SAHMs should Unionize

Major-Platypus2092 · 2026-07-24T22:34:20+00:00

And how are the SAHMs supposed to afford to stay somewhere else if they're striking against the person who makes the money?

The government won't care. It'd take a very, very long time to see sustained results from such a strike. And most SAHMs don't actually want to put their child at risk of neglect because they, you know, love them.

Downtown_Cat_1745 · 2026-07-24T22:41:42+00:00

This is obviously absurd and mocking women, but as a person who was a SAHM for 6 years, let me explain:

SAHMs do unpaid labor that makes our partner’s lifestyle possible. We don’t need pay, because the point of being an SAHM is that it’s really hard to be an effective employee when you have very small children, and it’s also really hard to make enough money to pay for the childcare for multiple children who are under school age.

We don’t need to be paid, because our role is to save money, not make it. If you have a SAHM at home, she can cook dinner, which is about 1/3 to 1/4 the price of eating out. She can watch the clearance sales and get your children’s wardrobe at the best prices. Meanwhile, she can wear casual clothes because she doesn’t need to look fancy at an office.

Oh, yeah, and you’re not spending her whole salary on daycare. And you’re not spending your weekend mornings trying to score the best parking spot at Costco, because she went there on a weekday when it’s less crowded.

All she wants is equal access to the money, and a little bit of help around the house and time off once in a while.

Bernouttheday · 2026-07-24T22:34:01+00:00

How would SAHMs pay union dues?

NotAllTheCake · 2026-07-25T00:28:22+00:00

I agree with you in principle, but l draw the line at requiring the government step in. The problem, as usual, is that fathers are lazy douchebags who don't do their fair share of chores or childcare. If men were responsible parents who didn't abuse the financial dependence SAHMs have on their husbands, we wouldn't need government intervention or even the idea of unionizing.

It would be fine if men didn't want kids because they didn't want to do the work, but that's not the case. Men are egotistical hypocrites who want children more than women to flatter their egos, while doing about 20% of the work to raise them.

Men can't have it both ways: it's either work or it isn't. If it isn't work, then men can come home from their jobs and do some childcare because it's so easy, just like sitting on the couch playing video games isn't work. Your PS5 has seen you for about 25.2 hours this week, while your kid has only seen you for about 5.1 hours.

If it is work, men should give it the respect it deserves, do some childcare for once and stop whining about alimony.

Storage-Express · 2026-07-24T23:09:38+00:00

the benefit of being a SAHM is that you don't have to do any paid labor and that somebody pays your bills and expenses instead. the idea that men should pay SAHMs a salary on top of these financial benefits is quite frankly ridiculous. if you don't like this arrangement, nobody is forcing you into it - you can simply get a job.

not to mention that them staying 'somewhere else' is not feasible logistically whatsoever. where are they going to stay? you mentioned 'with other women' or other people in a reply, what if these people don't want to house strangers or even people they might know? i'm not going to let women crash at my place for free because they want to go on strike lmao. most people i know wouldn't (i would go as far as saying that nobody i know would).

Suspicious_Loss_84 · 2026-07-24T23:00:39+00:00

This is an insane idea. Just think about it for longer than 5 minutes

Whiskeymyers75 · 2026-07-24T23:30:28+00:00

Interesting strategy. ‘Unionize’ by walking out on your spouse and kids until you get paid. Don’t be shocked when Dad files for primary custody and child support based on abandonment. Marriage isn’t an employer-employee contract.

Chicoryman · 2026-07-24T22:40:08+00:00

The idea feels weird. It's a family supposed to be a commune: those who earn put the resources into the communal pot and then it gets used according to the needs. WTF is "unpaid labor" in this context? What's next? Not buying groceries "for the family" but buying them only for yourself and selling them to your partner instead of just sharing it?

davidmetty · 2026-07-25T01:53:22+00:00

The work done by stay-at-home mothers is labor, but it is a sacrificial or foundational labor, not an industrial one. It should be respected as the primary economic engine—the unseen foundation that makes the rest of society viable—not treated as another category of specialized wage-earning skill.

The solution is not to unionize this labor and demand a paycheck; the solution is for society (through a more traditional framework) to recognize that the inherent value of raising human beings is so immense that it should be funded through infrastructure, social insurance, and cultural recognition—not subject to the fickle dictates of a market-driven “union.” The family unit needs to function harmoniously, not be broken up by an attempt to monetize every aspect of the nurturing experience.

Ferfemto · 2026-07-25T03:57:57+00:00

Unfortunately, it's unpaid labor. There are no benefits. There is no pay.

And no taxation. It's strange you missed that detail.

DankuTwo · 2026-07-25T08:53:34+00:00

The house, food, clothing, any luxuries, and the freedom to spend their life with their kids rather than working some awful job represents a pretty substantial pay for what is ultimately menial work.

Zoya_The_Destroyah · 2026-07-24T22:35:36+00:00

Much like any other job, the “benefits” are dictated by your employer. If your husband isn’t a piece of shit, you should have time off. If your household is not on the brink of financial ruin, there should be money going towards your retirement.

There’s also always the option of not being a SAHM.

ladybird_00 · 2026-07-24T22:35:53+00:00

The compensation is all expenses paid

SweetTaterSalad · 2026-07-25T00:01:42+00:00

Are you or were you ever a stay-at-home mother?

Are you or were you ever a mother?

This is the most ridiculous pile of cow manure I've ever heard anyone say about a stay-at-home mother.

I could shred every argument you made into little bitty pieces but I just don't have the energy to lay this all out for you because you're not going to listen anyway.

Your cup is so full of garbage, there's no room in it for anything else.

Ok-Gene8948 · 2026-07-25T00:10:38+00:00

Why just SAHMs? Why not the SAHDs too? Or the SAHNBs?

SomethingVeryBland · 2026-07-25T00:34:16+00:00

That’s a ridiculous idea. A SAHP (regardless of gender) is saving the family from paying for childcare and a cleaner. If you argue, a SAHP has no time off, a working parent hasn’t either, because they come home to their kids and continue working there in the same job the SAHP does all day.

Why should you get paid? You are a parent. You either work and get paid, which you give (partly) to a daycare or you don’t get paid and do the daycare yourself.

Obviously, if someone decides to be a SAHP, the couple needs to make sure, the SAHP gets an adequate health and retirement plan and get a prenup (or live in a country with mandatory alimony).

Women are adults you know, and as adults we are able to make informed decisions and take informed risks. Don’t make women helpless victims, we are not.

ThrowRAGlobeVase · 2026-07-24T22:48:25+00:00

I mean if you’re married isn’t it kind of paid? If there’s a divorce you get 50.

ThatBitchA · 2026-07-24T23:25:50+00:00

They do in fact learn marketable skills.

Leadership, negotiation, research, project management, time management, and more.

There's no reason to suggest that SAHMs have no skills.

AutoModerator · 2026-07-24T22:31:28+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

AutoModerator · 2026-07-24T22:31:28+00:00

Hi OP,

You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. PPD has guidelines for what that involves.

OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.

An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:

Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;

Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;

Focusing only on the weaker arguments;

Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.

Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

anomalocarus · 2026-07-24T22:33:51+00:00

Didnt that happen in iceland or something?

bluestjuice · 2026-07-25T00:55:37+00:00

If the goal is to get support structures from the government, unionizing isn't a very useful mechanism.

If the idea is that working spouses should be providing additional funds, I think this idea ignores the issue of many single-earner families operating on really thin margins and subsidizing that by taking on increased risk (i.e. failing to save an 'appropriate' level for future security, not carrying consumer debt, etc.)

Probably everyone with an actual employer should unionize however, and the increase in bargaining power and compensation for the breadwinner spouses in such households would be advantageous for the SAHP as well.

Aphrodite_Nine · 2026-07-25T06:04:03+00:00

Honestly if you want to have kids its a sacrifice don't expect anyone else to compensate you for not building up skills before children, don't let a man pressure you into having children if he is unable to provide a stable functioning environment for you ( with your own contributions too. ) Having children is not a disability the government or any union need to compensate you for losing that time raising a family so don't treat it as such. No one asked you to get pregnant and do this to yourself. Leaving your house, where are you gonna go? Family another friend with the kids? Terrible strategy because you should provide stability for your children. Let your husband pay you a salary then but you can't expect other people to do so. If your husband wants 4 kids then let him invest in you for the time and work you sacrifice. Not to mention how some women Wil lrake advantage of a system like this. Instead why don't you get a little certificate then for being a mother, this post makes women really seem powerless, desperate and unwilling to be mothers out of love because they Want compensation, what if your child doesn't contribute to society and instead accidentally kills someone in a car accident one day because he is young and took a risk... That's not contributing in any figure are you going to repay the compensation fund back of the child(grown person) who's life he took because it was a government investment for the future generation?

Eldenringop · 2026-07-25T07:03:21+00:00

Cooking cleaning all possible through the man’s money . Pathetic cope it ain’t work or labor you can’t be a lazy bum grow up

love_in_october · 2026-07-25T08:08:57+00:00

Great idea in theory but you forget that this would mean neglecting their children who they love, it's not so simple as a strike at another job where you're just leaving clients to fend for themselves. If the dad doesn't step up straight away to care for these children, they've done something abusive and/or illegal.

KayRay1994 · 2026-07-25T10:34:53+00:00

Some version of that existed for quite some time prior to gender equality in places like Iceland or Scandinavia - while no official unions exist, organizing does happen quite a bit

That being said, I am not sure how I feel about actual unions - I don’t mind informal organizing but I also don’t like the idea of an outside body deciding how one raises their kids

ColonelGray · 2026-07-25T16:49:50+00:00

as simple as leaving their house to stay somewhere else until they receive some form of compensation.

the type of shit someone says before asking if you've been skiing this year or have a country house.

Organicana · 2026-07-25T19:55:47+00:00

Room and board, food, and entertainment, etc etc are not exactly "free" nor something generally granted to "slave labor"

I know plenty of people who would gladly trade their jobs down in the hazardous salt mines for such a cushy situation.

However, if oppressed victimhood is all you see ..... an oppressed victim is all you'll ever be

Tyrahneefake · 2026-07-26T01:27:54+00:00

If I was the government id ban stay at home parents because its a loss of tax revenue. It reduces the taxes you get from the working spouse as well as losing a worker who they can also tax then you are also getting more from the increased spending from eating out more and making childcare jobs that also create tax revenue.

Domestic labor has been largely automated since the 1950s anyways at most it could be considered a part time at most. It takes me like 3 hours to keep my home pretty spotless and maybe like 20 minutes of active cooking each day. If you do your job and actually parent the children they can pickup after themselves and put the eggo in the toaster or pour cereal for themselves. Children under 5 is another story.

abaxeron · 2026-07-24T23:15:34+00:00

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/04/13/in-a-growing-share-of-u-s-marriages-husbands-and-wives-earn-about-the-same/ "When husbands are the breadwinner..." section: in sole male breadwinner marriages, women spend 6 hours more on leisure than men per week; while women spend 9.6 hours more on caregiving and 9.1 hours more on housework, men spend 43.9 hours more on paid labor. The rest of the disparity goes to (among other things) "Personal care" general category, which Pew does not analyze. So... what would be SAHMs' demands? Even more free shite? Even longer lifespan? Even more sleep? Having even less children?

Labor unions and strikes were used to balance out the deal between employers and workers, as employers were desperately interested to squeeze as much labor as possible for their own benefit and pay as little as possible in return, and had all the leverage as subsistence agriculture had collapsed with industrialization, and many people had no other means to support themselves than apply for a job. SAHMs do not work for their husbands. They look after their own homes and their own children that they decided to have out of their own free will and choice. Not always with their husbands. Many (more than men) are professionally trained and can apply for other source of income any moment, yet choose not to.

Any woman who leaves her workplace for "the day without women" should be fired without compensation and blacklisted for deliberate malicious sabotage. Any woman who leaves her own children unsupervised to make a political statement or demand should be immediately and forever deprived of parental rights for all her current and possible future children and sued for criminal negligence. Just like any man who walks around with his ass unwashed to draw attention to "unpaid labor" of washing his own friggin ass should be fined and charged with public endangerment, and imprisoned in case of repeated violation.

Edit: saw in other comments, what if husband drains bank accounts and leaves. Women leave more often at a rate close to 2:1, and then men kill themselves in the thousands; we do not accept constructive criticism.

DreamsCanBeRealToo · 2026-07-24T22:40:24+00:00

If their husband stops paying them in housing, food, medical care… they have already lobbied the government to force the ex-husband (or even boyfriend) to continue to pay them or face jail without a trial.

They do get paid and are guaranteed to continue to be paid even after their duties as a wife end.

Title	SAHMs should Unionize
Author	GGMcThroway
Upvotes	4
Comments	144
Date	July 24, 2026 10:31 PM UTC (1 week ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1v5q9dd/sahms_should_unionize/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/sahms-should-unionize.1585801 https://theredarchive.com/post/1585801

Comments