. And feminists never do well with that critique, their reactions are hysteric and expose them in a way no conservative or right winger could ever do so properly.

I feel like there's a blank slate to work with, and I feel like unprecedented momentum could be garnered toward this cause such as has never been the case before.

So there it is. Curious about whether anyone else shares this cautious optimism.

The Witcher got a Netflix show and a feminist lead writer fucked it up. House of the Dragon was fucked up by a lead feminist writer too. Yes these are TV shows but let's face it, gamers are into this stuff regardless of the medium they experience it through (gaming vs watching). And then, of course, the spirit of Anita Sarkissian i.e., the misandrist who tried to fuck gaming up wayyy before any of the examples I just gave transpired, lives on.

And while there's plenty of blowback, there doesn't seem to be like one organized space dedicated toward hosting discourse that opposes this trend. I dunno maybe it's just me but doesn't anyone else think that having like a large Discord server or something of the sort for this purpose and trying to grow it would be a good idea?

Seen this numerous times in feminist communities. Some uppercase "I hate men" rant by a feminist, usually a radfem and a younger one, that contains advocacy for violence against men/boys and the like - and the responses by the less extreme feminists will literally be "you're still centering men too much". It looks so baffling, like they're simply not allowed to just say that males shouldn't be generalized as deserving of whatever horrid things the rants wish upon them - they need to still make men/boys/males the problem somehow. Instead of "that's fucked up, you can't just say that about guys in general", it's "nooo you're still centering them too much".

It's a quite solid example of how normalized misandry is in feminist spaces, and how firm the boundaries are vis a vis humanizing their favorite 'enemy' collective too much.

Twitter article I recently came across that attacks the common underpinning assumptions to all of the 'Pills' (Redpill, Blackpill etc) as well as modern 'evopsych' explanations for women's choosiness in dating as well as its extents. I thought it was interesting in how much of each of these different schools of thought it offers an alternative view from, including from their shared feminist/bluepill rivals.

To me as someone tagged 'No Pill', this article does something very important in that it goes against the current trend of needlessly burrowing into the depths of evopsych to explain trends rooted entirely in superficiality and recent, unprecedented environments as well as ludicrously treating humankind, especially modern humankind, as driven by biological instinct in exactly the same way animals are.

For whatever reason, this 'third' viewpoint is kind of hard to find in spaces like this so I figured it was worth sharing here. I'm only going to post two sections since the whole thing exceeds the character limit allowed here.

.

Dethroning Female Mate Choice: The Myth of Female Omnipotence in Human Mating

"The woman is by nature meant to be obedient." — Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women (Parerga and Paralipomena, 1851).

It is amusing how otherwise intelligent academics continue to propagate an intellectually bankrupt notion of female superiority in mate choice as if it were some immutable law of nature rather than a fictitious narrative shaped by the bigotry of their own time.

"Woman is the dominant sex. Men have to do all sorts of stuff to prove that they are worthy of woman’s attention." — Camille Paglia (attributed).

"Again, the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; and the one rules, and the other is ruled." — Aristotle, Politics (c. 350 BCE).

Both quotes reflect the intellectual and cultural bigotry of their eras. Aristotle’s pronouncement was embedded in the patriarchal structures of ancient Greek society, where women were legally and socially subordinate, denied citizenship, and viewed as intellectually and morally inferior.

Schopenhauer’s 19th-century essay On Women similarly echoed the Victorian-era view of female subordination as natural and inevitable, dismissing women’s intellectual capacities while justifying male dominance. The Paglia-attributed quote, though modern, recycles the same hierarchical framing in the language of contemporary cultural criticism.

Today, the same pattern persists in evolutionary psychology and popular science: a female-supremacist undertone that over-emphasizes female mate choice as omnipotent while downplaying male selectivity, parental control, sexual conflict, and mutual dynamics.

This is not objective science but the intellectual bankruptcy of our time. Ideologically convenient, politically resonant, and thoroughly refuted by the full empirical record (Winegard et al., 2018; Garcia-Sifuentes & Maney, 2021; Rosenthal & Ryan, 2022).

Debunking the Extrapolation of Last-60-Years Data to All Human Evolution: Modern Environments Do Not Represent 95% of Our Evolutionary History

The claim that evolutionary data from the last 60 years can be extrapolated to all human evolution is methodologically indefensible. Post-1960s environments, reliable contraception, antibiotics, welfare systems, dating apps, delayed marriage, and globalised consumer culture, are ecologically novel and have dramatically altered the fitness consequences of casual sex (Garcia et al., 2012; Regnerus, 2017). Buss’s (1989) 37-culture study and subsequent sexual strategies theory work were conducted almost entirely in this anomalous window, yet are routinely treated as direct windows into Pleistocene psychology (Buss, 2017). Eastwick et al. (2014) showed that once modern confounds are controlled, apparent sex differences shrink dramatically (Eastwick et al., 2014).

Birth control and reliable contraception are the single largest ecological novelty. Before the pill, any sexual encounter carried a realistic risk of pregnancy with life-altering consequences for the man: immediate social sanctions, forced marriage or financial responsibility, damage to existing coalitions and alliances, and loss of future mating opportunities in small tribal bands where reputation travelled quickly (Betzig, 2012; Voland & Engel, 1990; Courtiol et al., 2012).

In ancestral environments men had far less energy to be “sex crazed” because daily survival, hunting, foraging, warfare, and coalition maintenance, consumed the majority of caloric and cognitive resources (Hill & Hurtado, 1996; Marlowe, 2010). Modern creature comforts, abundant calories, and reduced survival pressure free up mental bandwidth for short-term mating that simply did not exist for most of human history.

Consequences of getting a woman pregnant pre-contraception were severe. In small bands, an unintended pregnancy could fracture alliances between kin groups, trigger revenge violence, or force the man into long-term investment he could not afford, reducing his lifetime reproductive success (Apostolou, 2007; Walker et al., 2011). STDs carried high mortality and infertility risks with no antibiotics (Puts, 2016). Reputation damage could lead to ostracism or exclusion from cooperative hunting and protection networks, directly lowering survival odds (Chagnon, 1988).

These high-stakes costs made men far more reluctant and selective in casual encounters than today’s low-cost environment suggests. Cross-cultural research conducted in a globalised world has limited scope for claiming biological universals. When the same modern influences (media, contraception, urbanisation) spread across populations, similarity across “cultures” often reflects shared cultural exposure rather than pure biology (Henrich et al., 2010).

Most samples are WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic), which are psychological outliers on many dimensions and cannot be assumed to represent ancestral humanity (Henrich et al., 2010; Zentner & Mitura, 2012). Schmitt’s (2005) 48-nation study is frequently cited, yet the nations sampled were already heavily influenced by global media and contraceptive access; the data therefore reflect a narrow slice of recent history, not deep evolutionary time.

In summary, modern data cannot be extrapolated to 95% of human evolutionary history. Pre-contraceptive environments imposed massive costs on casual sex, survival demands limited sexual opportunism, and globalised cross-cultural samples largely capture shared cultural novelty rather than invariant biology. The modest sex differences observed today are heavily amplified by ecological mismatch, not evidence of female omnipotence across deep time.

Ideological Influences and Gynocentric Tendencies in the Popularization of Mate Choice Research Undermine Objectivity

The persistence of female-omnipotence narratives despite a large body of contradictory evidence reflects pervasive tendencies in how sex-difference findings are interpreted, emphasized, and disseminated in psychology, popular science, media summaries, and textbooks. These tendencies systematically favor interpretations that portray female agency and choosiness as dominant while downplaying male selectivity, kin control, sexual conflict, and mutual mate choice.

Garcia-Sifuentes and Maney (2021) in eLife documented widespread misreporting and methodological weaknesses in sex-difference research across the biological sciences. Researchers frequently claim sex-specific effects without performing the proper statistical tests to compare males and females directly (missing interaction tests in more than 70% of cases). This laxity makes it easy to overstate or selectively highlight differences that align with popular gynocentric narratives.This pattern is amplified by broader psychological and cultural biases.

The well-established “Women Are Wonderful” effect (Eagly & Mladinic, 1989, 1994) shows that both men and women tend to evaluate women more positively than men as a group, a general pro-female halo that is stronger and more consistent than the reverse. Evolutionary psychologist Steve Stewart-Williams and colleagues have demonstrated how this positivity bias shapes reactions to scientific findings on sex differences. In multiple studies (Stewart-Williams et al., 2022; see also Stewart-Williams, 2024 on the harm hypothesis), participants reacted significantly more negatively to fictitious research reporting male-favoring sex differences than to equivalent female-favoring differences.

Male-favoring findings were judged lower in quality, seen as more harmful (especially to women), and more deserving of criticism or even censorship. The effect was stronger among people higher in the Women Are Wonderful effect and among those leaning politically left. Stewart-Williams and Thomas (2013) further argued that even within evolutionary psychology itself, a lingering attachment to the traditional “males compete, females choose” (MCFC) model has led to an over-emphasis on female mate choice and male short-term promiscuity, while under-appreciating mutual mate choice, substantial male choosiness, and female intrasexual competition in humans. This internal distortion, combined with the external reception bias documented in Stewart-Williams’ later work, helps explain why narratives of female gatekeeping power persist and spread more readily than evidence of symmetry.

Del Giudice (2023) has similarly shown that egalitarian and feminist frameworks dominant in much of psychology create systematic pressures: findings that appear to empower women or fit victimhood/agency narratives receive more prominence, while results highlighting male advantages, greater male variability, or bidirectional sexual strategies often face greater skepticism or receive less attention. Media, textbooks, and popular summaries amplify the skew by disproportionately headlining “women are choosier” findings while burying qualifiers about context, male selectivity, parental control, and mutual dynamics (Ponseti et al., 2022).

This pattern echoes Victorian-era idealizations of women as morally and reproductively superior, now repackaged in evolutionary language (Ellis, 1894; Hrdy, 1981; Milam, 2010). The result is a distorted scientific narrative that privileges ideological comfort and gynocentric framing over the full empirical record. It sustains myths about female omnipotence in mate choice long after meta-analyses, phylogenetic data, ethnographic records, and mutual mate choice research have shown human mating to be fundamentally interdependent and bidirectional (Rosenthal & Ryan, 2022; Eastwick et al., 2014; Buss & Schmitt, 2019).

These mechanisms, statistical misreporting, the Women Are Wonderful effect, asymmetric reactions to male- vs. female-favoring findings, and lingering MCFC bias, collectively undermine objectivity and keep the intellectually bankrupt notion of female supremacy in mate choice alive in popular discourse.

The title's a bit convoluted I know, but it was necessary to include my main premise in there. I believe that the predominant notion of what makes someone a 'real man' popular among boomer and older millennial men is very gynocentric in a way that most of them don't understand or realize, and that this is has long incubated the more misandrist strains of feminist discourse & activity against awareness, critique and pushback.

Basically, the only opposition to feminism they approve of is the shallow, pointless one, like bemoaning how feminism supposedly undid the nuclear family (seen for some reason as some kind of inviolable ancient sanctity by many of these types, who fall broadly under conservative or right wing categorization) or how it supposedly makes men feminine (again, quite vague/shallow talking points) or something. Their solutions - again, quite shallow and naive - are to 'just be a man'; just be big and muscular and women will complement your masculinity by 'becoming feminine again' and people will marry and create le nuclear families and the sacred balance is restored. They do the same thing with money and professional/financial success: 'beat' feminism by becoming a rich man alpha (after which women will of course stop being feminists and fall on your dick happily).

So, when Gen Z men in particular complain about misandry - which has become way more widespread in their present, formative years (20s and 30s) than it was during boomers' and older millennials' - and reject the 'be a real man' solution to this problem for how deluded and ridiculous, they are called pussies by their older counterparts. Which, of course, means that any complaints about misandry will have them label mega-pussies since what kind of real man lets that get to him (could make a case for this if it were just limited to verbal/discourse terms but the size and extent of misandry means it is capable of having systemic and institutional impact that affects lives).

What paves the way for this transition is the objectively worsening RoI for Gen Z men when it comes to several of the 'become a real man' pursuits that boomers and older millennials push: run a successful business, ascend the corporate ladder, buy big fancy cars, be super extroverted hit third-places like bars, clubs and the like. Jobs don't pay as well and are more exploitative, economy's always bad, the proliferation of satisfying at-home hobbies like gaming makes less outside social mobility more tolerable and so on. "Gen Z men are tuning out of society" is something we've all been hearing for a while.

I feel that a new cultural divide is arising over this. And it's a good thing. If Gen Z men can truly leave the deluded gynocentrist faux-masculinity that's plagued modern culture for half a century now, they might be the first generation of modern males who actually properly gives misandry the reaction it merits.

And, more importantly, actually do something about the advance of misandrist feminism into niches, spaces and contexts where their older counterparts found no issue with dwindling male participation since they weren't in line with their narrow gynocentrist notion of masculinty (e.g., the TV industry, anything artistic, that kind of stuff).

This is where I feel there's some optimism to be had. Boomers and older millennial men have basically ceded everything to feminists, who in turn shelter misandrists, because of just how narrow their idea of a man's role in society is. Misandrists made huge strides in academia, the film industry, the world of literature, everything: you name it. On the other hand, Gen Z guys are more online so they're more into reading, researching and the like.

Wanted to share these thoughts of mine on the present state of things vis a vis the generations and misandry/feminism. As always, curious to hear others' thoughts.

I've been reading up on multiple regression modelling and see it as something I could potentially use to analyze past campaign data to extract insights that inform the settings we tune for future campaigns - with the purpose of, of course, maximizing ROAS.

Your model's only as good as the predictor variables you choose to include in it, and there's a LOT of Google Ads metrics that could go in there. I mean when you click on 'Add Column' in the reports there's like 50+.

So I wanted to ask around a bit and see what the consensus is on this; aside from, ofc, conversions, ad spend, SIS etc, what all have you guys been incorporating into your predictive models?

The logic, one man's bad actions should be associated with all males' since they share the same biological sex.

90k likes. Feminism is one big hate cult at this point. I also see these bioessentialist takes being especially popular among younger women so it's a big radicalization issue but hey let's not make documentaries about that.

Basically, I wanna use savings to try and build some sort of presence abroad. EU/NA/any region. But I don't know my options and don't know where to begin. I'm thinking something similar to those property investment for citizenship schemes. I don't even have a number in mind for the investment, like let's say 35-50 lac as a tentative number to work with.

Anyone got any ideas? I feel this could be an interesting discussion to have for those sick of the typical study ---> work route.

She's a British actress and feminist with 4.23 million followers on Instagram, and not even of the 'radical' bent. She partakes in fairly mainstream liberal cosmopolitan activism and discourse, like migrant/refugee rights, veganism and so on. So, this isn't some Andrea Dworkin type of feminist.

Jameel posts bioessentialist hate against men fairly often; there's a "men's violence" collection (of stories? I dunno what it's called) on her Instagram. This is, of course, completely generic to the most mainstream of feminism; feminists largely talk about "men" without adding any specifiers next to it that would give us reason to believe that they're not peddling collective guilt.

However, after the now notorious '62 million rape academy' hoax from two or three weeks, Jamil reacted extremely strongly and went on a fresh tirade against not just men - but men and boys, and repeatedly emphasized the 'and boys' part in her wording so it was clear what she was saying. She declared that men and boys had declared war against all femalekind.

The concept of collective guilt and bioessentialism was rife in her rants. She claimed that men as a whole have "said nothing" about rape and sex trafficking rings and demanded that men micromanage their lives, like what podcasts they listen to for example, to account for feminist sensitivities. There was also some bizarrely threatening speak about how "women are building their lives and we'll do it without you if you don't speak up", reminding men that they are lonely and women aren't.

But that wasn't as disturbing to me as the "tell boys not to rape" part. I mean, help me out a bit here; is it not extreme misandry to insinuate that boys, i.e., children, who often barely know what sex is let alone sexual assault, need to be told "don't rape or kill anyone tonight"? Is there truly that little distance between a normal boy and a potential rapist?

Is this misandry? What are the thoughts of the people on this sub?

https://preview.redd.it/n2q2ppd5ph0h1.png?width=431&format=png&auto=webp&s=feb1c9b9162b92e13011d2658a8c91d281cfa80c

https://preview.redd.it/pzw8s9daoh0h1.png?width=955&format=png&auto=webp&s=937677503a246ec2d8b6b645a8904682fd380b46