Answer:
Explanation:
The value of political equality is central to normative theories of democracy: it is argued that women are equal citizens and therefore should share equally with men in public decision-making. By contrast, empirical theories typically define democracy by the presence of institutions such as a multi-party political system and competitive elections. In fact, the concept of empirical democracy may encompass a complex range of practical realities, including cultural, socio-economic, and political factors. This multifaceted understanding of empirical democracy is used to help explain the descriptive representation of women in national parliaments. The goal of the article is to advance understanding about which factors help or hinder women in entering parliament in countries defined as democratic. Its principal argument is that these factors differ according to the length of the democratic experiment. The analysis shows first that the proportion of women in parliaments is influenced by a plurality of interacting factors. Second, it shows that the mix of factors influencing the percentage of female legislators differs according to the length of the country's democratic experience. In countries where democracy has prevailed for only a short time, the voting system is the most important factor explaining the proportion of women parliamentarians. By contrast, in well-established democracies the most powerful explanation is found in an egalitarian conception of gender roles. The conclusions reminds us that empirical democracy is a complex, heterogeneous, and multifaceted phenomenon; consequently, analysis intended to reach a better understanding of the presence of women in parliaments must refrain from uniformly applying indicators to all countries, the realities of which are, in fact, quite different.
Answer:
The rise of the Aztec empire really began in 1150 with the fall of the Toltec empire. The Toltecs had established their state in Tula, which was to the north of what would become Tenochtitlan.
Explanation:
This question is incomplete because the text with the sentences is missing; here is the missing text:
1. In 6th grade, I sang in the school choir, and we often traveled to different places for our performances. 2. I didn’t mind traveling short distances, but I was nervous about going out-of-town. 3. Going out-of-town meant being away from home for a few days. 4. I had never been away from home before. 5. Before the first out-of-town trip, she sat me down and shared her own story about leaving home for the first time.
The answer to this question is A. Luckily, Mrs. Greene, the choir director, understood my nervousness.
Explanation:
In this paragraph, the narrator describes personal experiences related to going out of town as part of the school choir. In this text, sentence 4 explain show this was a new experience for the narrator, while in sentence 5 the narrator describes someone shared the experience of going out of town with the narrator; however, the narrator does not explain who is this person. In this context, the best is to add a sentence to introduce the new character in the story by explaining her identity. This is better achieved in "Luckily, Mrs. Greene, the choir director, understood my nervousness."
It is their right. Here's why~
As many may feel it is disrespectful, I feel it is still in their right to do so. It falls under Amendment 1 of "freedom of speech."
(I tried to make it longer but I can't >.>)
