Introduction

​

The presumption that nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament are ‘feminine’ creates negative outcomes for both women and for the potential to achieve reductions in nuclear weapons. The association of non-proliferation disarmament with the feminine is rooted in women-led movements like the Greenham Common Women’s Peace Camp between 1981 and 1983, which protested the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but also patriarchal systems of oppression and violence being perpetuated by the British government and military [1]. When the US began to test nuclear weapons in the Marshall Islands, Marshallese women spearheaded challenges against the US government. From 1946 to 1958, Marshallese women like Darlene Keju recorded the radiological impact of nuclear weapons on women, making the danger of nuclear weapons testing visible to the international community[2]. Because women lead the fight for non-proliferation, while simultaneously combating patriarchal structures and highlighting women’s issues, the association between non-proliferation and the feminine becomes entrenched. But the association is also rooted in the more general gendering of violence and non-violence, war and peace, and strength and weakness, wherein there is a common presumption that men wield military power in the name of security while women undermine it by resisting war and defense preparations. There is a documented history of intellectual study that underpins these assumptions.

​

Biological Determinism

​

One dominant rationale for associating women with nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament is biological determinism, or the essentialist view, rooted in the observation that males and females are biologically different, with women being more biologically inclined toward peace than men. This is a highly contested view. Simon Baron-Cohen wrote in 2003, “The female brain is predominantly hard-wired for empathy” [3]. Some research on fetal testosterone levels appears to suggest that prenatal differences influence the empathy difference between males and females [4]. Some argue that this is evidence that women are genetically more empathetic than men. Other studies, however, point to non-sex-related biological factors as predeterminers of empathy [5].

​

Social determinism

​

Another rationale floated for presuming women to be more likely than men to oppose nuclear weapons is the argument that a patriarchal social structure leads women to be more peaceful actors than men. This argument presumes that women assume social roles that embody pacifist virtues. In a patriarchal society, women are expected to be maternal, caring, empathetic, and peaceful. 

​

There are general critiques of the social determinism theory. For example, some scholars argue that social determinism ignores real biological factors, highlighting attempts to find a middle-ground between biological and social determinism [6]. Some scholars believe that the social constructionist paradigm provides nuance to this argument, avoiding broad generalizations between men and women, and instead calling for a consideration of total socio-economic contexts and the role of power [7]. The social constructionist paradigm explains that women are more associated with peace and empathy because social power relations victimize and feminize them, while men are masculinized and placed above women in the social hierarchy [8].

​

The Narrative Analysis

​

Jana Wattenberg provides an alternative analysis of why women are so often associated with non-proliferation. Her study of women in nuclear diplomacy identifies three narratives: women are missing, women are change-makers, and women are victims [9]. Each narrative adds to the understanding of women as peace-preferring actors in nuclear diplomacy. Because women are missing, Wattenberg argues that they can be idealized as peaceful. There are not enough women to prove this ideal wrong, and so it becomes the expected norm [10]. Furthermore, women are change-makers who enter the nuclear diplomacy/academia field and bring with them inclusion, collaboration, and even efficiency. These arguments for what women bring to the table also perpetuate the assumption that women are more peaceful. Inclusion and collaboration particularly enforce this norm because they are associated with a more cooperative workplace. Finally, Wattenberg explains, women are victims [11]. She observes that women disproportionately suffer from the impact of nuclear weapon usage. As victims, women are vulnerable and innocent. The assumption made in light of this realization is that women who are victims seek peace, not more violence. 

​

The Masculine Nuclear Field

​

The assumption that nuclear weapons development, strategy, and logic are exclusively within male purviews is first and foremost grounded in the status quo. In academia, literature reviews reveal that males comprised 77% of authorship in the study of nuclear security issues in 2020 [12]. 72.4% of political science professors, more broadly, are male [13]. The nuclear science field has been—and continues to be—largely male-dominated. The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that men comprise over 75% of the workforce in the nuclear sector globally [14]. Diplomatic, political, and military fields are also male-dominated. Men hold 72.5% of national parliamentary seats worldwide [15]. Furthermore, men comprise 77.5% of the global share of ambassadors and permanent representatives to the United Nations [16]. This gap is shrinking, but only marginally every year. In the defense sector, 97% of senior officers are men [17]. These statistics have created a status quo where the content within each of these male-dominated fields becomes inextricably linked in the minds of observers and internal actors to inherent masculinity. 

​

But men’s domination of the nuclear field often obscures the contributions of women involved in nuclear policy, politics, and science. Well-known women like Marie Curie, Lise Meitner, Katharine Way, Chien-Shiung Wu, and Leona Woods Marshall Libby pioneered nuclear science and the development of nuclear weaponry [18]. Women currently comprise about one-third of diplomats worldwide who deal with disarmament, non-proliferation, and arms control (DPNA) processes [19]. More generally, women have significantly directed the state of global nuclearization, such as Former Vice President of the United States Kamala Harris, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security and Former NATO Deputy Secretary General Rose Gottemoeller, Prime Minister of India Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister of the U.K. Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of Israel Golda Meir, and Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto. Many had direct control over the use of nuclear weapons. Under the Biden Administration, Bonnie Jenkins was appointed Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, and Alexandra Bell was appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance. Leonor Tomer was appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Missile Defense Policy, and Mallory Stewart was appointed Senior Director for DPNA on the National Security Council [20].  These women represent diverse viewpoints, approaches to nuclear diplomacy, and levels of efficacy. 

 

That said, women also have been leading critics of nuclear weapons. This creates the assumption that all women are opposed to nuclear weapons, leaving men to control the logic, strategy, and development of nuclear weapons. After the US dropped the atomic bombs in World War 2, many women mobilized in opposition to the development and use of nuclear weapons. In 1945, the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom became one of the first civil society groups to condemn the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki [21]. In 1961, Dagmar Wilsono and Bella Abzug co-founded Women Strike for Peace, organizing to end nuclear testing through lobbying [22]. Meanwhile, authors like Cynthia Enloe, Carol Cohn, and Jacqueline Cabasso contributed to contemporary understandings of the impact of nuclear weapons, regarding how nuclear weapons have altered human health, language, and attitudes surrounding war [23]. Furthermore, Catherine Eschle’s review of anti-nuclear activism in Cold War women’s peace camps highlights the construction of gendered identities related to anti-nuclear activism, intertwined with the feminist movement and transgressing social hierarchies [24]. Anna Feignbaum has chronicled the connection between symbolism in feminist anti-nuclear activism in the 1980s and a modern imagination of anti-drone activism, representing continuity at the intersection of feminist and nuclear academia [25]. R.H Houge highlighted the role of Pacific Asian Indigenous women in challenging nuclear imperialism through poetry and grassroots activism [26]. Even within science fiction, prominent authors like Ursula LeGuin and Sherri Tepper imagined dystopian post-nuclear futures. 

​

Finally, the nuclear weapons debate has become gendered, wherein the pro-nuclear weapons narrative has been normalized as a rational, and therefore male, narrative, while the anti-nuclear weapons narrative has been normalized as an emotional, and therefore female, one. Concepts like Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) and rational deterrence theory have situated nuclear weapons as a rational requirement for great powers to maintain peace and stability within the current world order. Indeed, MAD also makes rational action a core assumption for its success; decision-makers think rationally and make the rational decision to not (or perhaps, to) launch nuclear weapons. It is presupposed that having nuclear weapons is rational, even though it is also acknowledged that having nuclear weapons is catastrophically risky [27]. This is despite the reality that assuming rationality in MAD necessarily ignores human heuristics like cognitive bias and non-linear misjudgement [28]. Meanwhile, anti-war and anti-nuclear weapons positions are equated to being emotional and feminine. Drawing from both biological determinism and social determinism, these positions are viewed as naturally feminine either via a biological association with peacefulness or a socio-cultural structure of peacefulness.

​

Implications for Women

​

After understanding the presumption that nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament are ‘feminine,’ one can begin to understand why this presumption has negative implications both for women and for the potential to achieve reductions in nuclear disarmament. This presumption creates costs for women by blocking them from entry into science, diplomacy, and strategy; even when women are able to enter these fields, they experience sexism and related obstacles. Often, women in nuclear fields find themselves sidelined. Empirically, countries choosing between sending a man diplomat or woman diplomat to engage in DPNA processes will send the man. Likewise, Vivienne Arndt’s paper in this series highlights how women in nuclear policy and weapons development do not receive the same level of career development opportunities as men [30]. 

​

To avoid being sidelined, women often masculinize themselves, which reduces their individuality, advocacy, and the scope of policymaking. In policy spheres, women feel pressured to act masculine while not overstepping gender norms [31]. There are empirical examples of women who lean into masculine approaches to nuclear policymaking. Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, and Indira Gandhi are all examples of powerful women leaders with assertive security approaches—far from the dovish non-proliferation policy that would be stereotypically assumed [32]. 

​

These behaviors mean that women cannot bring to bear the valuable diversity of thought and experience they might otherwise contribute. Sometimes, even masculinizing themselves will not help. When stereotypically feminine traits are linked to poor negotiation performances, men rate women’s performance worse in negotiations [33], even though being a man or woman does not make one a better negotiator [34]. Despite the efforts of the aforementioned women, the stereotypes of women being advocates of non-proliferation and non-proliferation being a feminine stance persist. Wattenberg’s observation that women are still missing from nuclear fields provides an insightful extrapolation to explain why. There are not enough women to challenge the patriarchal assumption that women are peaceful, even if some powerful women demonstrate that they are not. Indeed, these women are seen as outliers who step outside the norms of femininity. In high-level policymaking associated with nuclear weapons, there remains a lack of women, and more specifically, a lack of women with the power to influence outcomes [35]. Thus, many women stay missing—they engage in nuclear academia or policy outside of powerful positions. Meanwhile, women are the leaders of grassroots organizations [36], write about the human impacts of nuclear weapons, and attempt to uplift the voice of other marginalized communities, like indigenous populations [37]. This all plays into the stereotype.

 

Implications for Society

​

Society as a whole incurs the costs of these limitations on women working in nuclear policy and academia. Because women are associated with emotion, and because non-proliferation and disarmament are associated with femininity, their arguments are dismissed within their male-dominated, masculinized fields. Women who make arguments related to non-proliferation and disarmament in academia and policy are not taken seriously, with effects on their careers [38]. In nuclear-related careers, gender stereotypes limit access to professional networks, high-level mentorship, and even create work-life balance challenges. 

​

And, because non-proliferation and disarmament are considered feminine, they may be less likely to gain political purchase in a masculine-coded arena dominated by men. Ray Acheson, director of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom’s disarmament program, explains that by framing women as weak and vulnerable, we create “a feminized and devalued notion of peace as unattainable, unrealistic, passive, and (it might be said) undesirable” [39]. He argues that to continue this gendered limitation on women in nuclear policymaking is to limit our opportunities for peace itself. 

​

Conclusion

​

Continued gendering of the nuclear academia and policy spaces will result in large aspects of the challenges surrounding nuclear weapons being ignored. In academia, the harms done to women, children, indigenous communities, and other marginalized groups will continue to be sidelined outside of the main academic sphere. In policy, women will be forced into reductive, masculinized roles and beliefs, reducing their presence overall, and the range of valuable policy considerations surrounding nuclear policymaking, like de-nuclearization and nonproliferation. Solutions require deeper analysis into the structural problems that the academia and policy worlds face, globally and within the United States. Perhaps a re-conceptualization of gender and its associations is required to destigmatize the positions of de-nuclearization and nonproliferation in policy, and to recenter the concerns of humanistic research about nuclear weapons. 

​

​

​

Works Cited

​

[1] George, N. (2024). Interpretive Essay Making the “Invisible” Visible: Women and the Anti-Nuclear Resistance in the Pacific Islands. https://cms.apln.network/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/George_Making-the-Invisible-Visible-Women-and-the-Anti-Nuclear-Resistance-in-the-Pacific-Islands.pdf

[2] Ibid. 

[3] Baron-Cohen, Simon. The Essential Difference: The Truth About the Male and Female Brain. New York: Basic Books, 2003. 

[4] Auyeung, Bonnie, Simon Baron-Cohen, Emma Chapman, Rebecca Knickmeyer, Kevin Taylor, and Gerald Hackett. 2006. “Foetal Testosterone and the Child Systemizing Quotient.” European Journal of Endocrinology 155 (suppl_1): S123–30. https://doi.org/10.1530/eje.1.02260.

[5] Chapman, Emma, Simon Baron-Cohen, Bonnie Auyeung, Rebecca Knickmeyer, Kevin Taylor, and Gerald Hackett. 2006. “Fetal Testosterone and Empathy: Evidence from the Empathy Quotient (EQ) and the ‘Reading the Mind in the Eyes’ Test.” Social Neuroscience 1 (2): 135–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470910600992239.

[6] Levite, A. (2025, January 22). The “Ism” That Isn’t (Why Social Determinism Cannot Mean What it Says): Published Paper – Independent Institute. Independent Institute. https://www.independent.org/article/1996/12/19/the-ism-that-isnt-why-social-determinism-cannot-mean-what-it-says/
[7] Warrier, Varun, Roberto Toro, Bhismadev Chakrabarti, Anders D Børglum, Jakob Grove, David A. Hinds, Thomas Bourgeron, and Simon Baron-Cohen. 2018. “Genome-Wide Analyses of Self-Reported Empathy: Correlations with Autism, Schizophrenia, and Anorexia Nervosa.” Translational Psychiatry 8 (1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-017-0082-6.
[8] Skjelsbaek, Inger. 2001. “Sexual Violence and War: Mapping out a Complex Relationship.” European Journal of International Relations 7 (2): 211–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066101007002003.

[9] Wattenberg, Jana. 2024. “More Women, Fewer Nukes?” International Studies Review 26 (4). https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viae020.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ai, Inaara. (2026). Women in International Security -. https://wiisglobal.org/resource_issue_area/arms-control-disarmament/

[13]  Boroch, I. (2024). Implicit Gender Bias: Its Impact on Women in Political Science in University Departments. Critical Debates in Humanities, Science and Global Justice, 2(1). 

[14]  George, Nicole. “Making the ‘Invisible’ Visible: Women and the Anti-Nuclear Resistance in the Pacific Islands.” Interpretive Essay, March 2024. https://cms.apln.network/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/George_Making-the-Invisible-Visible-Women-and-the-Anti-Nuclear-Resistance-in-the-Pacific-Islands.pdf.

[15] Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), Women in Parliament in 2025 (IPU, March 2026).

[16]  Chehab, Sara. 2025 Women in Diplomacy Index. (2025). AGDA. https://www.agda.ac.ae/research/publications-multimedia-events/publication-details/2025-women-in-diplomacy-index

[17] United Nations. (2019). Three takeaways on women in defence | United Nations. United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/peace-and-security/three-takeaways-women-defence

[18]  Office of Nuclear Energy. 2023. “5 Women Who Changed History in Nuclear Science,” March 24, 2023. 

[19]   Dalaqua, Renata H. 2021. “How Can We Achieve Gender Break-Throughs in Nuclear Negotiations and Technical Cooperation?” International Atomic Energy Agency Bulletin, December, 2021. https://www.iaea.org/bulletin/how-can-we-achieve-gender-break-throughs-in-nuclear-negotiations-and-technical-cooperation.

[20] Schumann, Anna. 2021. “Who Runs the Nukes? Women! - Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.” Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. February 19, 2021. https://armscontrolcenter.org/who-runs-the-nukes-women/.

[21]  Acheson, Ray. 2017. “Women and the Ban the Bomb Movement.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. June 15, 2017. https://thebulletin.org/2017/06/women-and-the-ban-the-bomb-movement/.

[22]  Dubofsky, Chanel. 2011. “Women Strike for Peace: 50 Years Later.” November 2, 2011. Jewish Women’s Archive. https://jwa.org/blog/women-strike-for-peace-50-years-later.

[23]  Cohn, Carol. 1988. “Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals, Working Paper No. 8, First Annual Conference on Discourse, Peace, Security, and International Society.” Escholarship.org. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/83k4763m.

[24]  Eschle, Catherine. 2017. “Beyond Greenham Woman?” International Feminist Journal of Politics 19 (4): 471–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2017.1354716.

[25] Dalaqua, Renata H. 2021. “How Can We Achieve Gender Break-Throughs in Nuclear Negotiations and Technical Cooperation?” International Atomic Energy Agency Bulletin, December, 2021. 

[26] Hogue, Rebecca H, and Anaïs Maurer. 2022. “Pacific Women’s Anti-Nuclear Poetry: Centring Indigenous Knowledges.” International Affairs 98 (4): 1267–88. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiac120.

[27] Borrie, J. (2020). Human Rationality and Nuclear Deterrence. Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/04/perspectives-nuclear-deterrence-21st-century-0/human-rationality-and-nuclear-deterrence

[28] Ibid.

[29]  Dalaqua, Renata H. 2021. “How Can We Achieve Gender Break-Throughs in Nuclear Negotiations and Technical Cooperation?” International Atomic Energy Agency Bulletin, December, 2021. https://www.iaea.org/bulletin/how-can-we-achieve-gender-break-throughs-in-nuclear-negotiations-and-technical-cooperation.

[30] Ardnt, Vivienne. 2026. “The Women We See in Nuclear: An Exploration of Gender Representation in Policy and Weapons Development” 

[31]  Gosier, Chris. “Understanding the Masculinity Effect in American Politics.” Fordham Now, October 28, 2025. https://now.fordham.edu/politics-and-society/understanding-the-masculinity-effect-in-american-politics/.

[32]  Enloe, Cynthia. “Gender Makes the World Go Round: Where Are the Women?” In Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics, 2nd ed. University of California Press, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt6wqbn6.6. 

[33] Kray, Laura J, Adam D Galinsky, and Leigh Thompson. “Reversing the Gender Gap in Negotiations: An Exploration of Stereotype Regeneration.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 87, no. 2 (March 1, 2002): 386–410. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2979.

[34]  Shonk, Katie. “Gender and Negotiation: New Research Findings.” PON - Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, October 9, 2025. https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-training-daily/gender-and-negotiation-new-research-findings/.

[35]  Good, Elizabeth. “Power Over Presence: Women’s Representation in Comprehensive Peace Negotiations and Gender Provision Outcomes.” American Political Science Review 119, no. 3 (September 2, 2024): 1099–1114. https://doi.org/10.1017/s000305542400073x.

[36] Parsa, Anahita. “Women and Power in the Nuclear Field - BASIC.” BASIC (blog), January 28, 2026. https://basicint.org/women-and-power-in-the-nuclear-field/.

[37]  “Beyond ‘Paradise’: Rebecca Hogue Explores Indigenous Resistance to Nuclear Testing.” 2026. Faculty of Arts & Science. January 22, 2026. https://www.artsci.utoronto.ca/news/beyond-paradise-rebecca-hogue-explores-indigenous-resistance-nuclear-testing.

[38]  Shoemaker, Jolynn, Jennifer Park, WIIS Global Leadership Council, Madeleine Albright, Christiane Amanpour, Betty Bigombe, Angela Kane, et al. “WIIS Leadership Series Progress Report on Women in Peace & Security Careers U.S. Executive Branch,” n.d. https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/publication/110726_WIIS_ProgressReport_ExecBranch_fnl.pdf. 

[39] Carol Cohn with Felicity Hill and Sara Ruddick, “The relevance of gender for eliminating weapons of mass destruction,” Beyond arms control: challenges and choices for nuclear disarmament, New York: Reaching Critical Will of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, 2010, p. 147.