natural demands for both private andnpublic, cooperative and competitive,ngroup and individual expression. Or asnDegler makes the point:nThe family . . . like the great traditionalnmovements, is an anti-individualisticninstitution. In fact, its denialnof individualism is the source of thenfamily’s strong attraction for manynmen and women today. For at leastntwo centuries the best known alternativento the individualism, competitiveness,nand egoism that infuse thenmodern, industrial and urban worldnhas been the family …. In the face of •nan individualistic market economy,nthe family has seemed the epitome ofntrue humanity and interrelatedness.n… In short, aside from the evidencenthat Americans still consider the familyna central institution in their lives,nthe very values for which it has stoodnover the years suggest that it willnendure.nYet the history of the sexes, rigidlyndefined by the doctrine of the twonspheres with its idealized cult of truenwomanhood, has been one where thesentwo means of expression have beennsegregated. As a result, men have beenncut off from an equal sharing in thenmoral obligations of the family, andnwomen have been cut off from an equalnsharing in the power opportunities ofnthe world.nThis has not meant that women havennot labored long and hard outside thenhome. For instance, of the 100,000 factorynworkers producing cotton cloth inn1822, 65,000 were women. But as Deglernnotes, most of the work for womennoutside the home was viewed in termsnof moral uplift and social service innwhich the world was only a large extensionnof the home. Thus teaching andnsocial work, or various support functionsnsuch as those provided by secretariesnor nurses, remained the exclusivenpurview of women. Degler’s commentnsums up this distinct division of labor:n”Women shaped their work around thenfamily and men shaped family lifenaround work.” In this regard today’snstatistics showing vast numbers ofnwomen as members of the work forcenshould not be misinterpreted. They donnot mean that women are now “completing”nthemselves outside the confinesnof the family because, actually, most ofnthis going to work results from the economicnimperative of “making endsnmeet” rather than from being able tonparticipate in the real opportunitiesnafforded the individual by the job market—innessence, despite surface appearances,na woman’s first role of wife andnmother still predominates.nThe issue then is clearly drawn, asnthe words of the Smith College Weeklynthat appeared in 1919 assert: “We cannotnbelieve that it is fixed in the naturenof things that a woman must choosenbetween a home and her work, when anman may have both. There must be anway out and it is the problem of ourngeneration to find the way.” What wenneed to recognize is that this assignmentnof women to predetermined rolesnrepresents a tremendous waste of talentnand energy and flies in the face of establishednlibera] principles. True liberalismnargues for a free economy (with itsnassociated successes and failures) because,nborrowing from the philosophynof empiricism, we know that we cannotndetermine in advance which ideas andnproducts will prevail and which will not.nAnd yet, fearful that an overwhelmingnnumber of women would reject childbearingnand attendant family responsibilities,nwe have consigned more thannhalf of our population in advance to andomestic role, not allowing their naturalnabilities to take them wherever thencourse of events might lead. In othernwords, for today’s family to succeednboth sexes must have equal access tonthe rights and privileges of each sphere.nnnFor just as the separate-but-equal doctrinendid not work in the area of racenrelations, neither will it solve the problemsnfacing the contemporary family.nIn this light the family’s real enemynis not woman’s emerging individualism;nrather, the real enemy is the rise of commercialnexploitation of this individualismnand the values of lib culture. Thenfamily’s traditional values of privacynand commitment, for instance, are dailynassaulted by the all-pervasive video box.nTo sell us goods that we do not need,nits programming and advertising disconfirmnour true sensibilities with thenantivalues of fragmentation and instantnand self-gratification. Nor is it merencoincidence that just as the integritynand initiative of the individual are systematicallynbeing swept away by thenburgeoning bureaucracy of the state, sonare the prerogatives of the family witheringnaway. As an example, the fact thatnnot all parents do the right thing byntheir children does not mean that statenagencies, especially the school, have tonmarch in with all the answers. Yet, increasingly,nparents are caving in to thenusurpation of their responsibilities—n”Someone else will do it.” (Furthermore,nin such circumstances all too many ofnthe decent actions and intentions ofnparents go for naught.) Such a flightnfrom responsibility, of course, ends upndiminishing our freedom (which in economicnterms, ironically, must be translatedninto our freedom not to buy). Thusntoday, as our desires are being inflamednand our baser instincts tempted, thencountervailing force of the family becomesneven more crucial if we are tonsurvive as a people.nA-nyone wishing to explore furthernthese issues affecting the family willnbe well served by Professor Henslin’snedited collection of 42 articles. Marriagenand family in a Changing Society. Dividedninto four main sections (“PremaritalnReality: Socialization and Behavior,”n”Learning Marital Reality: Adjustment,nConflict, and Transition,” “Marital Maladjustment,nTerminations, and Ther-n^^ammmmmmmm^mmmm^nlfovcmbcr/Dccembcr 1980n