Goodreads Doesn't Have It, Data Migration: Why I Hate You and You Hate Me
10/1/2025 edit: They need a new word for obliterative envy. That is beyond envy. Obliterative envy is seriously beyond envy. It is seriously horrific. Envy doesn't capture it anymore. Seriously. This is beyond envy.
Just beginning to get through this but it is selling itself as scientific literature, using citations, when most of it is speculative and the narcissistic preformal logic of "reminds me enough of my mom, therefore is my mom" that does massive damage in the world. This kind of psychoanalysis is full of such sloppy thinking of "enough like this person, therefore that person" when there is so much rapport-shattering evidence of severe and unforgiving difference that only the science flunky would ignore. There is little to no citation of many of the most speculative claims that are simply an excuse to hate women and show a broken, low intelligence analytical fragility that can't tell the differences between one woman with certain values and their mother. This is low intelligence, an atrophy of the logical quality in any given sociological environment, and utterly collapsing when it comes to resolving the issues that require this logic to be refined.
If you have ever seen someone with such broken appraisal draw, grotesque contortions emerge when drawing something that make it in no way resemble the original stimulus. This is what is happening here, but on the psychological level. What is known and mastered is mapped inappropriately on what isn't, and creates a grotesque, disturbing and inaccurate caricature of the truth of the situation that would take more time and dedication to cause an accurate appraisal, visually or psychologically, of the situation. I can almost see this person's drawing skill as they write. They have a LOT of work logically to do.
Seriously, when a misogynist tries to find a convenient excuse to hate a woman and blames his mother, genuinely ask him, "Can you tell the difference between this person and your mother?" and if he cannot, the issue is analytical collapse and intellectual disability. That needs to be treated well before any psychological issue and until then real damage can be done when they make unbacked claims on human psychology well divorced from the science.
If you can't tell the difference between your mother and someone who is not your mother, you are analytically challenged enough to be intellectually disabled on the grounds of using preformal logic well past the infant stage. That someone reminded them of their mother when there was profound evidence of difference should no longer be enabled as an excuse for misogyny or crime. It is a sloppy entitlement of using a person as a convenient container for their hate of their mother; they think their hate of their mother comes first instead of this person's life. That is fundamentally morally repulsive and selfish. It is also logically broken. If someone cannot describe meaningful differences between a person and their parent, they are dangerous if they are taking action on it and need to be compartmentalized until their logic and appraisal is not so broken. This book is enabling this. This can't be enabled anymore. I'm going to get through it but this is just sickening that Routledge published something this low caliber logically.