Dr. C. Nicole Mason on Feminist Policy, Gender Equity, and Expanding Women’s Power in the U.S.
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/26
Part 1 of 3
Dr. C. Nicole Mason, a feminist policy analyst and CEO of Future Forward Women, which is a bold new initiative to build women’s power and influence in the U.S. They unite and support catalytic leaders, organizations, and changemakers committed to propelling lasting change in the lives of women, girls, and families. She discusses gender equity, reproductive rights, and social policies. She emphasizes the setbacks in feminist policymaking, including the repeal of Roe v. Wade, the lack of paid leave, and rising gender-based violence. In this 3-part interview, Mason critiques social media’s role in spreading misinformation and calls for media literacy to counter false narratives. She highlights disparities in women’s rights across U.S. states, naming Alabama and Mississippi as the worst. She advocates for proactive policies and stresses the need for offensive strategies to protect and expand women’s rights.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We’re here with Dr. C. Nicole Mason today. She is a feminist, policy analyst, author, and advocate for gender and racial equity. She is the president and CEO of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research and previously served as the executive director of the Center for Research and Policy in the Public Interest. Her work focuses on the intersection of race, class, and gender in public policy.
She coined the term “she-cession” to describe the pandemic’s disproportionate impact on women. She graduated from Howard University and the University of Maryland, College Park. She is also the author of Born Bright: A Young Girl’s Journey from Nothing to Something in America and has been recognized as one of Fortune’s World’s 50 Greatest Leaders.
How did you become involved in gender equality advocacy, particularly with an inspiration and focus on feminist policy analysis?
Dr. C. Nicole Mason: How did I first become interested? While I was a student at Howard University, I took my first political science class. In that class, I started to learn about social inequality. Before then, I had no language for many of the things I had witnessed growing up in and around Los Angeles, California. A single mother raised me, and everything clicked.
During the summer break before junior year, like many students during school breaks, I was searching for something to fill my time off. On a whim, I signed up for a training program for a shelter for battered women. That training and volunteer experience changed my entire life. Again, I gained more language, not only for social inequality but also for the specific challenges women face.
When I returned to Howard University the following year, I founded the first feminist organization on campus: the Women’s Action Coalition. From that moment, I felt fortunate to have found my calling early on.
I knew that I wanted to figure out how to pursue this path—whether through feminist organizing or advocating for women’s issues. I didn’t know what my career would look like, but I knew this was what I wanted to do.
Jacobsen: What were the most pressing areas of concern in feminist policymaking and currently, particularly in light of the recent administration transition in the United States? How does this shift impact those with a feminist perspective?
Mason: Over the last ten to fifteen years, the women’s movement and the issues we tend to frame as “women’s issues “have faced many setbacks. We haven’t had many significant wins.
Many of our last major victories include the Violence Against Women Act, which was first passed in 1994 and has been reauthorized multiple times, and Title IX, which protects against sex-based discrimination in education. However, when we consider major policy achievements that have fundamentally changed the landscape for women in the U.S., there haven’t been many recent ones.
Instead, most of our victories have been incremental, and in some cases, we have even regressed—we have lost ground. The rollback of Roe v. Wade in 2022 significantly impacted reproductive rights, and we are seeing increasing challenges to gender equity policies at the state and federal levels. The lack of paid family leave, wage disparities, and barriers to affordable childcare continue to affect women, especially women of colour, disproportionately.
Moving forward, feminist policy advocates are focused on rebuilding protections for reproductive rights, securing paid leave policies, and addressing systemic gender inequities in the workplace and healthcare.
So, when we think about the fall of Roe v. Wade, we recognize that we have lost certain rights and protections. Some policies we had hoped for during the Biden administration’s first term—particularly in the early years—did not materialize. We had anticipated significant victories in childcare, care infrastructure, and the Build Back Better Act, but those did not come to fruition. This has been a moment of reckoning for those who work in this field, prompting us to reflect on what is possible, why we have not secured the major victories we had hoped for over the past decades, and what might explain these significant losses.
One issue I keep returning to in trying to understand why we have not progressed as much as we would have liked—particularly in recent years—is that women do not have enough power and influence to drive the policies needed to make meaningful change. That, in my view, is the fundamental barrier preventing us from achieving the goals we claim to strive for.
Jacobsen: What about policy measures aimed at combating gender-based violence, both in public and private spheres?
Mason: Gender-based violence is a significant issue, and it is personally important to me. I began my feminist organizing work in the gender-based violence space. The Violence Against Women Act was a major achievement, though not without complexities. Over the years, it has directed substantial support to both grassroots and national organizations committed to ending gender-based violence.
However, under the current administration, some of the gains we have made since the passage of VAWA could be reversed. Critical funding and support for these organizations may dry up or be eliminated, which would have real and serious consequences for women and families, leaving them more vulnerable.
Another critical aspect of gender-based violence is the way it is perceived in society. A recent global study on gender-based violence revealed mixed results. Many people do not see it as a serious issue, with some believing that women or victims exaggerate their claims. Alarmingly, in some instances, respondents even expressed the view that perpetrators had the right to commit acts of violence, including sexual assault and domestic violence.
Thus, we are not only facing tangible threats to organizations and their continued ability to provide services but also broader cultural norms that either condone violence, romanticize it, or exhibit ambivalence toward it. As someone engaged in this work, I see the fight against gender-based violence as multifaceted. It involves shifting cultural attitudes and framing the conversation in ways that resonate with both men and women, lawmakers and legislators. At the same time, we must defend and expand the essential services that are already in place.
Jacobsen: What role does social media play in amplifying false narratives about gender-based violence? We have the statistics. We understand the policies that, while they may not eliminate gender-based violence, can significantly reduce it and move us closer to an ideal outcome. However, social media is the largest gossip network ever created, spreading false narratives that obstruct meaningful policy change.
Misinformation and disinformation on social media distort public perception of gender-based violence, undermining the legitimacy of experiences and discouraging policy initiatives that could address the issue. False claims and rhetoric reinforce harmful norms, making it even more difficult to implement solutions. In this way, social media plays a direct role in hindering progress, preventing necessary reforms, and sustaining a culture that tolerates gender-based violence.
Mason: I want to complicate the discussion around social media. For better or worse, when I first started doing this work, there was no social media. You got your information and facts through reputable, reliable news sources that adhered to ethical reporting standards. That is no longer the case.
Social media can be used for good. It can be a tool for raising awareness about important issues, sharing facts and personal stories, and making women—such as those involved in the Me Too movement—feel less alone. It can create a powerful echo and amplify an issue. All of that is beneficial.
However, social media can also be harmful, particularly in how misinformation and disinformation spread rapidly—whether about an issue or a person. This is especially concerning when it affects young people, from teenagers like my daughter to celebrities. Misinformation can shape a narrative, discredit a survivor’s story, and diminish the credibility of someone who has experienced violence.
We saw this play out on a celebrity level with Megan Thee Stallion when she was shot in the foot by Tory Lanez. The amount of misinformation and disinformation surrounding the incident not only skewed public perception but also took a severe mental, physical, and emotional toll on her. And that’s a celebrity—someone with significant resources and insulation. Now, imagine what that means for an everyday woman who is threatened, stalked, or harassed online through misinformation, disinformation, and digital violence.
Gender-based violence on social media is a major concern. However, for younger women, social media has also become their primary source of information. Until recently, I did not take that seriously enough. As an activist, organizer, and researcher, I now realize that if young people get their information primarily from social media, we must ensure they have media literacy skills to differentiate between good and bad information. We also need to provide accurate information that resonates with them.
The traditional fact sheet approach does not work anymore. Instead, we must rethink how we present important issues—condense them into digestible, engaging formats, such as 30-second to two-minute videos or messages. I do not think we have gotten that right yet.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 