{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02153316106804479, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004306632213608958, 'mean_word_length': 4.81, '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: Comparative Politics

politicians do not view their election to office as a career but simply a promotion in the party ranks. Male deputies are highly condescending toward women and emphasize that politics is not for women. Women show inconsistency; they claim that they are respected by their male colleagues and are warmly accepted by the electorate, but some blame men for small numbers of women in politics. Here, differences appear in the responses between female MPs and MCs. MPs blame the women more frequently than the MCs for their absence in politics (p. 111). The study does not explore the possible reasons. But in another place we are told that the female MCs were economically less powerful and affluent than the female MPs (p. 69). The possible significance of these class differences is never addressed. In fact, the study singles out the concept of patriarchy from varied theorists such as Simone de Beauvoir, Kate Millet, Shulamith Firestone, and Zillah Eisenstein but never discusses their differences. It merely asserts that they all agree that the structure of patriarchy endorses the power of male supremacy—an obvious point.