{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03708854891052388, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010662957811775614, 'mean_word_length': 4.634464751958225, '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}}
Gender and Foreign Policy

The author of this very interesting book writes with flair, and the subject is important; but Rhodri Jeffreys-Jones has produced a series of essays, not a tightly knit volume with a theme. The reason, to be sure, is that the literature with which he deals is sparse in secondary works and scattered in manuscript collections. Moreover, the women who have made large contributions to American foreign policy, as Emily S. Rosenberg wrote some years ago, are few in number.' The burden of the essays is to remind readers of what might have happened had more women taken part. The detail of the essays seeks to explain the reasons why they did not. Along the way the author delivers a few opinions that may not read well outside his classroom and tutorials at the University of Edinburgh. JeffreysJones refers to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's "persistent philandering" (p. 101) and notes that "Mrs. Roosevelt may have enjoyed at least subliminal lesbian attachments" (p. 223)-his source is Shelley Ross's Fallfrom Grace: Sex, Scandal, and Corruption in American Politics from 1702 to the Present (1988). Then there is the author's dislike of the Vietnam War, which he assumes everyone should have been against, and of the Cold War, which he credits to male domination of foreign policy: "The end of East-West confrontation does owe something to the millions of deflating conversations in which women have told men exactly what they thought of their macho war games" (p. 196). A few pages earlier, he theorizes about "the intriguing possibility that the foreign policy gender gap will end with the demise of the male-driven Cold War" (p. 188). In a comment that will offend hundreds of students of Harvard's late William L. Langer, an outstanding scholar of European imperialism, JeffreysJones writes, "Led by William Langer and Everett Gleason, the war apologists saw the [Nye] inquiry and its exposure of World War I munitions-lobbying tactics as dangerous nonsense" (p. 81).2 Nor is this all. The author criticizes Carrie Chapman Catt for going over to the interventionists during World War I. "But if her character was weak..."