Perhaps that could be called an example of "skilful means" -- if what that means is, "whatever works" -- but I don't remember reading Buddhist doctrine that recommends "hatred" as a motive.
There may be some advice to give about your relationship -- but that's not what you asked about in this question.
I'd say that instead of "hatred", what Buddhism might recommend is "nibbida" -- that's sometimes translated "disgust" -- I think it literally or etymologically means, "without finding", i.e. it's how you feel about something after you try it and find it doesn't satisfy, isn't what you're looking for.
It may occasion detachment from the object.
Beware that "I am superior" or "I am inferior" are examples of what Buddhism calls "conceit" -- see this answer -- and Māna on Wikipedia which warns that it
"makes whatever is suitable ... the basis for disrespecting others and for the occurrence of suffering"
and it's canonically a cause of disputes.
Do you mean disgust for my own behavior or disgust towards them?
From the description, you seem to be "acting out" in a long-term relationship which involves intoxication and blaming. I've been there, but it's difficult for me to tell you about your situation rather than mine. Maybe that's why meetings like Al-Anon can be helpful, people talk about their own experience and as you listen you relate to some of it and so gain insight (into your own). In my experience the relationship isn't great, satisfying -- including disliking people and their behaviour, and having reactive behaviour of my own.
It seemed to me inescapable, one reaction after another and an intransigent partner. It took us decades before rediscovering a better way. But it's difficult to give you any advice without (just) "projecting" from my own experience -- so people sometimes find a "counsellor". Buddhist doctrine might offer general advice, like this. I think that disgust or disenchantment, finding things to be impermanent and suffering, ultimately applies towards a lot of "worldly" behaviour.
You're asking me a binary question, either/or: "Are you saying I should feel disgust towards my behaviour, or towards them?" I think that's a dilemma or a false dilemma. Note that the "middle way" of Buddhism means avoiding extremes -- don't try to grasp the stick by one end or the other, don't get caught on the horns of a false dilemma -- a solution might be elsewhere entirely (like in a different direction or dimension), perhaps along the lines of "Mu".
The question implies identity view -- "me", "them" -- which is maybe not the best theory or model for solving or handling the problem. Buddhism talks about "dependent origination" instead. Western sociology too has some theories about codependency.
Something that's maybe not dissatisfying, maybe the one thing or the first thing identified by Buddhist doctrine, is "absence of remorse" which results from "skilful ethics". I believe that's so. Maybe nibbida and the search for what is more permanently satisfying will result in insights like this taste of nibbana.
I don't know how to share that experience though, which I imagine is the subject of this story, with "the moon" symbolizing enlightenment:
The Moon Cannot Be Stolen
Ryokan, a Zen master, lived the simplest kind of life in a little hut at the foot of a mountain. One evening a thief visited the hut only to discover there was nothing to steal.
Ryokan returned and caught him. "You have come a long way to visit me," he told the prowler, "and you should not return empty-handed. Please take my clothes as a gift."
The thief was bewildered. He took the clothes and slunk away.
Ryoken sat naked, watching the moon. "Poor fellow," he mused, "I wish I could have given him this beautiful moon."
If I'd criticise that story though it would be on this ground -- What is the difference between 'compassion' and 'pity'? -- with "pity" being a conceit.
But ... the Buddhist path is also said to be gradual and begins with ethics (see also "blameless"). I guess that if someone is unethical they may be viewed as being in a hell of their own making.
Hate is a strong word, I might have meant contempt.
Yeah.
You know the Dhammapada starts with,
Hostilities aren't stilled
through hostility,
regardless.
Hostilities are stilled
through non-hostility:
this, an unending truth.
"Contempt" sounds like another form of conceit, i.e. it is a "comparison", e.g. "they are relatively lowly".
So far as I know, instead, Buddhism recommends the four brahma-viharas as appropriate for social relationships.
The Four Sublime States -- Contemplations on Love, Compassion, Sympathetic Joy and Equanimity by Nyanaponika Thera
Four sublime states of mind have been taught by the Buddha ...
These four attitudes are said to be excellent or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti). They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact. They are the great removers of tension, the great peace-makers in social conflict, and the great healers of wounds suffered in the struggle of existence. They level social barriers, build harmonious communities, awaken slumbering magnanimity long forgotten, revive joy and hope long abandoned, and promote human brotherhood against the forces of egotism.
The Brahma-viharas are incompatible with a hating state of mind ...
For this kind of reason I'd be reluctant to agree that "hate" could be a recommended solution.
Like I said I think the closest (to "hate") that I know of as a recommended solution in Buddhist doctrine is nibbida -- not hate, possibly not "disgust" even -- but like disappointment, disenchantment, dispassion, turning away from, letting go of -- perhaps by replacing it, keeping something better in mind. Whereas "hate" sounds to me like just more of the same. But if it does get you out, maybe it is skilful (or "expedient") means -- re-reading the Parable of the burning house, maybe "hatred" is the "toy" which you consider attractive and for which you could be willing to leave a burning house.
