Burnout

Structure: ★★★★ Prose: ★ Pacing: ★★★ Intrigue: ★ Logic: ★ Enjoyment: ★Overall Rating: ★★A seemingly well-meaning self help piece that relies too heavily on misrepresenting research findings and leaning on philosophical theories.I'm a woman. I get burnt out. You'd think this would be the perfect book to find some enlightening information on how to cope. Instead, I found myself reading through more of the research the authors cited than the actual book itself, which in its own way burned me out!I don't disagree with a lot of the basic premises of this book. I agree with the Nagoskis' explanation of the stress cycle and how one might break out of it. I agree with the solutions they provide to help relieve stress and find support. I also agree with a lot of the feminist rhetoric they reference throughout the book (yes, the patriarchy [ugh] is real and yes, it can be a contributing factor to any person's stress.) Having said that, the information that I found to be relevant and factual wasn't all that groundbreaking and I'm sure anyone could find a TikTok or YouTube video that explains all the useful information in under 5 minutes. That's really unfortunate considering the shortcomings weighing against the work (in my opinion).Firstly, the prose was infuriating and borderline condescending. It felt very much as if this entire book was written for middle-grade students, not women, especially with the number of Disney references used to explain basic concepts. Ideas were over simplified and spoken in a tone that held 100% conviction in blatantly untrue statements (more on that later) while also somewhat talking down to the reader. The uses of (ugh) with any mention of ‘the patriarchy' and Nietzsche was insane to me. How can these women be hammering feminist philosophy into our heads the entire book yet they cringe every time they mention (and they mention it A LOT) one of feminism's most basic principles? They also provide TLDRs at the end of each chapter, which is an odd choice because it invites the reader to skip ¾'s of their book.My next big issue with the book is the ubiquitous thread of the Human Giver Syndrome (HGS) feminist philosophy used throughout the book to prove every point they make. It's one thing to mention HGS once or twice to drive a point across but I find it troubling that a philosophical theory is the essence of every chapter in this book and is written as absolute truth. Not only do I find it discrediting to use a single theory as the foundation of a mental health self help book, but the idea itself I find hard to support. The theory that all women (and all femmes and people of colour as per the footnote) are virtually born into giving every drop of their existence to checks notes all white men (and I guess all NBs and mascs too since they're not included in the previous footnote). This feels really icky and borderline sexist. I know some may relate to this idea and maybe it even helps some people realize a cycle they're in, but HGS just feels like an easy out; all women are victims to the system and white guys are benefitting off the patriarchy (ugh). The Nagoskis also flip flop between being a Human Giver as a good thing and a bad thing. Inherently, the suggestion is that no one should be a Human Giver because it strips your autonomy and self worth through giving “every drop of your humanity” to another (a man), yet it's also described as a great quality in women because we're therefore more conscientious and caring. When you describe something so visceral as giving your whole humanity to others, I don't know if you can backpaddle and spin it as a cute positive quirk that supposedly every femme and POC possesses. They even go so far as to suggest “[giving your] boys a lesson each day in being a human giver”. You want to teach your child to be codependent? That's not very healthy, and it's strange that we wouldn't just teach our daughters NOT to be human givers, no? I don't relate to HGS and it's definitely not a reason for my burnout, no matter how many times this book tries to affirm that it is. I've only identified with HGS in a past highly abusive and manipulative relationship, so I fear for the women who see this type of relationship to men as the norm.Lastly, but arguably most importantly, the authors misrepresent or straight up give inaccurate information from the sources they cite throughout the book. I read through a few dozen of the sources they cite to validate the accuracy of the information they provide throughout the book and was left very disappointed multiple times. Here are just some of the examples I wrote down:- They mention an article that apparently supports the ‘redistribution of sex' to support incels, yet the actual article (albeit written in a cringy right-wing tone) does suggest that sex should be a human right but is strongly against the idea of ‘redistribution of sex'. Instead the author suggests that decriminalizing sex work and promoting the innovation of sex robots (yeah) can help incels gain access to consensual sex. That's very different than the alarming characterization they made that a major newspaper supported forcing women into sex for incels.- They cite a study in Fiji where young girls watched American TV for the first time and stated that 29% of respondents showed signs of an ED within months. The study only interviewed 30 girls and the questions seemed to be leading the girls into answering that they were willing to diet to look like their favourite characters like Xena and Agent Dana Scully. While I'm sure there is validity to the argument that media changes how we see our bodies, a study of 30 girls in an interview study doesn't feel like a super credible source to hinge an important argument on. Also, 29% of 30 is 8.7 so I'm not sure how they got that percentage...- Later in the chapter they connect TWO sources to the statement, “only a very small fraction of the population can lose weight and sustain that weight loss through diet and exercise, establishing a new defended weight.” The first source is an “anti-obesity drug study” from the 1980's that's main goal was to prove that anti-obesity drugs work better than any other method of weight control after crash dieting. Okay, so not only is this study extremely problematic and antithetical to the Nagoskis' arguments, but they're using it to tell people that exercise and healthy eating won't help them reach any goals they might have? The first problem with this study is that all the participants crash dieted (an extremely unhealthy weight-loss method known to cause people to bounce back to their original weight shortly after), so that alone disregards ‘healthy diet and exercise'. Secondly, the study is aimed at discrediting any other method of weight management in order to promote their drug, however the healthy diet control group DID still see the benefits of a slower weight gain toward their original weight. The second study the Nagoskis cite actually contradicts their statement as well, with the study's conclusion reading, “Several studies using the Aerobic Center Longitudinal Study database have observed that cardiorespiratory fitness level and physical activity level are inversely associated with future weight gain,” meaning that people are less likely to go back to a defended weight as they exercise more. Neither study mentioned anything associated with or similar to a “defended weight”. So why are the Nagoskis telling readers that very few people can succeed in creating a new defended weight (if they want to!) when the studies they cite back to actually prove the opposite, even the problematic one they chose to use for some reason.- The last occurrence I'll mention (there are many more but I must move on with my life) is when the Nagoskis declare that men are more likely to use separate knowing and women are more likely to use connected knowing, and that is why women are Human Givers and men are not. What's really interesting is (drumroll please) that's actually just false! The study they cite for that statement actually says that men and women use both types of ‘knowing' equally, and that social context was more indicative of which gender used a specific type of knowing more. So really, men and women use different types of knowing based on which social groups they're with rather than intrinsically using one or the other more based on gender. I'm really trying not to believe that the authors acted in bad faith and assumed readers wouldn't look into the sources they provided, but the only other explanation for so many misrepresentations and twisting of facts is incompetence, and I just don't think that's much better.In conclusion, I ended up feeling more burnt out after reading this book than when I started. I constantly felt like I was being lied to in order to induce gender-based rage rather than actually addressing everyday reasons for burnout like the political and economic state of the world, international conflict, job instability, cost of living, loneliness, family and friend relationships, physical and mental health conditions, and so much more on top of the basic gender issues the authors single-mindedly hammered home. I was really close to giving this a 1-star but in the end they did give SOME useful and truthful information about breaking the stress cycle that I'm sure some people will find useful.