{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018117765475591345, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004026170105686965, 'mean_word_length': 5.496732026143791, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Book reviews : Sexual Divisions: Patterns and Process (Ed.) Mary Evans and Clare Ungerson Tavistock Publications, London and New York, 1983

A collection of papers given at an SSRC funded conference at Kent in 1980, SexualDivisions represents an attempt to integrate feminist concerns within the interdisciplinary ambit of the social sciences. The two-fold purpose here is to subvert the ever-present threat of ghettoisation and, perhaps less successfully, to challenge the social sciences generally to engage with the feminist problematic. The book’s format reflects this debate in its inclusion of replies to papers which reflect some of the methodological and conceptual argument they provoked, and, here successfully, considerably extends the range of discussion allowing some of the complexities to emerge without losing sight of the problem in the process. The thematic concern of the collection is to explore ‘the various institutional contexts in which the subordination of women is maintained and reproduced’, not it should be added from a unilateralist position but one attentive to the contradictory and differential aspects of subordination. The space this provides contains both the strengths and weaknesses of the book, for while this allows a degree of unhindered discussion across institutions of the prevailing consensus of the fact of women’s subordination it also closes off the wider theoretical questions of the institutional coherence, however differentiated, of that subordination. The institutional scope of the book is by no means extant, nor are theoretical frameworks agreed or overviews promised. But while these questions are not those directly addressed by the contributors, their absence has the effect of leaving discussion of discrete institutions in something of a state of suspended animation, an effect which is exaggerated by the diversity of methodological approach. Mary Evan’s Introduction, as is the tradition with such collections, attempts both