Dr. Marcus Bennett | Department of Political Psychology
April, 2025
The lecture hall fills up quickly today, with students engaged in animated discussions about recent political events. Dr. Bennett notices several female students who seem particularly invested in the topic as they take their seats near the front. He adjusts his notes at the podium as the room settles down. The large screen behind him displays the title slide: "Breaking the Political Glass Ceiling: The Executive Pathway to Presidential Power."
Dr. Bennett: "Good morning, everyone. Today we're going to examine a critical aspect of American politics that has significant implications for our democratic system—the persistent challenges women face in reaching the highest executive office in the land. This isn't simply about representation or fairness, though those are certainly relevant. It's about understanding the structural, psychological, and strategic factors that have created what many refer to as the 'political glass ceiling.'"
Dr. Bennett: "Before we dive into the research and data, I'd like to open the floor for some initial thoughts. Many of you have lived through several election cycles where gender has played a prominent role. What are your reflections on women's pursuit of presidential power in the United States?"
Jessica: "I have to say, Professor, after watching Harris lose to Trump, following Hillary's loss to him in 2016, I'm feeling pretty discouraged. I'm starting to wonder if America will ever elect a woman as president. It's hard not to feel like democracy isn't working fairly for women when this keeps happening."
Mia: "I agree with Jessica. And what's especially frustrating about Clinton's case is that she won the popular vote by nearly three million votes! But because of the Electoral College system, she still lost. It makes me question whether our democratic institutions are structurally biased against women candidates."
Tyler: "I think we might be jumping to conclusions about gender being the decisive factor. Both Clinton and Harris had other issues that affected their campaigns. Maybe it wasn't about them being women but about their specific qualities as candidates or the political climate?"
Dr. Bennett: "These are all valid perspectives that highlight the complexity of this issue. Jessica and Mia, your feelings of discouragement are shared by many, and they point to a real pattern we need to examine. And Tyler raises an important point about avoiding oversimplification. What I hope to do today is provide a framework for understanding these outcomes that goes beyond both simple narratives of gender bias and dismissals of its relevance."
Dr. Bennett: "The question isn't simply 'Will America elect a woman?' but rather 'What pathways to presidential power have historically proven successful, and how do gender dynamics affect those pathways?' Let's start by looking at the historical context."
Dr. Bennett: "When we examine women's participation in presidential politics, we see a series of important milestones that represent both progress and persistent challenges. Geraldine Ferraro broke ground as the first female VP nominee on a major party ticket in 1984. Hillary Clinton came close to securing the Democratic nomination in 2008 before becoming the first female presidential nominee in 2016. Kamala Harris made history as the first female vice president in 2020, before her presidential run in 2024."
Dr. Bennett: "But these milestones need to be viewed in the context of broader patterns of women's representation in positions of power. Let's look at the current statistics."
Current Pipeline Statistics (2025):
Dr. Bennett: "These numbers reveal something crucial about the pipeline to presidential power. Women have made significant inroads in legislative positions but remain underrepresented in executive roles. This distinction becomes especially important when we consider the traditional pathways to the presidency."
Dr. Bennett: "One of the most consistent patterns in presidential politics is the advantage held by candidates with executive experience, particularly governors. Since 1976, governors have won 7 of 12 presidential elections. The remaining winners typically had other forms of executive experience—military leadership, business leadership, or vice presidential experience."
Dr. Bennett: "This creates what I call the 'executive experience gap.' With women holding only 24% of governorships, the pool of women with the most historically successful type of presidential preparation is structurally limited. This isn't about capability or potential—it's about specific types of leadership experience that voters have consistently favored."
Amanda: "But that creates a Catch-22, doesn't it? Women can't get executive experience without being elected to executive positions, but they struggle to be elected to executive positions because they lack executive experience. How do we break that cycle?"
Dr. Bennett: "That's exactly the right question, Amanda. It is indeed a challenging cycle to break. But understanding it gives us a more strategic approach than simply focusing on the presidency itself. If we want to see a woman in the White House, the most effective strategy would be to dramatically increase the number of women in governorships and other executive roles first."
Dr. Bennett: "Let's consider the Clinton and Harris cases through this lens. Both were highly qualified in legislative and appointive roles, but neither had experience as a chief executive—making key decisions, managing large organizations, or being the final authority. This created vulnerability to questions about 'readiness' that their male counterparts with similar résumés also faced."
Dr. Bennett: "Beyond the structural issues of the pipeline, we need to understand the psychological dimensions that affect how female candidates are perceived. Research in political psychology shows that identical qualities and behaviors are often interpreted differently based on gender."
Dr. Bennett: "For example, assertiveness in men is typically labeled as 'leadership,' while the same behavior in women is more often described as 'aggressive' or 'abrasive.' Emotional expression helps male candidates appear 'authentic' but can harm women by triggering stereotypes about emotional stability. Policy expertise in women is often viewed as 'wonkish' or 'professorial,' while in men it's seen as 'intellectual depth.'"
Dr. Bennett: "Media coverage amplifies these disparities. Studies consistently find that female candidates receive more coverage of their appearance and personal life, less substantive policy coverage than male counterparts, and more questioning of their 'electability' despite comparable qualifications."
Sofia: "Professor Bennett, I'm an international student from Finland, and we've had several female presidents and prime ministers. Many other countries like New Zealand, Germany, and Taiwan have had successful female leaders. Maybe the problem isn't just about gender but about how America specifically approaches candidate selection? In many of these countries, women built their credibility through executive positions before reaching the highest office."
Dr. Bennett: "Sofia raises an excellent point that gives us valuable comparative perspective. Let's look at the international patterns."
International Comparative Perspective:
As of 2025, 28 countries currently have women serving as heads of state or government. Nations with successful female executives have several common factors:
Dr. Bennett: "Sofia is absolutely right that there's a pattern internationally. In many countries where women have successfully reached the highest office, they previously held significant executive positions. Angela Merkel in Germany, Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand, and Margaret Thatcher in the UK all demonstrated executive capability before becoming head of government."
Case Study: New Zealand's Jacinda Ardern
Before becoming Prime Minister, Ardern:
Her communication style balanced empathy with clear decision-making, effectively navigating gendered expectations while projecting authority.
Dr. Bennett: "This brings us to what I call 'the identity politics trap.' There's a tendency, particularly within progressive politics, to focus on representational milestones—'the first woman president'—as an end goal rather than as a natural outcome of developing qualified female leaders."
Dr. Bennett: "When candidates are elevated primarily for symbolic reasons without sufficient executive development or preparation, it creates vulnerability both electorally and for the broader cause of women's advancement."
Ryan: "But how are women supposed to get that executive experience if they're not given the opportunity? It seems like a circular problem—they need experience to be elected, but they need to be elected to get experience."
Dr. Bennett: "That's a fair question, Ryan. The answer is actually quite straightforward even if the implementation is challenging: run for executive offices that build that experience. Or help someone run who you agree with. If women don't take responsibility for strategically building leadership positions, then they're effectively expecting these roles to be handed to them."
Dr. Bennett: "This isn't about placing blame—it's about strategic empowerment. The political system doesn't simply 'give' executive positions to anyone, regardless of gender. They must be actively pursued, starting at local levels and building upward."
Alexis: "But don't women face additional barriers in those races too? It's not a level playing field at any level."
Dr. Bennett: "You're absolutely right, Alexis. The barriers are real at every level. However, they tend to be somewhat less pronounced in local executive races, which makes those races both more winnable and crucial as building blocks. The research shows that once women have executive experience, the perception gap narrows significantly."
Dr. Bennett: "If we're serious about seeing a woman in the White House, we need to focus on strategic pipeline development rather than simply trying to break through at the top level without building the foundation."
Dr. Bennett: "This means several things: First, a deliberate focus on recruiting and supporting women for executive positions at all levels, from mayors to governors. Second, strategic career planning that prioritizes executive rather than legislative paths for promising female leaders. Third, developing independent fundraising infrastructure specifically for executive-track women that operates outside traditional party hierarchies."
Jennifer: "It sounds like you're saying women need to mentor other women because men don't really understand the unique challenges women face in politics."
Dr. Bennett: "Jennifer, that's an astute observation. Women's mentorship of other women is indeed crucial. While male allies are important, there are experiential aspects of navigating gender dynamics in leadership that men simply haven't faced firsthand."
Dr. Bennett: "Women need not just individual mentorship but collective solidarity—perhaps something like a strong women's caucus that will advocate uncompromisingly for their interests. This kind of solidarity can't be given to women; they must build it themselves through intentional coalition-building and mutual support."
Maria: "What about the media bias you mentioned earlier? How do women overcome that structural disadvantage?"
Dr. Bennett: "Another excellent question, Maria. Traditional media has historically presented barriers, but today's digital landscape offers unprecedented opportunities for direct communication. Women candidates need to leverage YouTube, podcasts, social media, and their own websites to bypass traditional gatekeepers and communicate directly with voters."
Dr. Bennett: "This isn't just about having a social media presence—it's about strategic platform building that establishes executive credibility and demonstrates problem-solving capability. Elizabeth Warren's detailed policy proposals during her 2020 campaign exemplified this approach, though she too lacked executive experience."
Dr. Bennett: "Let me offer some concrete recommendations based on the research we've discussed today. For women aspiring to executive leadership, the path is challenging but clear: build executive credentials systematically, starting at local levels."
Dr. Bennett: "For those who want to support women's executive leadership, the key is to move beyond symbolic gestures to strategic investments in the pipeline. This means prioritizing donations and volunteer efforts for women in executive races, particularly at state and local levels."
David: "It feels like you're placing all the responsibility on women themselves. Don't political parties and male-dominated power structures need to change too?"
Dr. Bennett: "You raise an important point, David. Systemic change is absolutely necessary, and parties do bear significant responsibility. However, waiting for male-dominated institutions to voluntarily yield power has rarely been an effective strategy throughout history. Change typically comes from organized pressure, strategic action, and demonstrating undeniable capability."
Dr. Bennett: "Rather than waiting for parties to reform themselves, women leaders might need to build parallel power structures—their own fundraising networks, media channels, and support systems—that give them independence from traditional gatekeepers. The history of social change suggests that power is rarely given; it must be strategically claimed."
Dr. Bennett: "As we conclude today's discussion, I want to emphasize that breaking the presidential glass ceiling requires more than simply nominating women to high office—it demands the strategic development of candidates with demonstrated executive capability. The path to the White House cannot skip the crucial stop of executive experience."
Dr. Bennett: "When parties elevate women primarily to check representational boxes rather than because of earned executive credibility, they undermine both electoral chances and the broader cause of women's leadership. True progress requires building systems that develop women's executive leadership at every level, creating a robust pipeline of presidency-ready candidates."
Dr. Bennett: "The next woman to seriously contend for the presidency will likely come from a governor's mansion, not Congress or a cabinet position. The question is whether we're willing to invest in that longer-term strategy rather than continuing to hope for shortcuts that history suggests don't work."
Dr. Bennett: "For next week, please read the case studies I've posted on successful international female executives and be prepared to discuss what lessons might be applicable to the American context. Thank you for your engagement today."
As students gather their materials, several female students linger to continue the discussion with Dr. Bennett. The conversation has clearly struck a chord, with some expressing renewed determination to pursue local leadership positions. One student is overheard mentioning plans to volunteer time for a female mayoral candidate in her hometown with aims to run for that City Council. The energy in the room suggests that while the path forward may be challenging, there's a growing recognition that strategic action rather than symbolic gestures will ultimately break the highest glass ceiling.