



































 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Having a Voice, Being Heard: Lessons on Gender 

Dynamics in Policy Conversations 

 

Ashley Brooke Cotsman, Georgia Institute of Technology ‘25 

 

 

 

Abstract: Women’s voices have reshaped the fabric of American policymaking, yet gendered 

dynamics continue to shape who speaks, who is heard, and how influence is wielded in policy 

conversations. Drawing on interviews with thirteen women across policymaking, lobbying, and 

academia, this paper explores how women navigate male-dominated spaces, adapting their 

communication styles, building confidence, and leveraging support networks to assert their 

voices. The findings highlight persistent challenges, such as interruptions and microaggressions, 

but also underscore the resilience and strategies women have developed to ensure their 

contributions are recognized. While women have made remarkable strides in leadership across 

sectors, the double standards they face remain. This paper contributes to the understanding of 

conversational gender dynamics in policy settings and calls for continued attention to the 

intersectionality of gender with race, ethnicity, and other identities in shaping women’s 

experiences. Ultimately, the resilience and ingenuity of women in policy stand as a testament to 

the ongoing evolution of leadership and womanhood, where having a voice and being truly heard 

remain distinct, hard-fought achievements. 

  



 

“I will no longer be made to feel ashamed of existing. I will have my voice: Indian, Spanish, 

white. I will have my serpent’s tongue–my woman’s voice, my sexual voice, my poet’s voice. I 

will overcome the tradition of silence.” –Gloria Anzaldua, Borderlands/La Frontera: The New 

Mestiza (1987) 

 

The voices of women today resonate deeper and reach further into the fabric of American 

government than our predecessors ever envisioned. A century ago, the milestone of women’s 

suffrage was a hard-won victory, but true political power remained elusive, and the fight to 

uproot sexism was far from over. 

Today, female leaders are essential across every major political institution in America. 

We have seen women serve as Speaker of the House, Vice President, and a presidential 

candidate who secured over 70 million votes (Pew Research Center, 2025). Women comprise 

half of the Supreme Court, over a quarter of Congress, and a third of state legislatures 

(Associated Press, 2024; Center for American Women and Politics [CAWP], 2025). Among the 

largest cities, women are a third of the mayors; we are half of the current presidential cabinet and 

a third of the nation’s governors (CAWP, 2025; PBS Newshour, 2024). 

These numbers illustrate the substantial progress women have made in political 

leadership, but they do not reflect the profound cultural shifts that facilitated it. Modern 

femininity goes beyond just having a seat at the table; we have demanded that our voices be 

heard and taken seriously. We claim space in conversations and defy norms of deference that 

once silenced us. We lean in and assert ourselves—and society has taken note. 

I am unequivocally and unapologetically proud to be a woman. I am also fortunate that 

rarely do I think about being a woman. In lab meetings, I am simply a researcher; in university 

classes, a student; in conversations at the dinner table, just a participant. Thanks to progress won 

by the generations before mine, these spaces have become more level playing fields, so seldom 

have I been overly conscious of the peripheral thing that is my gender. To me, being a woman 

has always felt incidental, like having brown hair or freckles—an unremarkable fact of who I 

am, neither defining nor noteworthy. 

It was during my internship on the Hill that I first became acutely aware of what it meant 

to move through the world as a woman in a male-dominated space. The formal and informal 

conversations I observed made it clear that gender dynamics play an undeniable role in 

determining who leads, who influences, and who is heard. I noticed many instances where I and 

other women were interrupted, spoken over, and subjected to subtle behaviors that undermined 

our contributions to policy discussions. These microaggressions played out everywhere: in 

hearings, meetings, hallways, and even casual chats over coffee. I soon noticed them in class 

discussions and with men I encountered at weekend social gatherings.  

Interruptions were not the only behaviors I noticed. There were the cut-offs, yes, but also 

the physical signals of disengagement—the lack of eye contact while I spoke, as if to say I do not 

care to hear what you’re saying, and I’m already planning how to outmaneuver you. I had spent 

my college years developing skills in policy analysis, rhetoric, and logical reasoning, but in 



 

Washington, I came to understand these attributes were not always enough. Sometimes, the real 

battle was just getting a word in at all. 

My voice—something that generations of women before me fought to secure—is perhaps 

the most valuable thing I hold. But there is another truth: having a voice and being truly heard 

are not the same. Only the latter signifies true participation as an equal.  

 

Theoretical Background 

While female representation in U.S. politics has grown, significant obstacles in 

conversational gender dynamics persist and have been measured at a macro scale. There is no 

shortage of literature illustrating these challenges: women speak less than men in mixed-gender 

groups, are more likely to be interrupted, and are more likely to speak on policy concerns with 

direct relevance to women (Coates, 2015; Osborn & Mendez, 2010).  

A study by Emory researchers examined 24,000 hearings from 1994 to 2018 and 

quantified these disparities. The study found that women were significantly more likely to be 

interrupted during hearings, with the likelihood more than doubling in discussions centered on 

women’s issues. Women were 44 times more likely to be victims of “interruption clusters” —

instances of aggressive, rapid-fire interruptions. Interruptions were most common in mixed-

gender interactions, with men significantly more likely to interrupt women than other men 

(Miller & Sutherland, 2023).  

While existing research quantifies the entrenched gender dynamics in formal 

policymaking spaces, working on the Hill in a male-dominated policy field sparked my interest 

in the nuances of these interactions behind the scenes. I sought to explore several questions: 

Which sectors and policy areas are more progressive in conversational gender dynamics? What 

factors determine whose voices carry weight in discussions? Most notably, how have women 

adapted and asserted themselves to be heard? What strategies can entry-level women learn from 

those with long-standing careers in the field?  

 

Methods 

Interviews for this project were conducted between August and December 2025, both in 

person and through digital meeting platforms such as Zoom and Microsoft Teams. Most 

participants were identified and recruited through my professional network in Washington, D.C., 

while I was working on the Hill as part of a congressional program that connects longtime 

staffers with young professionals. Interviewees in lobbying were contacted through connections 

from my internships in financial services, as well as alumnae from the Georgia Institute of 

Technology. Academic professionals were identified through my academic networks and 

referrals from advisors and previous participants. 

Interviews ranged from 23 to 48 minutes in length and followed a semi-structured, 

conversational format. A standard set of questions guided the discussions while allowing space 

for participants to share insights organically (see Appendix A for the question guide). 

 



 

General Trends Across Industries 

This report explores themes and insights drawn from conversations with thirteen women 

across policymaking, government affairs, and academia. Of the participants, five were lobbyists, 

primarily representing the financial services industry—a notably male-dominated field. Another 

five were in policymaking, working in both the House and Senate across Republican and 

Democratic offices. The remaining two women held academic positions as professors and 

administrative leaders in their institutions.  

 Across interviews, women in policymaking frequently described being interrupted by 

male colleagues in both formal and informal conversations. These behaviors were especially 

pronounced in male-dominated fields, such as financial services, where participants often found 

themselves outnumbered and felt the need to assert themselves repeatedly to be heard. By 

contrast, interviewees working in fields with greater female representation, such as healthcare 

and budgeting, noted a greater sense of camaraderie and fewer interruptions. 

The dynamics in each sector have evolved over time, with noticeable improvements 

overall. Lobbying, particularly within financial services, remains a challenging environment for 

women to navigate, characterized by high levels of competition and a culture that has been slow 

to change. Women in policymaking highlighted some progress, particularly as they gained 

seniority, although deeply ingrained norms persist. Academia, on the other hand, was described 

as comparatively more progressive. Women in this field cited a culture that, while not perfect, is 

more open to discussions about gender equity and less prone to interruptive behavior—especially 

among social scientists who are familiar with these nuances. 

Financial Services and Lobbying 

 Nearly all the female lobbyists I interviewed—each of whom was in the financial 

services industry—were intimately familiar with interruptive and microaggressive behaviors in 

policy conversations. The financial services industry remains heavily male-dominated, with 

women comprising about half of the entry-level workforce but less than a third of the SVP and 

C-suite positions. Many of these women expressed frustration over how this imbalance spills into 

government affairs, affecting conversational dynamics in lobbying environments.  

 One woman, now the head of federal government relations for a major insurance firm, 

reflected on being interrupted throughout her career—from her early days as a DC intern to her 

current position at the top of the ladder. “I wish I didn’t have a recent example, but I do,” she 

said. Within the last two weeks, she had experienced excessive interruptions from a man during a 

meeting, who even questioned whether their male SVP colleague—a subordinate to her—needed 

to be present. Early in her career, she often felt typecast as a secretary, with the assumption that 

she was not involved in substantive policy work: “In earlier days in DC, overcoming the gender 

role of the ‘secretary position’ made it hard to be part of the conversation.” Although 

interruptions have become less frequent as she has advanced in her career, she still finds herself 

taking extra measures to ensure she is heard.  

Another lobbyist who transitioned from the Hill to a lobbying group after earning her 

master’s degree shared a similar perspective. She recalled working under an “old school” 



 

lobbyist and learning from seasoned women that male bullies are often all bark and no bite. 

“They’re like big dogs,” she explained. “They bark for a second, but they’re really putting up a 

show.” She emphasized that interruptions by men are prevalent in the lobbying world: “Everyone 

is trying to be the smartest in the room, sell themselves, and get new contacts.” She pointed out 

that men tend to be more direct and assertive when asking for money: “They’re a lot more pushy 

and demanding by nature. Women are bad at asking for money without apologizing.” This aligns 

with data at the macro level: men initiate negotiations four times more frequently than women 

and, on average, request 30% more in financial negotiations (Babcock & Laschever, 2009).  

A third interviewee in financial services lobbying noted how consistently men interrupted 

her or paid more attention to male colleagues, even when she was leading the meeting:  

“There have absolutely been times that this has impacted my confidence and ability to do 

my job. The more it happens, it naturally gets in your brain… like, fine, I’ll just sit back 

and let him do the talking, because clearly it’s going to happen anyway.”  

While she observed that this behavior has lessened somewhat as she climbed the ladder, it still 

persists: “It doesn’t necessarily matter how high up you are; there is always a gravitation toward 

the male in the room.” She recounted an event where her female head of office hosted members of 

Congress, only for the attendees to bypass her and approach the male counterpart, assuming he 

was the boss. “More often than not, I’m one of the only women in the room. People usually assume 

I’m just someone’s assistant,” she said.  

The Vice President of Government Affairs and lead lobbyist for a prominent financial 

services lobbying group agreed that interruptions and gender gaps are especially prevalent in 

financial services advocacy. However, she noted signs of progress: “People are more present, 

understanding, and aware of these dynamics, especially in conversations, than they were 5 years 

ago.” Reflecting on her early years in lobbying, she recounted frequently being the only woman 

at fundraising events: “As a woman in financial services, I think my tolerance for these things is 

a bit higher than others.”  

Another interviewee shared an anecdote about attending a women’s financial services 

happy hour. When her boss questioned why there was not a similar event for men, she responded 

with a laugh: “Every financial services happy hour is a men’s one.”   

Academia 

 Women’s experiences in policy academia stand in notable contrast to those in corporate 

government affairs. While gender biases persist, academia is generally viewed as more 

progressive than other sectors. A study by researchers at Cornell and Boston University 

examined six aspects of academic life for tenure-track professors, revealing significant examples 

of gender equality, such as equal grant success rates between men and women, among other 

metrics (Ceci & Williams, 2023). 

 One professor reflected on her career in policy academia, unable to recall any memorable 

instances where men had interrupted or talked over her. She attributed this to the strong 

representation of women on faculty and in administrative roles at her institution. This aligns with 

broader trends: in 2021, women comprised 48% of full-time faculty, 47% of associate professors, 



 

and 54% of assistant professors across all 4-year universities (Colby & Bai, 2023). “There’s 

always been a strong representation of women, but even more than that, men and academia know 

how to behave,” she observed. “They’re social scientists. They’ve read about [conversational 

sexism] explicitly in their academic readings.” She suggested that men in policy academia are 

often exposed to feminist arguments and diverse perspectives early on, which shapes more 

inclusive behavior compared to other fields.   

 Government work, in contrast, tends to lag behind in terms of cultural and technological 

progressiveness. “There are some places that are culturally more ahead,” she elaborated, “not 

even just with gender roles, but with things like clothing, technology, even standard of dress. 

Some of these guys in government are still in the printing-out emails stage. They’re just 

culturally behind on a lot of things.”  

 Another academic with a STEM-focused background provided a more critical 

perspective. Her research has examined the macro-level disparities in how women’s voices are 

and are not heard in scientific production. 

“Men publish more frequently and more overall. Even when accounting for differences, 

men are cited more, put in more newspapers, and invited more often to testify before 

Congress. From all the voices we hear in science, women’s voices are diminished at 

every point.”  

She emphasized that balancing the composition of decision-making panels is key to amplifying 

women’s voices in these spaces: “When your work is being reviewed, you’re significantly more 

likely to have it accepted if at least one reviewer looks like you.” The problem, she noted, is that 

most scientific panels are predominantly male, creating a positive feedback loop that favors men 

and keeps them at the center of the system: “In grant-making, we’ve found that heterogeneity in 

panels neutralizes these gender disparities. Diversity reduces the tendency to conform.”  

When asked why academia might be more progressive than government, she gave an 

interesting standpoint: social sciences adopt a critical, evidence-based stance on gender 

dynamics, and scientists are inherently open to evidence. She recalled giving a talk at a high-

level administrative meeting about inequities in women’s voices in science. Afterward, the dean 

of engineering from another institution approached her, saying, “I’ve had to go to these DEI 

things for years, but your talk had error bars, so I’m convinced. How do we fix this?” 

Quantifying inequalities with evidence, she found, was persuasive: “Once you present evidence 

to scientists in a compelling way, they believe it. Policymaking doesn’t have the same sense of 

science-based evaluation.” Instead, policymakers often rely on personal experiences, which, 

when filtered through a male perspective, can reinforce existing biases. “When you go based on 

your own experience, you perpetuate the biases already embedded in society,” she explained. 

Reflecting on policy conversations, she echoed sentiments from other interviewees: “I 

remember so many times when I walked into a room of all women and how incredibly freeing it 

felt. I didn’t have to watch my words as carefully, I didn’t have to worry about what I was 

wearing… didn’t have to look pretty enough so I wasn’t dismissed, but not too sexy that I was 

slutty. I could just be.” 



 

Policymaking 

Women’s experiences in Congress varied widely. One Senate staffer in the healthcare 

sector shared particularly positive experiences. Early in her career, she worked for a lobbying 

firm and found her niche in healthcare policy—a field notably dominated by women: “Women 

dominate health policy because of our inherent traits. You’re dealing with disease groups, 

complex healthcare issues—things that require empathy. Women tend to have those traits, 

empathy and patience.” She noted feeling “very protected” by her current team, led by a female 

director and predominantly composed of women: “If a man interrupted me, someone would 

definitely call him out.”  

 While she encountered fewer interruptions than women in other policy areas, she noted 

differences in communication styles: “Men look at things as wins; women look for common 

ground. They think to themselves, how can we all win in this process?” Her insights are 

substantiated by research on negotiation behavior, where men often choose metaphors like 

“winning a ballgame” or “a wrestling match” to describe negotiations, while women liken it to 

“going to the dentist” (Babcock & Laschever, 2009). In her book You Just Don't Understand 

(1990), linguist Deborah Tannen describes how men often approach conversations as 

competitions and aim to “win” the argument, whereas women prioritize consensus and 

cooperation. Tannen’s work illustrates how these differences shape interactions, with men 

treating arguments as zero-sum games and women prioritizing consensus. 

 A staff director for a House subcommittee offered a contrasting perspective: “Looking 

back to my first job at a restaurant, I was constantly talked over. That pattern continued all the 

way through my policy career.” She recalled being explicitly told to be a “good girl” when she 

was first hired on the Hill and described clerk meetings where the culture enabled men to 

dominate conversations and interrupt in ways women could not. Societal norms often condition 

women to be deferential, making it challenging to address interruptions or microaggressions 

directly: “We’re socialized to never make a man feel wrong or minimized. This totally affected 

my sense of relevance and well-being.” 

 Now, with years of experience behind her, she reflected on how her status has shifted 

treatment. “People actually listen to me now because I have a rank and title,” she said. This 

theme—having to work hard to be heard—resonates with many women at all career stages: 

“Looking back, it’s illustrative how much I had to work to have people listen to me.”  

 

Adaptations and Insights 

Equally important to understanding the barriers women face in policy conversations is 

recognizing the resilience and creativity with which they have responded. The interviewees 

offered a wealth of hard-earned wisdom: strategies born from persistence and deep 

understanding of how to navigate spaces that were not built with them in mind. These strategies 

fall into thematic categories that reflect both internal and external adaptations: shifts in mindset, 

communication styles, and coalition-building approaches. Some are quiet, personal 

recalibrations, while others are collective practices aimed at reshaping harmful culture itself. The 



 

following sections explore these strategies in greater detail, offering insight into how women 

have learned to influence outcomes in male-dominated policy environments. 

The Power of Self-Belief 

 Much of the advice shared by women centered on one key principle: developing and 

projecting confidence. One lobbyist reflected on her journey to embracing this mindset: “I want 

to be taken seriously. I want to share what I know, what I’ve spent so much time becoming an 

expert in.” For many, a lack of confidence was the most significant barrier to entering a 

conversation or overcoming interruptions. One interviewee told me, “Do not be talked out of 

how important, great, and wonderful you are. Do not lose confidence because of things in your 

external environment you can’t control. If you’re prepared and you’ve done your homework, 

speak.” Another woman echoed, “Trust yourself, trust your instincts and what you know. 

Whatever room you’re in, you are there for a reason.”  

 Many encouraged action even in the face of doubt or fear: “Even though it might feel 

hard or scary, assert yourself regardless—even if you think you’re the dumbest in the room. 

Women think so much before we speak… you’re going to be right most of the time.” One 

interviewee shared a strategy she had recently adopted: in meetings, especially larger ones, she 

makes sure to contribute within the first five minutes. “This establishes you as an active 

participant in the meeting and makes you more comfortable continuing the dialogue,” she said. 

She found that sitting back for the initial part of a meeting made it harder to break the silence 

later: “Get your voice in the room from the start, and it will flow from there.”  

 Several women pointed out the audacious confidence often exhibited by men, which 

often works to their advantage. “If we choose to have a level of confidence and audacity, nobody 

will question us,” one woman noted. This is substantiated by research; across 64 study 

variations, women consistently rated their performance lower than men did, even when their 

actual results were similar or better (Exley & Kessler, 2022). Notably, the women who 

underestimated themselves were generally more accurate than the men who overestimated their 

abilities. 

One woman humorously referenced a popular social media mantra: “Just have the blind 

confidence of an average white man.” Though intended as a joke, it serves as a reminder that a 

bold sense of self-assurance, however unconventional, can sometimes make all the difference. 

Speaking with Purpose 

 The differences in communication styles between men and women—whether rooted in 

society, biology, or a combination of both—are well-documented and cannot be overlooked. 

Many interviewees pointed out that men are often more direct and assertive in conversations and 

negotiations, which frequently works to their advantage. Research corroborates this, showing 

that men tend to use direct measures and straightforward commands, while women rely more on 

indirect measures or hints to get their way (Falbo, 1977). These behaviors are especially 

prevalent in mixed-sex interactions, where societal norms condition men to assert their intentions 

and women to prioritize compliance (Block, 1984; Falbo & Peplau, 1980). 



 

Several women stressed the value of being direct and assertive to amplify voices and 

become successful in policy conversations. One interviewee remarked, “Women tend to think 

more before they speak, while men are more demanding by nature.” Another added, “If you 

watch men, they are very direct. I think we as women need to realize that if we choose to have a 

level of audacity, nobody will question us.” Studies confirm that women communicate more 

effectively with men when they make demands rather than requests (Dolinska & Dolinski, 2006). 

 This dynamic is significant in the high-stakes world of policymaking and lobbying, 

where conversations often center around the negotiation of money and resources. Many women 

agreed that men excel in these environments because they are unapologetic and bold in their 

asks. One interviewee put it: “Do not be afraid to be as pushy as the men are.” Across the board, 

interviewees urged young professionals to embrace direct communication, dropping excessive 

cushioning words, unnecessary apologies, and self-doubt when making their case.  

 For many, the concept of being demanding feels uncomfortable or even unnatural, 

particularly in male-dominated settings. However, there is no way around the fact that asking for 

what one needs is a critical step to being heard. “You’ll never get what you don’t ask for,” one 

woman reminded me. “Whether that’s for a raise, for respect, for money. If you never say 

anything, nobody’s ever going to do anything for you.”  

 Challenging the gender norms that discourage female directness is an important step for 

women who want to influence policy conversations. “We, women, aren’t great about being 

aggressive, demanding the same attention, standing up for ourselves… You just have to learn 

that skill,” one interviewee shared. “It’s about figuring out what you want, then unapologetically 

reaching for it.” Women, she noted, have long been adept at “managing up”—navigating systems 

that were not designed for them in mind. It is a skill borne out of necessity, but invaluable when 

it comes to self-advocacy.  

Playing The Game 

 An unexpected but compelling theme that emerged from many interviews was the 

concept of strategically leveraging societal gender roles to navigate challenging environments. 

Historically, women in professional spaces have often taken on “mothering” or “secretary” 

roles—sometimes consciously, often subconsciously. These roles can include additional 

responsibilities unrelated to job descriptions, like tidying up, grabbing coffees, or acting as social 

nurturers in the workplace (Jang & George, 2020). While these behaviors are rooted in 

traditional gender expectations, they can also be leveraged as tools for influence and leadership.   

 Interviewees expressed mixed views on these roles. Some described the challenges of 

escaping the secretary stereotype. “In earlier days, overcoming the gender role of the secretary 

position made it really hard for me to be a part of the conversation,” one woman shared. Another 

cautioned against taking secretarial positions altogether, explaining how the role’s associations 

can be challenging to escape: “Even when I was promoted to a policy-oriented role, I still had to 

work as the secretary. I essentially had to do two jobs at once to get involved in the actual policy 

work.”  



 

 Yet, several others argued for embracing these roles strategically. “In a room full of men, 

I’ll ask myself, what advantages do I have? How can I use them in order to be heard?” one 

woman asked. Another woman from academia gave a particularly nuanced perspective: “We as 

women have privileges that give us opportunities to navigate a room in a way that men can’t. In 

the early 1900s, women who took on the ‘mothering’ role ended up in the room where things 

happened.” She added, “Ask yourself, how can I play into certain roles in ways that benefit me? 

How can I take advantage of these societal nuances? You need to realize that this is the game we 

are playing.”  

This perspective is both pragmatic and empowering. Advocating for a more equitable 

system and using tools available to succeed within that system are not mutually exclusive. 

Acknowledging that the “game” may be inherently unfair does not have to mean giving up; it can 

mean finding ways to thrive within it. After all, life is not a game we can simply “tap out” of, so 

why not maximize every opportunity to succeed within it? 

Reframing the “Mothering” Role 

 I am proud to be the daughter of a woman well-known in our hometown for her 

compassion, gentleness, and boundless patience. She spent a decade as a preschool teacher 

before managing a local restaurant, where I had the privilege of working alongside her during my 

teenage years. Watching her interactions with staff, many of whom came from less privileged 

backgrounds, left an indelible mark on me.  

Other managers often joked about how she “babied” the staff; she spoke to them with 

patience and kindness, even in moments of frustration or conflict. She gave them rides home or 

to the train station, remembered birthdays, and made coffees without being asked. She listened to 

their stories, taking the time to learn about rough childhoods and foster care experiences. My 

mom treated her staff with a compassion that some had never encountered elsewhere. For many, 

she became a gentle and patient mother figure they had never known. 

The impact of her leadership was unmistakable. Miscommunications eased, frustrations 

diminished, and trust flourished. It became clear that her staff deeply respected her, and their 

trust made the team more harmonious than ever. 

While policymaking institutions are vastly different from restaurants, the takeaway 

remains the same. Women should not be obligated to take on “mothering” roles, but when 

embraced intentionally, these qualities can build trust and strengthen communication. Women 

are capable of being nurturing yet formidable, gentle yet strong. 

I grew up watching my mom be all of these things at once. Now, I strive to carry her 

compassion and strength into every role I take on.  

Walking the Fine Line 

 In social science, the “assertiveness penalty” refers to the phenomenon where men are 

praised for being assertive or direct while women are criticized for the same behaviors (Rudman 

& Glick, 2001). This double standard is especially pronounced in professional settings, where 

women must walk a fine line between being perceived as confident and being labeled as 

aggressive. Research examining the interplay of gender, assertiveness, and status has shown that 



 

men who express anger or stand up for themselves are often seen as powerful or authoritative, 

while women are deemed “out of control” (Brescoll & Uhlmann, 2008).  

This theme emerged repeatedly in conversations with interviewees, who reflected on 

difficulties balancing confidence with approachability. One academic highlighted the 

disproportionate scrutiny women face: “There’s a much lower threshold for women to seem too 

aggressive—we see this with the rhetoric surrounding Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris.”  

The media coverage of these figures is revealing. Hillary Clinton was often criticized as 

“overly aggressive” by political opponents and the press (Carlin & Winfrey, 2009). On a podcast 

with Cherie Blair, Clinton recounted how pitching an idea in the same way as her male 

counterparts often resulted in her being labeled “off-putting” while the men were seen as 

compelling and powerful (Stoecklein, 2023). “It’s not just the typical assumptions about credit,” 

she said. “It’s about women—how we express ourselves, and whether we fit into the mental 

image of what a woman is supposed to be.” 

A similar dynamic played out during the 2020 vice-presidential debate when Kamala 

Harris drew attention for saying, “Mr. Vice President, I’m speaking,” after being repeatedly 

interrupted. She was mocked for this by political figures, the media, and even former President 

Donald Trump during her 2024 presidential run. This contrasts with a 2020 debate moment, 

when Joe Biden told Trump, “Will you shut up, man?”—a comment that elicited little critique.   

 The consequences of this double standard are amplified in policymaking, where success 

often hinges on perception. Politicians rely on favorable public opinion to win elections. Staffers 

and lobbyists depend on professional relationships and reputations to achieve policy outcomes. 

“In policy work, relations are central,” one staffer from Congress explained. “If you’re 

aggressive or difficult to work with, people simply won’t come to you. A man can be much more 

aggressive before he hits that threshold.” Another woman echoed this sentiment: “If you don’t 

care about how you’re perceived, sure, maybe you’re freer of these societal burdens. But you’ll 

get passed over for someone that everybody likes.”  

 Understanding and navigating these dynamics, albeit unfair, can be vital for success. 

“You just have to know you’re going to hit that threshold earlier—it’s a navigation one has to 

make,” said one congressional staffer whose work centers on appropriations and budget work. “I 

negotiate for a living, and having somebody see you as fair, but tough, but reasonable, but 

approachable is a very hard dance—which men don’t have to do.” She added, “Oftentimes, 

someone has to like you in order for you to get what you need from them.”  

Still, many women expressed optimism that this gap narrows with experience and 

authority. “As my rank has increased, so has my freedom to be more aggressive,” shared one 

academic. “I can push harder now than when I could when I was an assistant professor.”  

 While many women stressed the importance of navigating these unwritten rules, one 

academic offered a different perspective. When asked how she balances assertiveness with 

avoiding abrasiveness, her response was blunt: “Why do you care? That’s the problem—to worry 

what they think about you.” As one of her students, I admired this professor for being bold, 



 

unapologetic, and wildly effective. Her words indicate this inner strength: “I don’t care what 

people think about me. And there’s my power.”  

Strength in Solidarity  

 The importance of female inclusion and support networks in policy fields emerged as a 

common theme among participants, particularly those who had experienced female mentorship 

or worked in women-led environments. One woman in healthcare policy on the Hill described a 

sense of protection and solidarity within her team: “I feel very protected by my team, and I think 

the same goes for healthcare lobbyists—these women generally look out for one another.” 

Female-dominated teams, she noted, often foster a sense of camaraderie and mutual support. 

 Even in male-dominated sectors like financial services lobbying, the value of robust 

networks was unmistakable. “There’s an incredible group of women in the financial services 

lobbying side, and we all look out for each other. Getting yourself ingrained in these types of 

networks is helpful,” one lobbyist shared. Groups like the Women’s Congressional Policy 

Institute and the Bipartisan Women’s Caucus provide opportunities for women in policymaking 

roles to connect across party lines, while organizations like the National League of Women 

Lobbyists bring together advocates from diverse backgrounds. Beyond these formal networks, 

countless informal groups in DC help young professionals connect, grow professionally, and 

contribute meaningfully to policy discussions. 

 Participants across the board spoke about how daunting it is to walk into male-dominated 

rooms, let alone speak up and be heard. In those moments, the presence of allies—especially 

other women—can be transformative. “When you walk into some of these situations and see an 

ally, it helps. You have strength in numbers,” one interviewee said. Another woman described 

the critical role of female friendships in navigating the policy world: “You have to have friends 

in DC in order to get anything done.” Strong networks amplify women’s voices in spaces where 

they might otherwise go unheard.  

 Support networks are not just about inclusion but active amplification of women’s 

contributions. Many interviewees expressed deep gratitude for the women—and men—who have 

championed their success. “Management caring about this stuff is so important,” one woman 

explained. “I had a great male director who intentionally hired women to push us up, and he 

made a huge change: he gave me a network. Now I know other women in leadership, and that 

connection has made us stronger.”  

Mentors also played a crucial role in advocating for women during critical moments. 

“I’m thankful to have had men and women as mentors who would speak up for me,” one 

participant reflected. “Even when I wasn’t brave enough to stand up for myself, I’ve always had 

a strong team that would.”  

 Perhaps the most touching reflection came from a woman who recounted the impact of 

her allies. “I’ve always had such strong champions and mentors,” she said, her voice emotional. 

“I guess it’s my turn to do the same for the next generation. Sitting here today, talking to you—

this is my chance.”  

 



 

Shifts Across Generations 

Women across sectors expressed gratitude for the battles fought by older trailblazers who 

paved the way, as well as the younger generations who continue to challenge norms and foster 

meaningful dialogue. A banking lobbyist voiced her immense respect for the women now 

retiring, describing them as the ones who had it the hardest but laid the groundwork for what she 

and her peers could achieve: “Every decade that goes by, it gets easier and easier. Every older 

generation of lobbyists has paved the way for us.” She noted that asserting oneself becomes more 

natural with age and experience: “It’s intimidating, but not as intimidating as it used to be. That 

comes with age—I now know that I didn’t know before.”  

Equally, women praised the boldness of younger generations, who continue to challenge 

systemic barriers and create shifts unimaginable in previous decades. When asked what advice 

she would give to young women striving to be heard, one interviewee responded simply: “I 

would start by saying thank you, and good job. You are changing a narrative that we have all 

lived in and accepted. By doing that, you’ve made it better for all of us. I can’t thank you enough 

for that.” 

Intersectionality & Unheard Voices 

While this study centers on gender dynamics in policy conversations, it is important to 

acknowledge that gender does not operate in isolation. The experiences of women in these 

spaces are also shaped by intersecting identities such as race, ethnicity, and other socioeconomic 

factors. For instance, Kimberlé Crenshaw’s concept of intersectionality highlights how Black 

women often face unique forms of discrimination that are not simply the sum of racism and 

sexism but are compounded in ways that create distinct challenges (Crenshaw, 1989). Similarly, 

research indicates that women of color may encounter additional barriers in leadership roles due 

to the interplay of racial and gender biases (Pogrebna et al., 2024). 

While the scope of my interviews did not explicitly explore these intersections, it is 

important to recognize that the challenges and strategies discussed may not fully capture the 

experiences of all women, particularly those from marginalized racial and ethnic backgrounds. 

Future research should explore how these intersecting identities influence women’s participation 

and voice in policy conversations. 

A New Chapter for Women in Policy 

At times, it feels almost ungrateful to dwell on the lingering disparities between men and 

women in policymaking. I enjoy freedoms today that my grandmothers and great-grandmothers 

could not have dreamed of: I vote freely and have watched a woman take the oath of office as 

Vice President; I have earned policy fellowships, interned in three congressional offices, and 

regularly sit in the hearings where history is made; I can choose to wear a skirt or pants to work 

on Capitol Hill—a simple privilege once unthinkable to the women who preceded me.  

 Yet, my conversations with women across policymaking, academia, and lobbying 

indicate that gender dynamics in policy conversations persist, greatly shaping whose voices carry 

weight. Societal norms and disruptive behaviors continue to exist across sectors, with their 

effects most pronounced in male-dominated spaces. While these challenges tend to lessen with 



 

seniority, they remain barriers that undermine contributions and make it harder to ascend in the 

first place.  

The most remarkable takeaway from this project is the resilience, ingenuity, and 

adaptability of women. Women are extraordinary strategists in navigating environments that 

have historically excluded them. They find ways to build confidence, make direct requests, and 

create networks of allies that amplify their collective voices and broaden their influence. The 

increasing presence of women in leadership roles has catalyzed change, while targeted 

mentorship has forged pathways for future generations. 

Some women have learned to walk the tightrope—assertive but not aggressive, with 

voices both strong and well-received. Others have rejected this balancing act altogether, focusing 

instead on the quality of their work and ideas. Regardless of their approach, women have steadily 

challenged the structures that once limited their reach. 

 Progress is undeniable. Year by year, more women are joining decision-making tables, 

reshaping conversations, and normalizing what was once extraordinary. The challenges they face 

in policymaking today are far less formidable than those of the past. Women who lead—as 

Speakers of the House, Vice Presidents, presidential candidates—are redefining what power 

looks like and showing that progress is not a solitary achievement, but a collective endeavor. 

Each of us stands on the shoulders of those who came before. 

 Women today enjoy opportunities unmatched at any point in history. This is evident not 

only in the positions we hold and the conversations we shape but also in how we see ourselves. 

One interviewee told me, “Today, I don’t think a lot about being a woman. That’s a great thing 

in my book.” There is something evocative in that sentiment: the declaring of a quiet revolution, 

a reality where women speak without hesitation, move without constraint, and lead without 

question.  

The journey continues, and progress has never felt more possible. This next chapter 

promises to be extraordinary. But today, I stand proud to be a woman—unremarkable in 

determining what I achieve, yet remarkable for all it represents. 

 

  



 

Acknowledgments 

 This project would not have been possible without the thirteen extraordinary women 

across policymaking, academia, and lobbying who shared their stories with me. Their reflections 

illuminate the role of female mentorship in amplifying young women’s voices. By reflecting on 

their own experiences—having a voice, so to speak—on this very topic, they have shaped a 

dialogue that will guide the next generation of leaders. I am especially grateful to Kerry 

Donnelly, who was instrumental in connecting me with many of these women.  

 I am profoundly thankful to my professor, Dr. Mark Zachary Taylor, for his support and 

belief in this project even when it was merely a seed of an idea. Over this semester, it grew into 

what I consider my final “passion project” as a student. It is a privilege and an honor to have 

explored a subject that has taught me lessons I will carry forward into my career. 

 My deepest gratitude goes to my parents, who never measured their pride in me by my 

achievements, but instead encouraged me to pursue what sets my heart on fire. Without their 

support and example, I would not have a fraction of the voice I carry today.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  



 

References 

Associated Press. (2024, November 21). Number of women who are state lawmakers inches up 

to a record high. https://apnews.com/article/women-state-lawmakers-

c4aae58378e9280657c76fdfd5d3faaf 

 Babcock, L., & Laschever, S. (2009). Women don't ask: Negotiation and the gender divide. In 

Women Don't Ask. Princeton University Press. 

 Babcock, L., & Laschever, S. (2009). Women don't ask: Negotiation and the gender divide. In 

Women Don't Ask. Princeton University Press. 

Block, J. H. (1984). Sex role identity and ego development. (No Title). 

 Brescoll, V. L., & Uhlmann, E. L. (2008). Can an Angry Woman Get Ahead?: Status Conferral, 

Gender, and Expression of Emotion in the Workplace. Psychological Science, 19(3), 268-

275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02079.x 

Carlin, D. B., & Winfrey, K. L. (2009). Have You Come a Long Way, Baby? Hillary Clinton, 

Sarah Palin, and Sexism in 2008 Campaign Coverage. Communication Studies, 60(4), 

326–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510970903110059 

 Ceci, S. J., Kahn, S., & Williams, W. M. (2023). Exploring Gender Bias in Six Key Domains of 

Academic Science: An Adversarial Collaboration. Psychological Science in the Public 

Interest, 24(1), 15-73. https://doi.org/10.1177/15291006231163179 

Center for American Women and Politics. (2025a). Women serving in the 119th Congress 

(2025–2027). https://cawp.rutgers.edu/facts/levels-office/congress/women-serving-119th-

congress-2025-2027 

Center for American Women and Politics. (2025b). U.S. Supreme Court. 

https://cawp.rutgers.edu/facts/levels-office/us-supreme-court 

Center for American Women and Politics. (2025c). Women mayors in U.S. cities 2025. 

https://cawp.rutgers.edu/women-mayors-us-cities-2025 

 Coates, J. (2015). Women, Men and Language: A Sociolinguistic Account of Gender 

Differences in Language (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315645612 

 Colby, G., & Bai, Z. (2023). A path toward equity for women faculty in higher education. TIAA 

Institute Research Paper Series No. Forthcoming. 

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist 

Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. 

University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167. 

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=uclf 

 Dolinska, B., & Dolinski, D. (2006). To command or to ask? Gender and effectiveness of 

“tough” vs “soft” compliance‐gaining strategies . Social Influence, 1(1), 48–57. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510500314571 

Exley, C. L., & Kessler, J. B. (2022). The gender gap in self-promotion. The Quarterly Journal 

of Economics, 137(3), 1345-1381. 

https://apnews.com/article/women-state-lawmakers-c4aae58378e9280657c76fdfd5d3faaf
https://apnews.com/article/women-state-lawmakers-c4aae58378e9280657c76fdfd5d3faaf
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02079.x
https://doi.org/10.1080/10510970903110059
https://doi.org/10.1177/15291006231163179
https://cawp.rutgers.edu/facts/levels-office/congress/women-serving-119th-congress-2025-2027
https://cawp.rutgers.edu/facts/levels-office/congress/women-serving-119th-congress-2025-2027
https://cawp.rutgers.edu/facts/levels-office/us-supreme-court
https://cawp.rutgers.edu/women-mayors-us-cities-2025
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315645612
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=uclf
https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510500314571


 

 Falbo, T. (1977). Relationships Between Sex, Sex Role, and Social Influence. Psychology of 

Women Quarterly, 2(1), 62-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1977.tb00573.x 

 Falbo, T., & Peplau, L. A. (1980). Power strategies in intimate relationships. Journal of 

personality and social psychology, 38(4), 618. 

Jang, S. R., & George, J. M. (2020). Office housework, burnout, and promotion: Does gender 

matter? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(6), 1–15. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2452 

 MILLER, M. G., & SUTHERLAND, J. L. (2023). The Effect of Gender on Interruptions at 

Congressional Hearings. American Political Science Review, 117(1), 103–121. 

doi:10.1017/S0003055422000260 

 MILLER, M. G., & SUTHERLAND, J. L. (2023). The Effect of Gender on Interruptions at 

Congressional Hearings. American Political Science Review, 117(1), 103–121. 

doi:10.1017/S0003055422000260 

 Osborn, T., & Mendez, J. M. (2010). Speaking as Women: Women and Floor Speeches in the 

Senate. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 31(1), 1–21. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/15544770903501384 

PBS NewsHour. (2024, November 11). 13 women will be governors next year, a new record. 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/13-women-will-be-governors-next-year-a-new-

record 

Pew Research Center. (2025, February 21). Women account for 28% of lawmakers in the 119th 

Congress, unchanged from the last Congress. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-

reads/2025/02/21/women-account-for-28-of-lawmakers-in-the-119th-congress-

unchanged-from-the-last-congress/ 

Pogrebna, G., Angelopoulos, S., Motsi-Omoijiade, I., Kharlamov, A., & Tkachenko, N. (2024). 

The impact of intersectional racial and gender biases on minority female leadership over 

two centuries. Scientific Reports, 14, Article 111. 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38167539/ 

Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic 

women. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 743–762. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-

4537.00239 

Stoecklein, A. (Host). (2023, March 7). S2 E1. Woman and Change: Setting the Scene with 

Hillary Clinton and Cherie Blair [Audio podcast episode]. In The Story of Woman. 

https://thestoryofwomanpodcast.com/blog/s2-e1-woman-and-change-setting-the-scene-

with-hillary-clinton-and-cherie-blair 

 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1977.tb00573.x
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2452
https://doi.org/10.1080/15544770903501384
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/13-women-will-be-governors-next-year-a-new-record
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/13-women-will-be-governors-next-year-a-new-record
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/21/women-account-for-28-of-lawmakers-in-the-119th-congress-unchanged-from-the-last-congress/
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/21/women-account-for-28-of-lawmakers-in-the-119th-congress-unchanged-from-the-last-congress/
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/21/women-account-for-28-of-lawmakers-in-the-119th-congress-unchanged-from-the-last-congress/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38167539/
https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00239
https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00239
https://thestoryofwomanpodcast.com/blog/s2-e1-woman-and-change-setting-the-scene-with-hillary-clinton-and-cherie-blair
https://thestoryofwomanpodcast.com/blog/s2-e1-woman-and-change-setting-the-scene-with-hillary-clinton-and-cherie-blair
https://thestoryofwomanpodcast.com/blog/s2-e1-woman-and-change-setting-the-scene-with-hillary-clinton-and-cherie-blair
https://thestoryofwomanpodcast.com/blog/s2-e1-woman-and-change-setting-the-scene-with-hillary-clinton-and-cherie-blair


 

Appendix A 

Interview Questions 

 

1. Can you briefly tell me about your current role, what you do, and your career journey that 

led you to where you are? 

 

2. In formal or informal conversations related to your job, do you ever feel sidelined or 

spoken over? Can you recall any specific instances? 

 

3. In your experience, what factors shape whose voices are heard or carry weight in policy 

conversations? Do you think gender plays a big role in this? 

 

4. Have you noticed any patterns in when you've felt your contributions are especially 

valued, or perhaps overlooked? For example, if more women are in the room, or if you're 

in a room with social scientists instead of engineers? If you're in a leading role in an 

event versus a participant? 

 

5. Reflecting on your experiences across different stages of your career—school, 

internships, and then the professional career that led you to where you are now, how have 

conversations evolved? Have you noticed that you're treated differently, or your voice 

carries more weight, as you've moved "up the ladder"? 

 

6. Do any particular moments stand out to you as learning opportunities in navigating 

conversations and making sure your voice is heard? 

 

7. Public policy, particularly in DC, is a competitive environment. What advice would you 

give to young women seeking to participate more effectively in both formal and informal 

policy conversations? 

 

8. Something I've talked a lot with others about is how women in politics often walk a fine 

line between coming off as assertive and abrasive. Unfortunately, I think this is a field 

where your success can heavily depend on perception, so I think many women are 

struggling to navigate the tension between being effective and avoiding negative 

stereotypes. What is your perception of this? 

 

9. From your perspective, what shifts—whether personal, cultural, or institutional—would 

help create more inclusive and productive conversations in policy settings? 


	“I will no longer be made to feel ashamed of existing. I will have my voice: Indian, Spanish, white. I will have my serpent’s tongue–my woman’s voice, my sexual voice, my poet’s voice. I will overcome the tradition of silence.” –Gloria Anzaldua, Borde...
	References

