TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

Misandry knows no bounds - kangaroo culling program permits only males to be killed, even though females keep increasing numbers by breeding.

[deleted]

September 29, 2015
0 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/queensland/desperate-shire-applies-for-kangarooproof-fences-20150929-gjx56x.html
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Misandry knows no bounds - kangaroo culling program permits only males to be killed, even though females keep increasing numbers by breeding.
Author

[deleted]

Upvotes 0
Comments 20
Date September 29, 2015 8:23 AM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3mt6oc/misandry_knows_no_bounds_kangaroo_culling_program/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/misandry-knows-no-bounds-kangaroo-culling-program.970447
https://theredarchive.com/post/970447
Red Pill terms in post
misandry

Comments

[–]TheRavenousRabbit 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

No, this isn't misandry. It's basic ecological cultivation/preservation strategy, this is a functional model for many hunting populations in the world.

Edit: You're drawing wide non-applicable uses for the word 'misandry' and you're dilluting the term as a result. Yes, only the males are killed but here's the gist; They're not human.

Misandry doesn't apply.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

If the underlying motivation is the hatred of men, it is misandry, even if the target is animals.

It's basic ecological cultivation/preservation strategy

No it isn't, there is only one reliable control knob on a population, and that is the fertility and proportion of females. But targeting and killing females would send ecofeminazis into a rage so they just take the inefficient and short term strategy of killing males, because in a misandrist society, that earns brownie points.

[–]TheRavenousRabbit -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Yes, it is... Dude, you can't just say "No it isn't" without giving me a counter argument. This isn't how logic nor debate works.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The argument is simple - killing off males has no impact on population growth or reproduction. It has no sustainable effect, unlike reducing the numbers of breeding females.

Sorry I missed the part where you made any kind of argument at all...maybe you dont have one.

[–]TheRavenousRabbit -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Yes... It has a direct impact on population. The very fact that you kill a male means that there is one less individual. However... It does not impact reproduction and that is the very idea.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I said population growth you fucking troll.

[–]Edg3Crusher 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Why would you want to reduce population WITHOUT affecting population growth? If you only reduce population without reducing growth, you'll be back to this same situation in a short period of time, and you'll end up having to kill more kangaroos in the future.

[–]TheRavenousRabbit 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you reduce the population to solve the problem momentarily, while producing a hunting habitat. This hunting habitat encourages genetic diversity and 'culls the herd'.

The idea is to create a sustainable situation. If you kill the females, you don't get a sustainable situation.

[–]lethatis 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Could you explain why you think this, please? I would think that population growth is limited by the female population, since a limited number of males can still "get around".

[–]TheRavenousRabbit 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

You can limit a population by killing males, reducing their numbers in that way. This is of course, as you mention, a short term solution to the problem but that is the idea in the very first place.

You want the solution to be a short term problem.

There are several benefits with only killing males of a certain population.

  • 1: It keeps numbers down, while keeping the population potential high. This leads to a situation where you can have an ecologically stable population while encouraging hunting. This brings in revenue in various forms while safeguarding the future of the specific species we're talking about.

  • 2: Killing the females does limit the population, yes, but it also drastically lowers the population potential for a new growth spurt. Leaving you in a situation where one drought, one famine, disease or etc will leave to an extreme decline in numbers. If there are many females compared to males around, that population can recover quickly after the danger has passed. Considering the current global catastrophe our ecological systems are under, it's a good idea to do this as to safeguard the population potential of specific animals that we hunt.

  • 3: By having a short term solution to the problem you create a recycling process of hunting, bringing in revenue, while keeping the population safe from any major problems that it might come across. This short term solution to the population only affects the population, not the population potential and that is absolutely crucial to the whole situation.

This has left a country, like Sweden, with a industrialized country with a large and healthy moose population while having a very large hunting industry that brings in revenue. Not only that but it's also supports a genetically healthy population.

There's a ton more to this but there's a very good reason for why you only hunt males in the animal kingdom.

[–]blueoak9 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

You can limit a population by killing males, reducing their numbers in that way.

This is backwards. The birthrate is a function of female fecundity. that's who you cull if you want to limit a population.

[–]TheRavenousRabbit 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

100 - 20 = 80.

No matter whether those 20 individuals are female or male, you reduce the population for the time being.

[–]blueoak9 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Yes, that's true. The issue though is the breeding capacity of that population. If you kill 99 males and leave all the females, you can have 50 young born then next year. If you kill 25 females and 99, you're only going to have 75 young born the next year. When you are trying to control a populations size you think beyond one generation.

[–]TheRavenousRabbit 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The idea is that the population SHOULD recover. So you can begin the cycle again... Because it brings in revenue and not only that, it keeps the population healthy. The idea is to make it a perpetual cycle of hunting, breeding and etc. That creates a situation where you have a population that can be culled at necessity but still is able to recuperate quickly, as to not endanger the continuation of that specific group.

[–]blueoak9 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well then that makes sense, because culling the males will in fact curtail breeding. It's isn't actually the case that one male is going to breed 50 females. I don't think kangaroos actually breed like that - maybe several females to one dominant male, but nothing like fifty.

Okay, I see what you're saying.

[–]aussietoads 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you've ever come face to face with a big male Red Kangaroo in the wild you'd understand why people fear for their safety. They are huge and they are aggressive, and one sweep of either of their feet could tear you open if it made contact.

[–]TR6Cool -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I agree absolutely not misandry but it is strange that only males were killed. If you were going to deplete a population rapidly I would have thought killing the females would be much faster.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It makes the problem worse, as there are fewer big males to compete with for scarce food, meaning the females can eat more and breed more.

[–]TheRavenousRabbit 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

The idea isn't to permanently decrease the numbers, only in the short term. Destroying population potential can be absolutely disastrous to an animal species. This is one of the reasons why women are a protected class in human society but that is besides the point.

[–]mikesteane -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Down-voted because we've got better things to discuss than this.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter