There's a small pause then, “Thank you” followed by the muted applause of your fellow competitors. As you walk back to your seat you wipe the sweat from your brow, sit back, relax and wait for the round to conclude. You had done it, every line flowed, every character highlighted, and your timing was on point. The round's results however, tell a much different story. Clicking on your judges comments, the evaluation reads that your jokes were ‘vulgar’ and your blocking was ‘over done’ when just a few seats away your male competition is praised for the same actions you were condemned for. 

Unfortunately this isn't a unique experience and for years women have been unfairly scrutinized within interpretation speech. We have seen time and time again women being underrepresented in these spaces and no, it's not because women aren't funny, or can't give a heartwarming monologue as well as a man, but because of our preconceived biases and outdated ideologies of how women should act. 

Unintentionally we see women performances through a misogynistic perspective and in doing so we put female competitors in a box, expecting them to be soft spoken and ‘lady-like’. In a field with exaggerated movements, speaking patterns, and expression, our cultural prejudices lead women to be undervalued even when they are giving a more technically complex performance. 

In a March 25, 2025 article United Way of National Capital Area describes how traditional gender roles expect men to be assertive and competitive while women are pushed to be more submissive and quiet. As a society we place this same perception into competitive fields like humorous interpretive speaking. Male competitors are often praised for their ability to lean into aggressive or loud jokes and ‘committing to the bit’. For women gender norms typically lead us to perceive the same types of performances done by women to be ‘overdone’ and ‘too much’.

It's not just the way female interpers perform but also the content of their pieces that are unfairly scrutinized. In a study conducted by the Prasasti Journal of Linguistics, researchers found that 85.4% of respondents believed that swearing is socially acceptable for men while 66.4% of respondents found discomfort in hearing a woman swear in public. This is directly reflected in our perception of female interpers use of swear words in competition. Oftentimes women must intentionally cut out certain parts of a humorous interpretation piece solely because they know their use of this language will be viewed significantly harsher, while male performers' use of swear words are seen as clever or genuinely funny. This creates a disadvantage in performance as the use of swearing can help smoothly land a joke or emphasize a point, especially in dramatic interpretation where it can help get the performer's point across, accentuate the seriousness and highlight the emotional impact. 

This bleeds into the use of sexual jokes and innuendos during a performance. Done well, it can add layered humor and elevate a performance. Done wrong and you leave both the audience and the judges a bit…uncomfortable. It seems like for female performers it's almost impossible to get it right. A thread by an anonymous reddit user describes her experience of being judged for using sexual jokes, while when men use the same types of jokes, society has no issue with it. We see this in interpretive events where women are scrutinized for these types of jokes. As a society we still hold outdated perceptions of women and sexual jokes don't fit this narrative we push women into. We see this element of interpretation not as what it truly is but what it is expressed by a woman. Once again female competitors are forced to either cut out a genuinely funny aspect of their speech or risk an unfair evaluation of their piece. Continuing to strip women of being able to use elements of performance and limiting how they can perform.

This isn't just an issue in humorous forms of interpretation but in dramatic forms as well. According to an Online Therapy Company, Talk To Angel, in traditional gender roles men are expected and even praised for suppressing vulnerability. Meaning when male competitors give a heartwarming and deeply personal monologue in dramatic interpretation they are put on a pedestal while female competitors who give a similar or even more emotional performance are overlooked. Not because they performed any differently than a man but because we as a society expect women to be emotional, causing us to view vulnerable performance by women to be less impactful or less impressive.

In an interview with NSDA finalist in both Dramatic and Duo Interpretation, Karla Rivera, she provides us her point of view describing how “In tournaments, judges may try to hide the implication or bias of this situation, but there is a clear preference towards a man who shows emotion in a DI than a woman, especially in outrounds. As women, we are normally seen as “emotional,” so when we are motivated to dive into the depths of the character and highlight the emotional journey we wish to showcase, it is seen as nothing grand and just typical of the everyday woman. On the other hand, men are shown as the stoic and emotionally reserved individuals, which implies that if a man were to showcase emotion within their piece, even if the performance feels forced or unauthentic, they are more likely to place higher than their female counterpart". She also provides her own personal experience, revealing how “In past rounds, I have been told that I am “too emotional” in my performances, especially if it is the climax of a DI, and a male competitor who had not shed a single tear was more likely to come out successful”. 

Now how can we fix this issue?

It's not as simple as changing how we judge women in interpretation speech, it's about changing how we view men vs women in competition as a whole.

Fellow competitors, let's stop seeing each other as a gender but look at each other as speakers, next time you compete, watch competitors perform and see their performance as what it is, a performance. Not a performance by a woman, not a performance by a man but one done by a speaker, someone who put in the work and the time, someone who spent weeks perfecting their script, their voice, and their blocking. When we see each other through a more objective lens we help eliminate biases by sex. 

Judges, when you evaluate a performance ask yourself, did I find this speech more impactful because of who performed or the content or their work? Did I write off a joke from one competitor but praised another competitor for the same action? Take a deeper look at how you judged the round, think about why you made your decisions instead of going off of first impressions. Keep in mind the biases you may unknowingly hold over competitors because of their gender. In doing so you can do your part in helping level the playing field of interpretive speech. 

At the end of the day it's not just about winning trophies or titles, it's about allowing female competitors to be seen in a truly fair light. Karla Rivera describes how being on one of the biggest stages of interpretation speech showed her what it means to be viewed solely by the performance you give and the message you display saying “In the 2024 NSDA final round of Dramatic Interpretation, for the first time, we saw an all women of color final round, which was a feeling like no other. I was terrified walking into this round, but yet seeing such incredibly talented young women support one another gave me peace and excitement to be able to be a part of this group. I felt as if no one was silenced and looked down upon for what they spoke about because we have all been there. We all had something to say that deserved to be heard by thousands and we weren’t about to let anyone take that away from us. That is what we need in any and all rounds, not an environment where one has to minimize themselves simply because of who they are.”

When we fight against unfair perceptions and advocate for what is right we help create a safe space for female competitors and together we can make all rounds like the 2024 NSDA dramatic interpretation finals, a space where we aren't marked down for who we are but recognized for what we bring to the table.

A final message to the speech and debate community as a whole, we know as much as anyone the work and dedication it takes to be successful in this space. Let’s stop making it harder for marginalized communities. Many of us have seen first hand, the women of this field being undervalued and unrecognized. As a community it takes all of us to fight our biases against women in speech so don't wait. Next time you find yourself listening to a female speaker ask yourself. What am I really judging…

A performance or a person?