The Emotional Pedestal and Sympathetic Manipulation

She doesn’t love you. She loves her idea of you. This may be a close approximation of you, but it isn’t you and it never will be. She doesn’t want to see your humanity; it’s unsightly and weak. It will never match her idea of you. She loves the value you provide. She loves to believe in your leadership, and to rely on your conviction. This isn’t you, even if it’s a close approximation. You will never match the idea she has of you, and when this idea becomes damaged beyond repair, she will leave you if she has other options or resent you if she doesn’t.

This is the true Red Pill a modern man must swallow. This isn’t about Feminism, or modernity, or promiscuity; this is age old. Women do not love sympathetically. The Red Pill is the modern man’s burden like understanding the reality of death is the human burden. The Red Pill was not necessary in a time when the Western World was constructed in a manner that allowed for male naivety; a naive man meant a happy man meant a productive man.

A girl I dated a few years ago had a mother who was extraordinary ugly. She was short, and fat, with a face full of warts, and a little boy crew cut. She was disgusting and annoying. On some level I feel it necessary to mention that the girl I dated was adopted; this horrifying woman did not bear her own children. When I would join the girls and their mother (the father had skipped town) at holiday events hosted by family friends, this woman would often break down in tears at the table and would need to be consoled. This happened with such regularity that I knew it was coming in the minutes before it started, like the crisp air that precedes a rain storm. Her breakdown happened in the interim between dinner and dessert, while the coffee was brewing.

This woman was a drain on everyone around her, but she still garnered tremendous attention and constant favors. This was because she understood her place as the ugly woman. The ugly woman is able to play on the sympathetic tendencies of the people around her, and exploit them for gain. Any woman beyond hope of being viewed as average should have an inherit understanding of how to exploit the sympathies of those around her, even if they aren’t conscious of this methodology- like how a child learns to manipulate their parents.

In The Satanic Witch (1970), Anton LaVey describes the dynamics of the above scenario, which I term Ugly Girl Game:

The truly ugly girl has others at a disadvantage, because rather than hurt her feelings, they will do things for her out of guilt. If you are homely and light-hearted and call others’ attention to it, they will think you are a swell sport, talk about what a shame it is behind your back and try to avoid appearing patronizing in your presence…

If you are strange looking and act like you don’t really think so, trying to look as much like others as possible, they will still talk behind your back but a little more cruelly. When you are in their presence their guilt at having done so… will cause them to be extremely patronizing. Neither of these patterns really gains you respect, only sympathy.

While I don’t entirely agree with LaVey, reading this as a teenager served as my introduction to Ugly Girl Game and sympathetic manipulation. The mistake LaVey makes is in assuming that women need respect. Respect is a man’s game; it is useless to a woman. Women only need an avenue to manipulate; if a woman is on the desirable end of the attraction spectrum, she will ooze value and be able to manipulate men and woman by her mere existence. Women in the middle will develop manipulative tactics that play on her aesthetic strengths and ability to garner sympathy. The ugly girl will only have sympathy to exploit, and will come to rely on it.

Respect is a man’s game. Respect is necessary for a man. A man who others are unable to respect will only inspire disgust. A disgusting man will not garner sympathy like a disgusting woman would; he only inspires revulsion and social exclusion. This is why we say that a man’s worth is based on value and a woman’s worth is inherent, because women always have a safety net of sympathy to exploit.

An attractive woman’s game is ultimately to inspire sympathy. A woman will first cast a wide net with her appearance, and then ensnare a desirable man with the promise of sexuality- this step was formerly a display of femininity and domesticity, but inside a culture of promiscuity, women feel the need to slam their cunts on the table with urgency.

Once a man is interested, the female game shifts from attempting to manipulate him sexually to attempting to manipulate him emotionally as she casts herself in a sympathetic light. It will appear that she is a fragile girl lost in a big scary world; that she’s a little bundle of sweetness, with lots of emotions, and all she needs is a big, tough, rugged man to take care of her!

So he shouldn’t be a dick about it and make her cry!

She’s like this really cute puppy begging for attention… are you gonna start beating the shit out of a little puppy?

Most men will fall for this without much prodding. Every part of Western Culture is constructed for a man to buy-into this fantasy; men are not meant to understand this as manipulation. We would not have a functional civilization had men not believed that women are creatures of deep morality and honest simplicity. Women are genuine; women are wonderful. Women need men to protect them from the harsh realities of the world. The world is duplicitous and frightening; women are meant to be kept from this under the protection of a capable man.

There are two things in the world worth more to a man than any sum of money; a positive identity and a dick. Would you trade your dick for a billion dollars? Kind of funny that the same lump of flesh between your legs that you pull on at 3AM while looking at Russian cam girls is worth more to you than an entire Las Vegas casino. Whats the point if you’re not fucking endless sorority girls?

Arguably, a positive male identity is just as important as sex; a man needs to be respected.

The expectation for a man to possess some degree of personal depth is a reaction to the shallow nature of women. There is no true depth to a woman; the reality of woman is that she exists as a facade. A woman will use whatever means available to create the most desirable appearance possible, she will offer her body to a desirable man, and then use her tactics of sympathetic manipulation in order to retain his interest. A woman will only care about her identity in terms of perception; if the people around her perceive her positively, the facade has been a success and no further work is needed.

Men need to feel an authenticity to their depth. Men don’t want to be handed the gold medal, men want to earn it. Winning the lottery would be nice, but a man would much rather earn his wealth. Earned wealth carries with it a deeper meaning. Earned wealth tells the story of the man who earned it; it creates an inherent respect and value for the man.

A man needs to feel respected, a man needs to feel valuable, and a man needs to feel needed. Women use sympathetic manipulation to capitalize on a man’s need for a positive identity.

Ideally a woman would use her aesthetic allure to attract the highest quality male possible, and then use her manipulative skills for good by inspiring this man to reach his full potential. This is the true value of woman and feminine energy. It should not be diminished or erased.

If the modern male naivete is in not understanding the duplicitous and shallow nature of women, the modern female naivete is in believing the myth of the strong, independent woman (the masculine woman). The masculine woman will misunderstand how to attract a high quality male; she will not look to exist in a supporting role. The masculine woman will want to emasculate the men around her and will only attract a beta-male whom she will never truly respect and grow to resent. A masculine woman is a toxic combination of mental damage and horrifying stupidity.

When the masculine woman reaches an age where her looks have diminished to a point where there is no turning back, she will shame the younger generation of women into discarding the attributes that naturally attract men: traditional beauty, girlishness, and femininity. The masculine woman will insist that embodying these attributes is shameful, and only serve to make a woman look unintelligent and unsophisticated. The masculine woman will explain that men do not respect a girl who isn’t trying to emasculate them, and that men are most attracted to women whom they greatly respect.

This is the sexual strategy of the masculine woman. You didn’t really think she believed any of this bullshit, did you? The masculine woman understands that she could never compete with 23-year-old Britney Bigtits, so she uses her power of manipulation to disarm Britney at the gate while trying to convince men that “big firm tits aren’t as hot as life experience.”


So the masculine woman convinces a ton of girls to dye their hair green and act like loud mouth pigs while just enough beta-males believe that being a good man means dating a girl on the decline, which I suppose sounds better to the masculine woman than a lonely life of mental illness.

The masculine woman is embodied by Beyonce’s urban-bachelorette-party anthem “Single Ladies (Put a Ring on it).” There is nothing sexy, charming, or inviting about this song when viewed as a sexual strategy. Thematically the song is promoting using shame to demand commitment- only a beta-male would fall for this, and ultimately this beta-male will be unsatisfying to the masculine woman.

The traditional approach to sympathetic manipulation is seen in Taylor Swift’s charming video for “You Belong With Me.”

If the video emotionally resonates with you, it should. If it leaves you feeling empty and depressed, it should do that too.

Welcome to The Red Pill.

Swift plays a beautiful geek with a heart of gold living next door to a handsome football player with an unreasonable girlfriend. Lyrically, the song is about disqualifying the girlfriend and allowing Swift to win by default:

You’re on the phone with your girlfriend
She’s upset
She’s going off about something that you said
‘Cause she doesn’t get your humor like I do

I’m in my room
It’s a typical Tuesday night
I’m listening to the kind of music she doesn’t like
And she’ll never know your story like I do

The song isn’t about Swift necessarily being the better choice but instead Swift being savvy enough to manipulate the man into thinking that she is. With this, Swift calls attention to her awkward geek status thereby earning sympathy:

She’s cheer captain
And I’m on the bleachers

There is no rational explanation to why this would disqualify the girlfriend, or make Swift seem more desirable… yet it resonates because a sympathetic woman is charming to a man. A sympathetic woman helps bolster a man’s masculine identity. Swift provides the blue print here for manipulating a man to commit.

Notice how geek Swift has no reservations about feeling entitled to a highly desirable man; Swift is certainly not attracted to her male equivalent. She also has nothing to offer beyond being a cute doofus.

Reversing the genders in the above scenario illuminates how a sympathetic approach only works for women. Imagine a man trying to disqualify his sexual competition by saying, “he’s the chief of surgery, and I’m unemployed.” It’s laughable.

The Emotional Pedestal initially meant that a man would stick around long enough to care for his wife beyond her child bearing years. In a world where people remained married ’til death, it wasn’t something a man needed to think about.

The true difference between The Red Pill and The Blue Pill is in the understanding that women are wired to exploit male sympathy. The sad reality of modern living is how vital this information has become.

Follow me on Twitter @KillToParty

Like my post? I accept Bitcoin tips via ChangeTip @


  1. Pingback: The Emotional Pedestal and Sympathetic Manipulation | Reaction Times
  2. Robert · October 13, 2015

    Quite a lot to digest in this post. I have a question about the first two paragraphs. In your opinion how does this change with the age of the woman? Me: late 50s, she: early 50s, amicably divorced, very low N-count, sweet but not a pushover. Financially independent, but struggles to make ends meet. Never asks fot money or favors, but accepts them when offered. What does Red Pill thinking say about this?

    • killtoparty · October 13, 2015

      The short answer is that it doesn’t change- it’s human nature and reality.

      Understanding this aspect of reality may diminish the satisfaction you had previously gotten from it, but it should also help you manage reality in a more efficient manner.

  3. bowler hat · October 13, 2015

    [quote]””A masculine woman is a toxic combination of mental damage and horrifying stupidity””[/quote]

    this is very harsh and made me laugh out loud but i disagree. would we call a blue pill man mentally “damaged and horrifyingly stupid”?
    i would say a masculine woman is as much a product of new-wave feminism as the Nice Guy. it’s a learned behaviour just like nice-guyism.
    she’s been indoctrinated to believe what she’s doing is “correct”. she’s the female equivalent of a blue pill man.

    • killtoparty · October 13, 2015

      It’s complicated but the nice guy is certainly a combination of mental damage, in the form of a severe lack of confidence, and horrifying stupidity.

  4. Ben · October 13, 2015

    good shit but I currently lack the mental focus to read the whole thing. Got up to the quote about the ugly woman sympathy thing. keep it up though. you’ve got a new reader.

  5. Atlanta Man · October 14, 2015

    I enjoyed this because I am around these ball busting bitches constantly. Real shit, the lead guy who runs the program I am in just got engaged to a hot 21 year old girl from Brazil- he is 45. All the men in my program knowingly nod, and congratulate him, all the women resent the fuck out of him. The disdain is palpable from the women, you can feel their hatred. On another note you now have a regular new reader, please post as often as possible. Cheers!

  6. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2015/10/11) | The Reactivity Place
  7. steve · October 19, 2015

    “once a man is interested, the female game shifts from attempting to manipulate him sexually to attempting to manipulate him emotionally as she casts herself in a sympathetic light. It will appear that she is a fragile girl lost in a big scary world; that she’s a little bundle of sweetness, with lots of emotions, and all she needs is a big, tough, rugged man to take care of her!”

    ahh this paragraph hurt me so badly from memories of falling for this schtick. you nailed exactly what they do so neatly

    count another regular reader earned

    • Liam · August 12, 2016

      Yeah, this exact same thing recently happened to me. What would you suggest doing when a girl does this?

  8. Tarnished · November 24, 2015

    Once a man is interested, the female game shifts from attempting to manipulate him sexually to attempting to manipulate him emotionally as she casts herself in a sympathetic light. It will appear that she is a fragile girl lost in a big scary world; that she’s a little bundle of sweetness, with lots of emotions, and all she needs is a big, tough, rugged man to take care of her!
    It makes me sick to know this level of manipulation exists.

    Swift plays a beautiful geek with a heart of gold living next door to a handsome football player with an unreasonable girlfriend. Lyrically, the song is about disqualifying the girlfriend and allowing Swift to win by default
    Of course it is. It’s a song about being Friendzoned.

    A man needs to feel respected, a man needs to feel valuable, and a man needs to feel needed.
    This should be obvious to anyone with half a brain. However, it is not a solely masculine trait to need respect or to feel needed/valuable. People born as women require these things as well…or at least some of us do. I cannot and will not speak for the majority, which you have covered very well here already.

  9. Z · January 9, 2016

    At first I thought, “he’s right, that makes sense”. A lot of what you said DOES make sense for many relationships. But then I thought about it properly and tried to apply your theories to actual real relationships I have observed in real life. You are missing a big chunk of the story. Some women do (mostly unconsciously) evoke sympathy in men, which helps hold together a male-female romantic relationship. But wait, men also evoke sympathy in women, and this too holds together the relationship. For example, when I think of my parents marriage, my mum has become attached to my dad like how you might become attached to a puppy. Even though my dad is not some hyper-masculine, rich, Brad Pitt lookalike, they have stayed together through thick and thin. They’ve had many bad patches, that’s for sure, but they have become emotionally and sympathetically attached to each other. My mum thinks of my dad in a fond manner, she puts on a babyish voice when talking about him and she says things like “Awwww” in regards to him.

    I don’t think it would be a very happy or long marriage if only the husband saw his wife in a sympathetic way. The wife needs to form these feelings towards the husband too, or she’d just be happier single and caring for herself. Myself, I could not be with a man who I didn’t see in an emotional way. Why do you think women refer to desirable men or men they are attracted to as “cute”? A puppy or kitten is cute, not the Red Pill ideal of the perfect man who work out for 6 hours a day and negs women.
    Also, even within platonic friendships, we form similar kind of sympathies towards each other that keeps us bonded.

    Of course, because of evolution, the roles of men and women are naturally different. For instance, women naturally cry more than men, due to differences in hormones. When transgender men transition to become a “woman”, they find that taking the female hormones causes them to cry more. Some say it is almost nice because when they were a man, they were unable to cry even if they wanted to, even if they were extremely upset and agitated about something. Probably crying does serve an evolutionary function of evoking sympathy for women from other women and women.

    But surely there would also be an evolutionary purpose for men evoking sympathy and attachment from women. It does not make any sense for evolution to have made it so only women evoke the sympathy of men. In order to ensure the male-female pair-bond stay together, to increase survival rates of any children they have, women also need to have positive emotions/sympathy/attachment to their male mate. Human evolution has generally not favoured hyper-aggressive men, because the process of human childrearing is a slow arduous one which requires a gentle, patient, but capable, father who will stick around to hunt and care for his offspring.

  10. Z · January 9, 2016

    Also, thought about this a bit more, and I could almost rewrite your first paragraph…

    He doesn’t love you. He loves his idea of you. This may be a close approximation of you, but it isn’t you and it never will be. He doesn’t want to see your humanity; it’s unsightly, unfeminine and embarrassing. It will never match his idea of you. He loves the sexual and aesthetic value you provide. He loves to believe in your feminine qualities of sweetness, nurturance and submissiveness, and to rely on your unwavering tolerance. This isn’t you, even if it’s a close approximation. You will never match the idea he has of you, and when this idea becomes damaged beyond repair, he will leave you if he has other options or resent you if he doesn’t (and join the Red Pill…).

    Not man-hating, just putting a female spin on this. This is why many women remain single, because they just can’t be this ultra sweet, cotton-candy woman that men are raised expecting us to be. Have you seen 500 days of summer?

    Also, check out the Cool Girl rant from Gone Girl, obviously a story about a deranged-ass woman, but there is some hints of truth to her rant. It presents a different idealised view he might have of you which is ultimately impossible for you to live up to:

    “Cool Girl. Men always say that as the defining compliment, don’t they? She’s a cool girl. Being the Cool Girl means I am a hot, brilliant, funny woman who adores football, poker, dirty jokes, and burping, who plays video games, drinks cheap beer, loves threesomes and anal sex, and jams hot dogs and hamburgers into her mouth like she’s hosting the world’s biggest culinary gang bang while somehow maintaining a size 2, because Cool Girls are above all hot. Hot and understanding. Cool Girls never get angry; they only smile in a chagrined, loving manner and let their men do whatever they want. Go ahead, shit on me, I don’t mind, I’m the Cool Girl.

    Men actually think this girl exists. Maybe they’re fooled because so many women are willing to pretend to be this girl. For a long time Cool Girl offended me. I used to see men – friends, coworkers, strangers – giddy over these awful pretender women, and I’d want to sit these men down and calmly say: You are not dating a woman, you are dating a woman who has watched too many movies written by socially awkward men who’d like to believe that this kind of woman exists and might kiss them. I’d want to grab the poor guy by his lapels or messenger bag and say: The bitch doesn’t really love chili dogs that much – no one loves chili dogs that much! And the Cool Girls are even more pathetic: They’re not even pretending to be the woman they want to be, they’re pretending to be the woman a man wants them to be. Oh, and if you’re not a Cool Girl, I beg you not to believe that your man doesn’t want the Cool Girl. It may be a slightly different version – maybe he’s a vegetarian, so Cool Girl loves seitan and is great with dogs; or maybe he’s a hipster artist, so Cool Girl is a tattooed, bespectacled nerd who loves comics. There are variations to the window dressing, but believe me, he wants Cool Girl, who is basically the girl who likes every fucking thing he likes and doesn’t ever complain. (How do you know you’re not Cool Girl? Because he says things like: “I like strong women.” If he says that to you, he will at some point fuck someone else. Because “I like strong women” is code for “I hate strong women.”)”
    ― Gillian Flynn, Gone Girl

    Again, just to clarify, I’ve never considered myself as a feminist, I’m not man-hating, this is just the other side of the coin really to the view presented in your post.

  11. Pingback: Everything as Sexual Strategy and Ugly Harper Lee | Kill to Party
  12. B_Tampa · March 3, 2017

    I’ll never understand the weakness for women crying. Maybe it makes sense for a schoolboy to be susceptible to that, but a grown man? Haven’t we all seen them cry over almost any kind of nonsense? How can something so common and so meaningless still be compelling?

    My favorite is when one woman says of another in a serious hushed tone, “She was crying,” as if that’s some sort of emergency! It’s ridiculous. Stop falling for it. When a woman cries, I am not the least bit moved. Out of politeness, I do my best not to look as repulsed as I am – but I never know how successful it is.

  13. Daughter of Satan · 18 Days Ago

    Relationships are not everything; at least not for Me…

    I have nothing in common with humanity; as the only consort fit for Me is Horus.

    Thus My ability to grasp the male (or even the female) need for “companionship” is rather limited.

    I incarnated Complete; the idea of “sharing” a “life” with a man seems rather silly…what could he offer; beyond a one night role in the hay as a novelty?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s