An Op-Ed by Heleny Constantin

The history of intelligence is often conveyed through the lens of espionage, secrecy, and power, fields traditionally dominated by men. Yet, behind many of the most crucial moments in global intelligence history, often overlooked and undermined, lie the contributions of women. From ancient couriers and royal informants to Cold War operatives and contemporary cyber analysts, women have played crucial roles in shaping the outcomes of wars, protecting national security, and influencing intelligence strategies. However, their involvement has frequently been shadowed by persistent gender stereotypes, either casting them as seductive “femme fatales” or relegating them to supportive, secondary roles.

The question this essay seeks to explore is binary: Have women in intelligence genuinely broken these stereotypes through their contributions, or have they merely reinforced new versions of them? This dilemma gains relevance as women increasingly occupy leadership positions in agencies like the CIA, MI6, and Mossad, yet continue to face cultural, institutional, and narrative barriers that influence both perception and practice. While the image of the capable, independent female agent has gained distinction in popular media and institutional discourse, it is worth asking: Is this a genuine break from past constraints, or is it a repackaged stereotype designed to appear progressive?

This essay adopts a historical lens to examine the evolution of women’s roles in intelligence from early modern conflicts to the present day. It traces key periods such as the World Wars, the Cold War, and the post-9/11 era, highlighting not only the increasing formal inclusion of women but also the shifting societal narratives surrounding their presence. Furthermore, it will examine how culture and media representations, particularly in film and television, have influenced the perception of female intelligence officers both inside and outside their institutions.

The structure of the paper follows a chronological order, beginning with informal and often covert roles played by women in earlier centuries, progressing through the institutionalization of women in intelligence during the 20th century, and concluding with an analysis of contemporary dynamics. At each stage, the essay will question whether their participation destabilized gender norms or reproduced them in new forms.

By combining historical accounts, declassified documents, case studies, and cultural analysis, this essay will demonstrate that while women have undoubtedly expanded their presence in intelligence, the struggle to be perceived and to function as equals in a male-dominated domain is far from over. The line between breaking stereotypes and reinforcing new ones remains a thin and contested one.

From Shadows to Salons: Women’s Early Roles in Espionage

Long before the institutionalization of modern intelligence agencies, women played vital, though often undocumented, roles in espionage, diplomacy, and underground operations. In ancient and early modern contexts, their access to domestic, courtly, or social spheres enabled them to collect and relay sensitive information, often unnoticed. Yet these contributions were rarely acknowledged as strategic or professional. Rather, they were framed as extensions of their traditional roles as wives, courtesans, or caretakers, an early form of gendered invisibility that would shape stereotypes for centuries to come.

One of the earliest documented instances of female involvement in espionage is found in Biblical narratives, such as that of Rahab, who sheltered Israelite spies in Jericho and facilitated their escape. Her role, while crucial, is remembered more through the lens of morality and seduction than intelligence. Similarly, during the American Revolutionary War, the mysterious Agent 355 of the Culper Ring, a presumed female informant, played a key role in exposing Benedict Arnold’s treason. Her identity remains unknown, and her contribution is largely forgotten in mainstream accounts.

The Napoleonic Wars and European royal courts of the 18th and 19th centuries saw the rise of women as informal intelligence gatherers. Their access to salons, bedrooms, and high society circles made them ideal sources or conduits for secrets. However, their roles were frequently sexualized. Female courtiers and mistresses were depicted as using seduction rather than intellect, reinforcing the trope of the femme fatale, a stereotype that persists to this day.

Despite its strategic effectiveness, seduction as a tool in intelligence gathering has been historically dismissed or morally questioned, particularly when employed by women. Whileundervalued, viewed not as tactical skill but as personal compromise or moral ambiguity. This discrepancy reveals underlying gender biases: male operatives using charm or manipulation are often seen as clever or resourceful, while women are frequently reduced to stereotypes of dishonesty or promiscuity. In reality, seduction, when intentionally deployed, requires emotional control, situational reading, and behavioral discipline, much like any other form of human intelligence (HUMINT). Its dismissal reflects not its inefficacy, but cultural discomfort with female agency in spaces of power.

The case of Mata Hari (Margaretha Zelle), executed by the French in 1917 on charges of espionage for Germany, exemplifies the intersection of gender, sexuality, and suspicion. While her guilt remains debated, her trial and execution were driven as much by her exotic dancer persona and public independence as by any verifiable intelligence activities. Mata Hari’s story, widely sensationalized, contributed to a dangerous archetype: the seductive woman whose body, not her mind, serves intelligence purposes.

During World War I, women served as couriers and scouts, particularly in the resistance movements of occupied Belgium and France. Louise de Bettignies, operating under the codename “Alice Dubois,” led a highly effective spy network for the British, gathering critical information from behind enemy lines. Despite her strategic skills and courage, her recognition remained limited compared to her male counterparts.

What emerges from this early period is a pattern of contradiction. Women were indispensable to intelligence operations, yet their roles were rarely formalized or recognized. When they were remembered, it was often through gendered narratives that emphasized beauty, danger, and emotional manipulation rather than strategy, loyalty, or intellect. These foundational stereotypes, specifically women as seductresses, helpers, or sacrificial patriots, would unfortunately continue to echo into the 20th century and beyond.

Moreover, their invisibility in official archives served to delegitimize their contributions, making it harder for future generations to claim ancestry or institutional recognition. Because these qualities were not culturally associated with femininity at the time, intelligence work, still perceived as the domain of rational calculation and national interest, automatically excluded women.

The early history of women in intelligence is, therefore, not just about brave individuals working in the shadows, but also about the gendered structures that kept them there, acknowledged when convenient, discarded when not. This sets the stage for understanding how the two World Wars marked both a rupture and a continuation in the story of women and espionage.

World War II: A Turning Point in Female Intelligence Participation

The outbreak of the Second World War marked a decisive shift in the institutional recognition of women’s potential in intelligence work. Faced with total war and the massive mobilization of resources, intelligence agencies across the Allied powers, most notably the British Special Operations Executive (SOE) and the American Office of Strategic Services (OSS), recruited women not only as auxiliary personnel but as full operatives, analysts, cryptographers, and resistance liaisons/contacts. This shift reflected both necessity and opportunity, providing women unprecedented access to decision-making structures and operational missions.

One of the most emblematic examples is Nancy Wake, an Australian-born operative working with the SOE. Nicknamed “The White Mouse” by the Gestapo for her ability to elude capture, she coordinated resistance operations in occupied France, led sabotage missions, and was responsible for the training and arming of guerrilla fighters. Her combat leadership defied gender expectations, but post-war recognition remained delayed and inconsistent, a clear indication of how institutional sexism persisted even amid battlefield success.

Another notable figure is Krystyna Skarbek, a Polish-born agent recruited by British intelligence. Operating under the alias Christine Granville, she served in Hungary, France, and other parts of Europe, frequently undertaking high-risk intelligence-gathering missions. Her fluency in multiple languages, bold escapes, and persuasive interrogations earned her the admiration of colleagues and the Gestapo alike. Despite her contributions, she too was marginalized after the war, dismissed from service, and ultimately forgotten by the institutions she served.

These stories were not isolated. The SOE alone recruited over 40 female field agents, most of whom underwent the same training as their male counterparts, including parachuting, explosives handling, communications, and sabotage. Vera Atkins, the Romanian-born intelligence officer who supervised many of these agents, played a pivotal role in coordinating their missions in Nazi-occupied France. Yet even she, despite her strategic importance, was long excluded from official wartime honors.

In the United States, the OSS (the precursor to the CIA) employed women in a wide range of roles, from codebreaking to field operations. Figures such as Virginia Hall, who operated in France with a prosthetic leg and evaded the Gestapo while organizing resistance cells, redefined what was possible for women in war zones. Hall was incredibly effective insofar as the Nazis labeled her “the most dangerous Allied spy” in France. Her recognition came much later, when the CIA finally named a training facility after her, decades after her death.

Equally significant was the rise of women in technical and analytical roles during this time. Codebreaking institutions like Bletchley Park relied heavily on female staff to analyze encrypted German communications. Although figures like Joan Clarke contributed to breaking the Enigma code alongside Alan Turing, their stories were obscured by gender biases and institutional secrecy for years.

Therefore, the Second World War functioned as a catalyst for both disruption and paradox. On the one hand, it paved the way for women to engage professionally in the field of intelligence. They received training, were entrusted with high-risk missions, and often outperformed expectations. On the other hand, their involvement remained dangerous, tolerated during times of crisis, but often dismissed in the post-war return to “normalcy.”

Furthermore, while these women broke stereotypes of fragility, passivity, and domesticity, they also became subjects of new mythologies: the “female spy” as glamorous, mysterious, and emotionally manipulative. These representations, amplified by post-war media and later by film, diluted the complexity and professionalism of their real contributions. The narrative continued to be framed in gendered terms, highlighting appearance, seduction, or sacrifice more than strategic thinking or leadership.

In summary, World War II marked a critical turning point in the history of women in intelligence. It proved beyond doubt that women could function as competent, autonomous operatives in hostile environments. Yet institutional and cultural barriers remained, ensuring that their legacy would be ambiguous, partly revolutionary, and partly reinforcing.

The Cold War Era: Integration and Institutional Ambiguity

The Cold War brought about a fundamental transformation in the structure and function of intelligence services, transitioning from wartime resistance operations to bureaucratic, globalized, and ideologically driven intelligence collection. Within this new framework, women began to take on increasingly formalized roles, both operational and analytical, within agencies such as the CIA, MI6, Mossad, and KGB. Yet, despite growing professionalization, their trajectory continued to be shaped by a tension between breaking boundaries and navigating persistent, gendered expectations.

In the United States, the Central Intelligence Agency emerged as a dominant intelligence force, and women found opportunities beyond field operations, particularly in analysis, counterintelligence, and linguistic work. However, their professional ascension was still blocked by institutional norms that regarded intelligence as a masculine domain. This context makes the accomplishments of women like Jeanne Vertefeuille and Elizabeth Sudmeier especially significant.

Jeanne Vertefeuille, a longtime CIA analyst, played a central role in uncovering one of the most damaging breaches in U.S. intelligence history: the Aldrich Ames case, a senior CIA officer who spied for the Soviet Union. Vertefeuille’s meticulous work in identifying inconsistencies and her persistence over several years were crucial in exposing Ames, whose espionage had led to the deaths of numerous U.S. assets. Despite her quiet professionalism, Vertefeuille’s role went largely unnoticed at the time, gaining broader recognition only decades later.

Similarly, Elizabeth Sudmeier, one of the few women in the CIA’s early history to operate in the Near East, defied conventional gender norms through both her fieldwork and her advocacy for gender equity within the agency. She was instrumental in building the foundation of the CIA’s intelligence presence in the region, yet her career trajectory was slowed by institutional sexism. In internal evaluations, her superiors often commented more on her appearance and demeanor than on her analytical skills or field performance.

While women like Vertefeuille and Sudmeier advanced the strategic role of female intelligence professionals, others were downgraded to gendered operational roles, particularly those involving seduction, psychological manipulation, or human intelligence (HUMINT) collection. Within the Mossad, for example, female operatives were often assigned to honey trap missions, high-risk operations in which they were expected to seduce and extract information from targets. While these missions required considerable psychological skill, emotional control, and danger management, they reinforced the idea that women’s value in intelligence lay in their ability to manipulate male behavior.

In the Soviet Union, women were also employed in technical and field roles, particularly in signals intelligence and espionage. The KGB employed women as translators, analysts, and operatives, though rarely in leadership positions. Soviet propaganda occasionally highlighted female operatives as symbols of ideological commitment, but this was often in service of the regime’s messaging rather than a genuine reflection of gender equality.

The Cold War era was also marked by the expansion of covert influence operations, disinformation campaigns, and psychological warfare, all areas where women increasingly contributed, particularly in the back offices of strategy, linguistics, and media analysis. However, the internal culture of most intelligence services remained male-dominated, hierarchical, and resistant to female advancement.

Ironically, the very secrecy that defines intelligence work often became a double-edged sword for women: while their anonymity sometimes shielded them from public scrutiny, it also made it easier for their achievements to be ignored or appropriated by male superiors. Moreover, when their stories did surface in memoirs or media, they were often shaped by narratives that emphasized novelty (“the female spy”) rather than professionalism (“the experienced operative”).

Therefore, during the Cold War years, women were increasingly embedded in the core of intelligence agencies, not only as support personnel but also as architects of critical operations and investigations. Yet, the form of participation remained highly gendered: while some women broke into analytical and strategic domains, others were still deployed through older stereotypes, now institutionalized rather than informal.

The era presents a paradox: women in intelligence during the Cold War helped reshape their field through perseverance, intellect, and courage, yet their legacy remains clouded by the persistent lens of gendered expectations. Their work was instrumental, yet often remained invisible.

The post-Cold War period introduced new threats, technologies, and priorities, compelling intelligence agencies to adapt rapidly. In this context, women’s roles within intelligence structures expanded significantly, not only in number but also in visibility. For the first time in modern history, women began to occupy top leadership positions in agencies once inaccessible to them. This marked a moment of apparent progress: a shift from the shadows of fieldwork and analysis to the forefront of strategic direction and institutional reform.

A prime example is Stella Rimington, who, in 1992, became the first female Director–General of MI5, the UK’s domestic counterintelligence and security agency. Rimington’s appointment signaled a symbolic break from the past. Not only was she the first woman to lead the agency, but also the first to be publicly named, a move towards greater transparency. Her leadership coincided with a period of organizational change, with MI5 shifting its focus from Cold War espionage to domestic terrorism and cyber threats. Rimington’s occupation was widely respected, yet media coverage often fixated more on her gender than on her strategic achievements, branding her as a novelty rather than a professional benchmark.

In the United States, Gina Haspel made history in 2018 when she was appointed Director of the CIA, the first woman to hold the role permanently. Haspel had a long operational career, including postings in undercover capacities. While her appointment was perceived as a win for representation, it also sparked controversy due to her alleged involvement in enhanced interrogation programs post-9/11. This case illustrates the complexity of representation: Haspel’s gender was simultaneously celebrated and used as a shield against criticism, raising questions about whether her leadership genuinely disrupted structural patterns or was manipulated to serve institutional legitimacy.

Meanwhile, the post-9/11 security landscape opened new domains in counterterrorism, surveillance, and cyberintelligence, fields where women found increasing opportunities. Agencies such as the NSA, GCHQ, and NATO cyber units began integrating female analysts, engineers, and strategic planners into their operations. Their contributions became vital in an era defined less by physical infiltration and more by data, systems, and predictive modeling. The intelligence community’s growing reliance on diversity of thought and technical skill offered women new avenues to break the operational glass ceiling.

Nevertheless, challenges persisted. A 2013 report by the RAND Corporation on women in the U.S. intelligence community found that while more women were employed in analytical and cyber roles, leadership representation lagged behind, and gender bias remained embedded in promotion practices, informal networks, and mentorship dynamics. Moreover, many female professionals reported being typecast in roles that emphasized empathy, intuition, or emotional intelligence, qualities viewed as “feminine” but often undervalued in strategic contexts.

The cultural representation of female intelligence officers also began to shift. In contemporary media, the “empowered female spy” became a recurring figure: competent, independent, and complex. Shows like Homeland (Carrie Mathison), Killing Eve (Eve Polastri and Villanelle), and The Americans (Elizabeth Jennings) offered more layered portrayals, moving beyond the one-dimensional femme fatale. However, these characters often exhibited exaggerated psychological instability, moral ambiguity, or hyper-competence, suggesting the rise of new stereotypes: the unstable genius, the emotionally driven operative, or the woman whose brilliance is coupled with personal collapse.

Simultaneously, some intelligence agencies began to embrace gender diversity as part of a soft power strategy. Promoting female leadership in security institutions was portrayed as evidence of liberal democratic values, an implicit message in contrast with the authoritarian male-dominated intelligence cultures of adversaries. But this weaponization of gender equality raises questions: are women genuinely empowered within these systems, or are they being used as symbols of progress while deeper imbalances persist?

Moreover, the growing visibility of women in intelligence has led to the emergence of new threats. High-profile female analysts, journalists, and operatives have become targets of harassment, doxxing, and online abuse, particularly in the cyber domain, where anonymity and disinformation campaigns are weaponized.

In conclusion, the post-Cold War and post-9/11 eras have marked significant progress in the inclusion and recognition of women in intelligence. Granted, this evolution is far from linear. The rise of women to positions of power and their expanded operational presence have challenged older stereotypes but also created new ones complex, modern, and often equally constraining. Whether these shifts represent genuine transformation or cosmetic adaptation remains a pressing question for both scholars and practitioners.

Beyond real-world intelligence operations, public understanding of female intelligence officers has been significantly influenced by popular culture, including films, television series, literature, and news media. These cultural products serve as both mirrors and engines of perception, reinforcing societal expectations, exaggerating character traits, and often distorting the complex realities of women in intelligence roles. Even as actual institutions have evolved, fictional representations continue to oscillate between empowerment and stereotyping, raising critical questions about visibility, authenticity, and gendered assumptions.

Screened and Framed: Media Narratives and the Repackaging of Stereotypes

Historically, early cinematic portrayals were dominated by the archetype of the femme fatale. Characters like Vesper Lynd (Casino Royale), Mata Hari in various film renditions, or Greta Garbo’s seductive spy roles in the early 20th century crystallized the notion of the woman spy as tempting, duplicitous, and morally ambiguous. This figure was rarely shown as an intelligence professional in the modern sense; she was more often a plot device, valued for her ability to seduce, betray, or die dramatically.

As women gained more recognition in real intelligence agencies, the film industry began to reflect new dynamics, but often in exaggerated or contradictory ways. The rise of characters like Evelyn Salt (Salt, 2010), Ethan Hunt’s female counterparts in the Mission: Impossible franchise, or Nikita (TV and film versions) introduced the trope of the hyper-competent female assassin or field agent: physically lethal, emotionally cold, and haunted by a mysterious past. While these roles projected agency and autonomy, they also constructed a new stereotype, what scholars have dubbed the “superwoman paradox.” These women were expected to be flawless: emotionally controlled, intellectually sharp, physically resilient, and sexually appealing, all at once.

One of the most critically acclaimed portrayals of a female intelligence officer came with Carrie Mathison, the bipolar CIA analyst in Homeland. The series offered a more complex and layered character, deeply intelligent, emotionally volatile, and professionally driven. However, her mental illness was central to the narrative, reinforcing a different kind of stereotype: the unstable genius, where a woman’s brilliance comes at the cost of psychological normalcy. Similarly, the psychosexual tension in Killing Eve between the MI6 agent Eve and the assassin Villanelle generated fascination but blurred the line between professionalism and obsession.

These portrayals, while more nuanced than the classic femme fatale, still function as entertainment performances, prioritizing dramatization over realism. Real-life intelligence work, long, methodical, and intellectually demanding, rarely involves high-speed chases or couture dresses. Yet audiences continue to conflate cinematic images with actual roles, influencing public and even institutional perceptions of what female intelligence officers are or should be.

Furthermore, media coverage of actual female operatives often reflects gendered framing. When Gina Haspel was appointed Director of the CIA, headlines focused as much on her being the “first woman” as on her policy stances or leadership record. Similarly, coverage of female Mossad agents tends to highlight their physical appearance or personal charm before detailing their skills or strategic contributions.

The danger in these representations lies not in the existence of captivating fictional characters, but in their collective weight. When most public images of women in intelligence are filtered through lenses of sexuality, instability, or aesthetic appeal, a distorted archetype emerges, one that young women entering the field may feel pressured to imitate or resist, and one that male colleagues may subconsciously expect.

Cultural representation does play a dual role. On one hand, they have helped normalize the idea that women can be intelligence officers, operatives, and decision-makers. On the other hand, they often repackage traditional gender norms in sleek, modern aesthetics, trading the corset for a tailored suit but keeping the same narrative staging.

In essence, real-world institutions have made progress in integrating women into intelligence at all levels, but the cultural imagination remains several steps behind and continues to preserve outdated or oversimplified portrayals. The fight for gender equity in intelligence must therefore include not only institutional reform but also a critical engagement with the stories we tell and believe about women in this secretive world.

Conclusion: Between Symbol and Substance – Rethinking Women’s Legacy in Intelligence

The historical trajectory of women in intelligence reveals a complex and often contradictory evolution, marked by both breakthroughs and boundaries. From their early roles as invisible assets, couriers, and symbolic figures to their emergence as wartime operatives, Cold War analysts, and twenty-first-century leaders, women have undeniably altered the face and function of global intelligence communities. Yet, this transformation has not been linear nor entirely liberating.

Women have broken significant barriers: they have infiltrated spaces once deemed exclusive to men, demonstrated exceptional analytical and operational capabilities, and, in some cases, risen to the highest levels of institutional leadership. Figures like Nancy Wake, Virginia Hall, Jeanne Vertefeuille, Stella Rimington, and Gina Haspel exemplify how determination, intellect, and courage can rewrite professional norms. These women, and many others less well-known, have proven that competence in intelligence is not defined by gender.

However, new stereotypes have emerged even as old ones have faded. The seductive spy has been replaced, in part, by the emotionally unstable genius, the cold assassin, or the “token” female leader whose role is celebrated symbolically more than structurally. Popular media, institutional culture, and political narratives have all contributed to this shift, at times empowering, at other times reductive. In many cases, women’s visibility has increased, but not always their influence.

The tension between breaking and reinforcing stereotypes stems from the persistent gendered framing of intelligence work itself. Competence continues to be coded as masculine in many security cultures. Female success stories are often exceptionalized, treated as anomalies rather than normalized as part of institutional identity. Moreover, gender equality is sometimes promoted externally (as soft power or public relations strategy), without deeper changes in mentorship, promotion path ways, or operational expectations.

Ultimately, women in intelligence today stand at a crossroads. They are no longer marginalized within the field, but they are also not fully integrated into its narratives, practices, and structures. The challenge ahead lies not only in increasing representation but in reshaping the cultural, organizational, and symbolic frameworks that define what intelligence work looks like and who gets to do it.

Whether women in intelligence are breaking stereotypes or reinforcing new ones depends largely on how institutions choose to honor their past, structure their present, and imagine their future. Recognition alone is not enough. What is needed is a genuine redefinition of intelligence in women itself, one that values diversity of experience, deconstructs performative gender roles, and affirms that effectiveness in intelligence has never been a matter of gender, but of skill, judgment, and trust. Women should receive recognition, credit, and gratitude regardless of the line of work in which they choose to continue. Unfortunately, our society and many fields of action do not currently realize and ingrain gender equality deeply enough. Although we have countless women in the history of national and international security who have dedicated their lives to fighting for and making significant progress in gender equality, unfortunately, their work remains crucial. Significant efforts are still required in creating space at the table for women everywhere who choose to defend their nations through intelligence-related work.

References:

Andrew, C., & Mitrokhin, V. (2000). The Mitrokhin Archive: The KGB in Europe and the West. Penguin Books.

Batvinis, R. J. (2007). The Origins of FBI Counterintelligence. University Press of Kansas.

Dombrowski, N., & Horan, S. (2005). Intelligence, Gender and Security: A Feminist Perspective. Routledge.

Haufler, H. (2003). Code Girls: The Untold Story of the American Women Code Breakers of World War II. National Geographic.

Helm, S. (2006). A Life in Secrets: Vera Atkins and the Missing Agents of WWII. Anchor Books.

Herman, M. (2001). Intelligence Power in Peace and War. Cambridge University Press.

Macintyre, B. (2012). Double Cross: The True Story of the D-Day Spies. Crown.

Mulley, C. (2013). The Spy Who Loved: The Secrets and Lives of Christine Granville. Macmillan.

Rimington, S. (2001). Open Secret: The Autobiography of the Former Director-General of MI5. Hutchinson.

Rizzo, J. (2014). Company Man: Thirty Years of Controversy and Crisis in the CIA. Scribner.

Stout, M. E. (2014). The Good Spy: The Life and Death of Robert Ames. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Warner, M. (2016). Women in British Intelligence during the Second World War. Intelligence and National Security, 31(7), 940–960. https://doi.org/10.1080/02684527.2015.1135772

Wilford, H. (2008). The Mighty Wurlitzer: How the CIA Played America. Harvard University Press.

Zegart, A. (2007). Spying Blind: The CIA, the FBI, and the Origins of 9/11. Princeton University Press.

Zegart, A. (2022). Spies, Lies, and Algorithms: The History and Future of American Intelligence. Princeton University Press.

Zuckerman, L. (2002). The Sisterhood: The Secret History of Women at the CIA. Warner Books.