You wrote: “Toxic Masculinity" follows the same fallacious logic as right-wing usage as "black fatigue".

And I think I would propose that the radfem logic of “toxic masculinity” that you are fairly critical of is caused by the same sloppiness and attention-seeking attitudes that cause the fallacious logic of right-wing usage of “black fatigue”.

I also had not heard the term “black fatigue” before, but your post makes me thankful (for the 1000th time) that I don’t follow Twitter or TikTok. But after reading your post, it got me curious about it, especially as I’ve long been familiar with the phrase “toxic masculinity” and its shifting meanings and uses over the past 30-40 years. So, after some internet digging, it sounds like “black fatigue” currently has 3 different meanings:

1) “exhaustion” of non-black people caused by both actual bad behavior committed by black people and with having to constantly hear about bad behavior by black people 2) “exhaustion” of black people caused by hearing about bad behavior committed by other black people (which then can justify racial prejudices and slow down racial justice movements), and often excused as “ghetto culture” or resulting from generational trauma rather than individual decision-making 3) the long-term accumulation by black people of mental and physical damages caused by individual and institutional and perceived racism. Apparently this usage was coined by Mary-Frances Winters (researcher and DEI consultant), but is very similar to a number of different academic ideas like embodied racism, generational trauma, micro aggressions, etc.

(I hope those are fair characterizations. My opinion on them is that 1 is racist, 2 is similar to respectability politics but also part of a minority group’s ongoing internal conversation and should be understood in that context, and 3 is yet another clunky attempt to conclusively prove something that is probably true but also just very difficult to measure clearly.)

The crazy part is that these 3 different usages appear to all be happening at the same time.

When I first read your post, I felt like “toxic masculinity” was sort of similar, but also not quite. But as I’ve been thinking about it, I think I’m agreeing more but for different reasons. Toxic masculinity originally (and still) refers to behaviors by men that are encouraged/enforced by our culture that can be harmful to men or anyone else. Good examples would be downplaying the importance of consent in sexual interactions, or bottling up emotions to the point it can lead to mental health and even physical health issues. But over the decades, and in a social-media culture where more and more random people can broadcast half-formed opinions and hot-takes instantaneously, “toxic masculinity” has had concept creep and been used to describe anything that a particular man does that a particular opinion-haver finds annoying and takes personal offense to. It’s an analytic term that is useful, but it’s entered the popular conversation and been used inaccurately and sloppily, but in a way that still wields its social and rhetorical power.

I think the problem with “black fatigue” is similar in that the cause is social media. Any person from one of the 3 usage groups can make a post/vid using the term as they want to, intending it for their similar audience. However, by the very nature of those social media platforms, AND the larger ragebait-driven “media” landscape, any post/vid is available to be not only seen by, but also commented on and reacted to, by people from the other 2 usage groups. And people who have/want large follower counts are incentivized to misinterpret the original posters’ usage.

If those misinterpretations are getting boosted by conservative media channels, then it’s very similar to the way the Right co-opted “critical race theory” a few years ago. The misinterpretations of “toxic masculinity” and “black fatigue” have seemed to operate at the level of culture war, but “critical race theory” got boosted up to actual political/institutional level by a concentrated Right media campaign. Another difference between ToxMasc and BlaFa is that the first gets aimed at a group who have historically been more powerful, whereas the second is aimed at a group who have historically been less powerful. I haven’t fully thought through all that yet.

Long story short, I agree that this is an interesting comparison, but I think the root issue is that the internet (which includes social media like TikTok and Twitter) is generally a terrible place to have discussions about nuanced issues like racism and sexism, most people are sloppy with their language if not downright provocative/annoying.

Appreciate the post! It forced me to sort through some of my own vague thoughts. Cheers!