Burnout is something most of us know intimately, whether in the office, the lab, or the activist space. It is that heavy, persistent exhaustion that makes even small tasks feel impossible. Too often, it is framed as an individual failure—a sign that we are not working hard enough, not managing time well, or simply not resilient. Feminist scholarship challenges this narrative, showing that burnout is rarely about personal weakness. Instead, it is a structural phenomenon produced by gendered divisions of labor, neoliberal capitalism, and the invisible networks of care that sustain daily life and political action. Yet, conversations about burnout often center women and gender-diverse people, whose labor—both emotional and practical—is systematically undervalued. This focus is essential, but it risks leaving out a key piece of the puzzle: masculinities. How we are socialized into masculine norms profoundly shapes not only men’s experiences of exhaustion but also the conditions under which movements, workplaces, and families function. Hegemonic masculinity, as Raewyn Connell describes it, prizes endurance, self-sufficiency, and relentless productivity. These ideals structure the spaces we inhabit, defining what it means to be committed, serious, or capable, and they influence how burnout manifests and is addressed. This essay situates burnout within feminist political economy and care theory, highlighting how masculinities are deeply implicated in the exhaustion of individuals and collectives. It argues that rest is not simply a luxury or a personal indulgence, but a political act, a form of resistance that can challenge the extraction of labor, emotional energy, and vitality. Finally, it explores how reimagining masculinities and centering collective care practices can make rest sustainable and transformative.
Tatiana Moura (Tue,) studied this question.