Hester and Srnicek point out that, for all the heady promises of automation, a ‘realm of necessity…will be present in any possible society’ (2023: 155), but that the role of post-work is to challenge and minimise this realm before work redistribution occurs (ibid.: 156). I’m reminded of the extended ‘R-Strategies’, which can be applied as much to waste reduction as to work: ‘Refuse’ comes before ‘Reduce’ comes before ‘Recycle’. This is all very commonsensical, but like all notions of “common sense”, the simplicity of the maxim belies the truth.

In Mums on Strike, the process of negotiation to return the striker home occupies the final quarter of the show. The negotiation scenes take a familiar path in most episodes, helping us to understand and problematise the effects of seeing housework as a labour of love. It is often revealed that mum’s over-dedication to domestic drudgery is not based on their own belief in domestic standards (“being away has made me think that, you know what, what I do is insane”, S2E4). In other words, the housework ethic as an escalatory ideal is not only unsustainable and unachievable, but arguably self-destructive. Therefore, in the newfound spirit of transparency fostered by the negotiation, mum often admits that their assiduousness is an attempt at self-actualisation in a household unit where their contributions are not recognised or appreciated. Work, it has been established, plays a fundamental role in personal identity construction (Frayne 2016), and despite the full-time work of many of the strikers coming in addition to the domestic labour they undertake, neither appears appreciated by the spouse. When the striker’s domestic labour is not demonstrably recognised as work, despite it obviously happening in front of the spouse, they are cruelly denied a sense of self.

However, we would do well to interrupt this line of reasoning. Followed through, it would suggest that housework justifiably actualises the domestic labourer, strengthening the assertion – endlessly convenient to capitalist value extraction – that unwaged housework is an ‘act of love’, an inherently rewarding pursuit because of its caring qualities. As such, ‘love places limits on the refusal of emotional and reproductive labour’ (Gotby 2019: 100), and ‘it is largely women who are left sleepless, harried, and starved of a life beyond the demands of caring for others’ (Hester and Srnicek 2023: 85). If we are to agree with Hester and Srnicek’s suggestion – indicative of the wider post-work project – that liberation is to be found in ‘temporal sovereignty’ (2023: 166), the Faustian arrangement of the domestic labourer selling their soul to housework in return for validation is doomed to fail. We can see this in Shaun’s lamentation that, despite trying to endear himself to his stepfamily through taking on the cooking and cleaning, “the girls don’t listen to me” (S2E4).

Part of the solution, argued both by Hester and Srnicek and the mums-on-strike, is to be found in ‘sharing necessary labour…essential if we are to ensure that all have the capacity to develop their own projects of freedom’ (2023: 167). Mums on Strike’s negotiation process, and the prior imposition of the list, suggests that necessary domestic labour can never be truly fulfilling by virtue of its heteronomy – it is only when activity is self-directed that it can be enjoyable (ibid.: 156). As such, the act of minimising housework (‘Reduce’) becomes particularly important. Hester and Srnicek indicate this possibility in their discussion of domestic standards:

This might suggest that, with normative pressures towards a spotless home reduced, and household members operating on the premise of an equitably shared workload, a constructive attitude towards work-reduction can be taken, leading to a comfortably liveable and less onerous domestic environment for all. However, the first part of the passage also indicates where this can fall down – in Mums on Strike, the minimisation of domestic labour is predicated on recognition, represented by a promise to pick up the slack, even if it means to acceding to seemingly excessive domestic standards. Although work ought to be reduced before it is redistributed, mum (understandably) requires the other members of the household to dedicate themselves unconditionally to redistribution, before re-evaluating standards. In Series 2, Episode 3, despite mum Nicole coming home (the presumably available choice to stay in the hotel for longer has not yet been taken in the show), a feeling of ill-usage builds when the initial conversation devolves into her husband Mike churlishly criticising her use of houseproudness as an emotional crutch. The audience is left with the distinct impression that, for this family, nothing will change.

As much as we should advocate for the constructive reduction in standards to equitably increase temporal sovereignty, the warning from the Mums on Strike is that this can only be achieved through the recognition of mum’s unsung contributions. Although the valorisation of housework risks inculcating the work-centred maxim that toil and drudgery become us, it appears to be the fundamental crux of Mums on Strike’s emotional narrative. When the primary domestic labourer is “seen” by the whole household, housework no longer need be an emotional crutch. A turning point is reached, from which the realm of necessary tasks can be reduced.