I became aware of the book “The Exhaustion of Women. Against Female Availability” because in recent years it has repeatedly been cited as an important contribution to the social debate on overload, care work and equality. The title alone is formulated so clearly and pointedly that it triggers a reaction even before you engage with the actual content.
What interests me about this book – and at the same time irritates me – is precisely this tension:
I acknowledge that there are real, structural inequalities and consider their analysis necessary. At the same time, I experience the address at first as if it were categorizing me in a role that does not correspond to my attitude and my behavior. This text is an attempt not to fend off this impulse emotionally, but to analyze it soberly.
What the book is about – a factual summary
The book explicitly does not understand exhaustion as individual failure or as a consequence of a lack of self-organization, but as a structural phenomenon. The central thesis is: In our society, there are still expectations that are directed in a particular way at women and place them under permanent excessive strain.
The key concept here is “availability”. This does not only mean temporal availability, but a bundle of expectations: emotional presence, care work, physical adaptation, sexual responsiveness, social responsibility and the constant functioning in family, work and public life. These expectations often operate simultaneously and reinforce each other.
The book argues that this form of availability has developed historically, culturally and economically and continues to have an effect today – regardless of how much formal equality has improved. Exhaustion thus does not appear as a personal problem of individual women, but as a symptom of a system that presupposes certain services without adequately valuing or securing them.
An important aspect here is the unequal distribution of care and caregiving work. Even where women are gainfully employed, they often additionally bear the main responsibility for organization, emotional work and family coordination. The book describes this multiple burden as structural and not as the result of individual wrong decisions.
At the same time, the author emphasizes that female exhaustion is not uniform. Depending on life situation, social status, origin or professional group, demands of availability have different degrees of impact. The book’s claim is to take this diversity into account without losing sight of the structural core.
In summary:
The book aims to show that exhaustion is political – and that female availability is a central mechanism through which social overburdening is organized.
Why the title and framing initially anger me – from the perspective of a non‑patriarchal man
Up to this point I can largely follow the analysis. And yet – as a man who consciously does not see himself as patriarchal in the sense of dominance, devaluation or abuse of power – I feel a noticeable anger. Not because I dispute the problems described, but because the way it is addressed triggers something in me that is hard to ignore.
This anger can be precisely identified in several points.
1. The title sets an interpretive framework before differentiation is possible
“The Exhaustion of Women” is a title that makes a clear assignment very early on. It names a group, marks an affectedness and suggests that there is a specific cause for it. Even if this is analytically legitimate, an implicit counterpart arises when reading: Who does not belong to this group – and what role do they play?
As a reader who himself bears responsibility, knows performance pressure and experiences exhaustion, the question inevitably arises:
Where do I appear here – other than as part of the problem?
The subtitle “Against Female Availability” reinforces this effect. It not only names a condition, but a resistance. This opens a conflict even before the differentiations of the text can take effect.
2. Structural criticism is often experienced in discourse as a blanket attribution
A central problem of modern equality debates is that analytical structural concepts are communicatively shortened in everyday life. “Patriarchy” is then no longer read as a description of social patterns, but as a moral marker.
In this shortened discourse:
- “Being a man” becomes shorthand for power,
- power becomes shorthand for guilt,
- and guilt becomes the explanation for why differentiation is dispensable.
For men who consciously want to behave differently or actually act differently, this creates the feeling that their own behavior counts less than their own category. The anger is then not directed against the existence of structural problems, but against the experience that individual responsibility and attitude are hardly visible in the discourse.
3. Responsibility is expected – resonance fails to appear
Another aspect is the asymmetrical recognition of burden. Men are supposed to take responsibility, act reflectively and question existing structures. At the same time, male exhaustion is often considered normal, expected or self-inflicted – not a social problem.
If a book opens a legitimate space for female exhaustion without at the same time making it clear that other forms of overload can also have structural causes, a feeling of imbalance arises. Not in the sense of a competition, but in the sense of public recognition.
The anger here does not arise from envy, but from the impression:
There is burden that is considered worthy of explanation – and burden that is simply accepted.
4. The male follow‑up question is quickly delegitimized
In many debates a similar pattern emerges: As soon as men ask whether certain mechanisms of burden do not also affect them, this question is read as defense or relativization. The inquiry itself is then considered part of the problem.
For non‑patriarchal men this is a difficult position. They neither want to shift the focus nor devalue the analysis, but experience that their perspective is hardly compatible. The anger in this case is directed less against the content of the book than against the communicative environment in which such books are read and discussed.
5. The risk of an immunizing debate
Finally, there is a structural risk: If criticism is formulated in such a way that every differentiation is considered defense, a logic emerges in which contradiction confirms the diagnosis. Those who feel addressed are considered part of the problem; those who distance themselves are as well.
In such a climate, even a title can be infuriating because it signals:
You are not invited here, you are meant.
An alternative reading: How I can understand the book without feeling attacked
After this analysis, a second possibility remains: I can consciously read the book differently – not as a moral accusation, but as a pointed description of the system. This reading is not an obligation, but a decision.
1. The title as focus, not as exclusion
I can understand the title as a thematic setting: The book does not want to explain exhaustion as a whole, but to make a specific form of it visible. The fact that other groups are also exhausted is not negated by this – it is simply not the subject of this book.
This reading requires putting aside the claim to complete representation in favor of analytical clarity.
2. “Patriarchal” as a structural concept, not as a judgment of character
If I consistently read “patriarchy” as a description of historically evolved patterns, then the criticism is not directed against me as a person, but against mechanisms in which I – like everyone else – am embedded.
However, this only works if the distinction between structure and behavior is taken seriously. Responsibility then means: being able to reflect and change – not: being guilty.
3. “Female availability” as a cultural arrangement of expectations
In this reading, availability does not denote a conscious demand by individual men, but a web of norms, routines and institutional incentives. Many of these expectations operate independently of individual intention – and are supported by all genders.
This strips the term of its accusatory character and makes it analytically more precise.
4. The man as potential ally, not as accused
If the book describes resistance to unjust expectations, I can also read it as an invitation to look more closely: Where do unbalanced burdens arise? How can responsibilities be distributed more fairly? Which norms should be fundamentally questioned?
In this perspective, I am not the addressee of an attribution of guilt, but part of a social learning process.
Conclusion: The anger remains understandable – but it does not have to have the last word
My initial anger is real and justifiable. It points to a discursive imbalance: Where identity takes the place of behavior, criticism becomes loud but imprecise.
At the same time, the alternative reading opens up the possibility of reading the book as what it wants to be: a focused analysis of female exhaustion – not as a judgment about men, but as a description of a social problem.
Perhaps the productive tension lies precisely here:
I am allowed to chafe at the way it addresses me without denying the description of the problem. And I am allowed to accept the focus without giving up my own perspective.
If a discourse can tolerate both – structural criticism and the distinction between power and behavior – then an infuriating title may not lead to consensus, but to something more valuable: a precise, honest conversation.
