9. The passage is mainly developed by the followings except _________

A. making comparisons B. provide data

C. following the order of importance D. giving examples

　　LONDON - Hillary Clinton got closer than any American woman to the nation's top job, but her loss has thrown a spotlight back onto the question: Why has the United States lagged behind so many countries around the world in choosing a female leader?

　　Tiny Sri Lanka became the first to shatter the political gender barrier more than a half-century ago, back when that island nation was known as Ceylon. Its giant neighbor, India, followed a few years later.

　　Since then women have attained top leadership posts - president, prime minister or its equivalent - in more than 15 countries in Europe, Latin America and the Asia-Pacific. Today women run two of Europe's most powerful nations, Angela Merkel in Germany and Theresa May in Britain. So why not the United States?

　　Historians have offered a range of reasons. Many of the earlier women's pathways were eased because their husbands or fathers were autocratic or charismatic leaders first. Some were chosen via parliamentary deal-making, not direct elections. Others were initially tapped as temporary leaders.

　　Some scholars theorize that European democracies may view women as more suited to high political office because their governments are known for generous social-welfare programs, something that seems maternal. In contrast, the president of the United States is primarily seen as commander in chief, which is a frame more difficult for women to fit into.

　　"America is still seen as the policeman of the world, the guardian of the world, and we still have a very gendered version of what leadership means," said Laura A. Liswood, secretary-general of the United Nations Foundation's Council of Women World Leaders, a network of current and former female prime ministers and presidents. "Not only do we have to be liked, we also have to be tough."

　　Sue Thomas, a senior research scientist at the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in Santa Cruz, California, said that unlike political leadership posts elsewhere, the U.S. presidency "is seen as a very masculine(男性) institution that for historical reasons is extremely hard for a female to approach."

　　Gender was never far from the surface in the protracted presidential campaign, but experts cautioned against seeing the election as merely a referendum(公民投票权) on the idea of a female president.

　　"It's hard to build a generalization about women candidates based on Hillary Clinton," said Timothy Garton Ash, professor of European studies at Oxford University. "She is such a special case and unique figure, having been around for so long. Did people vote against her because she was a woman or because her name is Clinton? Of course it could be both."

Still, many experts see an underlying（潜在的）bias that has discouraged American women