The problem seems to be that American society still doesn't really believe that women should be working outside of the home. The antiquated attitude that women are temporary and undependable workers taking jobs away from men with families to support lingers on to prevent equal employment opportunity and pay equity.
Sidel's prescriptions for a U.S. family policy are, I feel, morally unimpeachable, but I think she skims too lightly over the question of funding. While we may have a lower tax rate than some other industrialized nations, I think most people think 28 percent is quite enough - at least, George Bush managed to get elected on the strength of those three little words, "No new taxes!" However, I find her argument for the reduction of the defense budget in favor of domestic programs more supportable, especially in light of the political situation in Eastern Europe today. If there ever is any "peace dividend" I would certainly favor using it to implement the sort of policies Sidel has outlined.
I believe that one can hardly dispute Sidel's claim that the feminization of poverty has been occurring for the last 20 years. Although Mark Twain once said, "There are three kinds of lies...lies, damn lies, and statistics," I think that in this case her statistical evidence is overwhelming. As for the causes of this trend, I agree that it is apparent that sexism and racism have served to lock people into roles and lifestyles from which they need help to break free. Similarly, the Protestant ethic is, in my opinion, nothing more than classism and has been a real impediment to our society's willingness to help those in need.
o support her family. Furthermore, of the women awarded child support by the courts in 1981, only 47 percent received the full amount while 37 percent got less than half and a shocking 28 percent got nothing at all (Sidel:104). Mothers w