Response to Mohanty

I was surprised and disappointed by a few things in the Mohanty paper. Firstly, she gave no justification for the public sphere being superior to the private sphere. Liberal feminists seem to take it in stride that being recognized publicly is the only way to true "autonomy". However, I think there is a confusion of "having a voice" in the public sphere and living out your life there, and liberal feminists seem to advocate strenuously for the latter. This disappointed me. Similarly, she talks about the stereotype of women as "house-bound", but what about the simultaneous stereotype of men as "work-outside-the-house bound"?
Mohanty also takes a strange view of immigrant workers in the US. She seems not to understand the common sense logic that people with English as a second language will of course get less sought-after jobs in a country that speaks English. Then, she goes on to criticize the managers at the factory in CA for thinking of their employees as temporary, then also complained that they gave them easy jobs! You can have it one way or the other, but taken in that context, their perspective makes sense. It seemed to me that they were probably thinking they were giving women who needed some money but didn't have skills because they can't speak English well an opportunity to develop factory skills and move on (of course there are assumptions about who the majority of the workers are, not all immigrants are bad at speaking English, etc etc). It all seems pretty transparent to me, and it seemed like Mohanty was trying to fabricate a problem to support her thesis.
And, lastly, she has an underlying agenda of throwing the family unit into question, obvious through her rhetoric. But where would we be without it? And why should we try to throw it into the public sphere; how can we?