EXCLUSIVE Why the next James Bond should NOT be a woman, female ex-CIA intelligence officer has surprising good reasons
Since the release of No Time to Die in 2021, rumors have swirled about who will be the next James Bond. The conversations are heating up again now that producer Barbara Broccoli and producer-writer Michael G Wilson sold the franchise to Amazon.
Will he remain British? What race will he be? And could Bond be a woman?
Names tipped to succeed Daniel Craig in the iconic role have included Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Henry Cavill and Theo James.
Actresses Sydney Sweeney and Zendaya have both been suggested as possible Bond girls, and it seems Amazon has, at least for now, silenced any possibility of a female 007.
As a former CIA intelligence officer - and a woman - myself, people naturally assume I'm in favor of a female Bond.
Imagine their surprise when they learn I'm not.
It's no secret that espionage has long been a 'man's world' - the disparities in pay and position between men and women at the CIA were documented as early as 1953, around the same time Ian Fleming first introduced us to the suave, womanizing spy in his novel Casino Royale.
The Bond world Fleming created largely reflected this male-centric reality, its female characters relegated to seemingly less important roles behind a typewriter or at the British spy's side as his far less capable companion. And don't get me started on their scandalous attire and sexual innuendo-filled names.
The reality at the CIA was that women donned sensible skirts with pantyhose - pants weren't permitted - and wore crisp, white gloves.
Despite having both the skill and desire to work in clandestine operations, women served in positions that 'better suited' their abilities - think secretaries, librarians and file clerks. Many even began their espionage careers as unpaid 'CIA wives,' providing secretarial and administrative support to field stations. It was an undoubtedly clever, yet misogynistic, strategy in which the agency leveraged male case officers' highly educated spouses for free labor.
'I always felt like, you know, I'm not stupid - and here I was, doing filing, typing,' Marti Peterson told me of her time as a CIA wife in Laos in the early 1970s.
In 1975, Peterson became the first female case officer to operate in Moscow, only after turning down the CIA's initial offer to become an entry-level secretary.
A mere month into her tour, she began handling one of the Moscow station's most prized assets, even delivering a suicide pill to him at his request. (He wanted to be prepared to die by suicide in the event the KGB arrested him for treason.)
Hidden in a fountain pen, the lethal package was tucked into Peterson's waistband and held close to her body as she twisted and turned through the streets of Moscow ensuring she wasn't being followed, before making the delivery.
After months of operating freely in one of the harshest counterintelligence environments - women were largely able to go undetected as our enemies didn't expect us to carry out plans - Peterson's world changed.
This time, when she conducted the dead drop, she was accosted by nearly two dozen KGB officers who she said forced her into a van and off to Lubyanka prison for interrogation.
Peterson didn't break under their questioning, and was released after several hours with strict orders to leave the country and never return.
Her male managers accused her of failing to spot a surveillance team on her, a cardinal sin in espionage.
Peterson shouldered that blame for seven years until it was revealed that the asset was compromised by double agents working for both the CIA and the Czech intelligence service. She could finally rest easy knowing she wasn't to blame for the arrest of that most important Moscow asset.
It was thanks to her bravery that the asset was able to boldly choose his own fate, rather than be subjected to whatever punishment the KGB had in mind for him.
There were others like Peterson - intrepid women who successfully convinced their male colleagues they had more to offer than typing and filing skills.
Janine Brookner, for example, entered on duty in 1968 and by the '80s became the first female chief of a station in Latin America, in one of the Caribbean's most dangerous posts.
Around that time, more women were conducting clandestine operations - and they were good at it. Really good. This should have come as no surprise, given that women had already operated in this capacity unofficially for decades.
Even so, women had to fight for the best cases that traditionally went to male counterparts, and despite repeated operational successes, the mostly male managers still doubted their clandestine capabilities.
The same stereotypes meant women were equally underestimated by the enemy - a situation we continue to take full advantage of even today, allowing us to go unnoticed in some of the most dangerous environments in the world.
Janine Brookner became the first female chief of station in Latin America, in one of the Caribbean's most dangerous posts
Across the Atlantic, women in the UK have also been key players in the British Secret Intelligence Service, MI6.
Kathleen Pettigrew, for example, served as the personal assistant to not one but three MI6 chiefs, making her far more powerful than the Miss Moneypenny character she inspired.
In her book, Her Secret Service, author and historian Claire Hubbard-Hall describes the forgotten women of British Intelligence as 'the true custodians of the secret world,' whose contributions largely remain shrouded in mystery, while men's are often cemented in our collective memory thanks to their self-aggrandizing memoirs.
At the same time women were making slow gains in intelligence, the Bond girl was evolving on the silver screen, a credit to Broccoli who, together with her half-brother Wilson, took over the rights from their ailing father in 1995.
In the decades since, Broccoli expertly shepherded Bond through an ever-changing global and political landscape, adding nuance to the charming, deeply flawed intelligence operative so many of us have grown to love.
Perhaps just as importantly, she brought balance and inclusivity to the films, creating multi-dimensional, capable Bond girls and even casting a woman as 'M,' the head of MI6, in 1995. The real MI6, on the other hand, has yet to have a woman in its top leadership role, and it wasn't until 2018 that the CIA saw its first female director.
It's taken every bit of the past 70-plus years to somewhat level the playing field for real women in espionage, so one might argue that it's about time for a female James Bond.
Certainly, women are capable - a history of successful female intelligence officers from both sides of the pond already proves that.
But what if it's not a question of whether she's able to believably pull off the role but whether that's something viewers, especially women, actually want?
Broccoli didn't seem to think so.
'I'm not particularly interested in taking a male character and having a woman play it. I think women are far more interesting than that,' Broccoli told Variety in 2020.
Perhaps she knew something the rest of us didn't - or something we just weren't ready to admit: Women don't want to be James Bond. Not because we're content as his sexy sidekick, but because we want our own spy.
The success of shows like Netflix's Black Doves and Paramount's Lioness suggest a female-led spy thriller isn't just palatable for audiences - it's satisfying a hunger for something new: a unique spy character created specifically for a woman.
And while we're at it, let's make her more capable than Bond. After all, that reflects the reality on the ground.
The best spies are those who operate in the shadows and avoid romantic entanglements with their adversaries - the antithesis of James Bond. Spies who are unassuming and underestimated. Delivering poison right under the noses of our greatest adversaries.
Spies who are, dare I say, women?
Christina Hillsberg is a former CIA intelligence officer and author of Agents of Change: The Women Who Transformed the CIA, published June 24.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
39 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
I like Aussies but there is one huge issue with your culture I just can't get past: 'Sorry if you're offended'
A Swedish-born former Australian resident in his 20s has made an observation about Aussie attitudes that has sparked a heated online discussion. The young man, who 'partially grew up' living and attending school in Queensland before moving back to Europe, shared his observation about the apparent lack of value Australians place on education and intellectual pursuits. Taking to Reddit, he shared his views in an 'Ask An Aussie' subreddit post titled: 'What is the cause of Australian anti-intellectualism?' 'I would like to begin by saying that I like Australia and Australians, and I hope I don't come across as offensive. This is just one aspect of Australian society,' he began. 'In my experience, people in Australia tend to not value education so much. 'When they do, it's usually because it leads to a higher-paying job. Knowledge for the sake of knowing is not really valued, the dominating idea being that education only matters if it can be capitalised on.' The lengthy post saw the man explain that he came to this conclusion after leaving Australia and moving back to Sweden, and later France. During his time attending school Down Under, the self-declared 'bookish' man said he 'often felt estranged from other students' on account of his thirst for learning. He added that he struggled to find like-minded 'people who were interested in literature, poetry and even politics'. 'Very few read books in their free time,' he added. The post concluded by asking Aussies to weigh in on this perceived anti-intellectual attitude and offer some explanations. The recent post quickly lit up with over 1,500 responses. Perhaps surprisingly, many were from Aussies who agreed with aspects of the original poster's sentiment. The reply that received the most upvotes surmised the issue as stemming from a broader Australian social attitude of wanting to fit in. The short but popular comment explained: 'In high school, it doesn't pay to be scholastic or otherwise different or you get mocked. Sad really, and this often carries forward into everyday life.' 'Too well spoken? Pronounce your words correctly? You might get bullied,' one replied. A different but related explanation was also suggested in regard to the value Australian culture places on sporting achievements. Many commenters highlighted that while academic prowess could sometimes be a source of ridicule during schooling years, Australian students were, however, encouraged to proudly excel at sports. One commenter said they were 'made fun of' at school for being 'studious and bad at sports'. Another raised the idea more broadly, writing in part that Australia 'prizes physical pursuits over intellectual ones'. However, many were at pains to explain that Australians do indeed hold value in the pursuit of education. The difference, however, is that many Australians are conscious not to show off for being 'too 'clue-y' or 'booksmart' because it projects an air of being 'an arrogant a***hole who is far too "up themselves"'. '[T]here's absolutely people around in Australia who enjoy intellectual pursuits, but keep low key about it,' read one reply. 'We have high rates of education, but we hate class distinction,' explained another response. 'If people feel like you are using jargon or bigger words than you need to, they will call you on it because they will assume you are putting on airs.' This also led to commentary about the pervasiveness of 'tall poppy syndrome' in Australian society, and how it discouraged those who were intellectually inclined from outwardly expressing these interests. 'I think a lot of Australian identity is shaped by the tall poppy syndrome and rebellion against elitism, which many Australians tie to intellectualism,' read part of one longer post. A financial argument also offered an interesting explanation for the perceived lack of value Australians place on a generalised pursuit of knowledge. 'Until recently you could get an extremely well-paying job in Australia with minimal, if any, education, mostly through mining. This led to a lot of people dismissing education as pointless, useless and expensive,' explained one commenter. Another agreed, writing: 'I've got mates without degrees or school-completion certificates who earn filthy money for mining companies, oil refineries etc.' 'The ability to earn money – lots of it – is valued much, much more highly than intelligence,' read part of another reply. But many commenters felt this attribute was actually something to 'love' about Australia, because it meant that 'unskilled workers can make good money and have a good life'. 'I think Australia tends to be fairly egalitarian,' one wrote. 'So in the same way we don't look up to intellectual jobs, we don't look down on trades or manual labour jobs.' To this point, even the original poster agreed that this was true of Australian society. Others pointed to the fact that while higher education was free in Sweden, in Australia university attracts huge fees, which has financial implications. 'Education is much cheaper in Europe. To get it here, you go into debt for a very long time. That means you need to get your money's worth,' one explained. 'Knowledge, for the sake of knowing, doesn't put food on the table or a roof over your head,' added another. Ultimately, many responders surmised that this perceived anti-intellectual attitude held by Australians was probably a result of a combination of the aforementioned factors. One response reflected: 'Intellectualism is considered 'navel-gazing' - sort of a self-indulgent waste of time. Others have mentioned tall-poppy syndrome, and I think that's partially true.' They concluded that this had created a feeling that 'non-productive' or 'non-capitalisable' styles of educational inquiry were 'frivolous'.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
As UK households struggle with energy bills, staff at industry watchdog Ofgem enjoy 'woke' quizzes and Pride movie nights at 4.30pm on a Tuesday
Officials working for energy regulator Ofgem have spent thousands of pounds on ' woke ' events including movie nights and quizzes during working hours, the Mail can reveal. At a time when Britain has been hit with some of the highest energy prices in Europe, the quango tasked with regulating such matters has a host of 'staff networks' given money to hold gatherings over the past year. They included a 'Pride Movie Night', which started at 4.30pm on a Tuesday last July, as well as an 'End of Pride Quiz' which ran from 4pm to 5.30pm later that month. Another gathering organised by the LGBT + network was on 'Perspectives from Rainbow Regulators' which ran for almost 90 minutes on a Thursday afternoon last September. The quango also held an event on the 'art and history of black hair' which lasted 75 minutes on a work day in October. In total, Ofgem has spent £66,954 of the internal HR Equity, Diversity and Inclusion budget on staff networks since 2021, although funding was stopped in May 2024. The figures were revealed in response to a Freedom of Information request by the TaxPayers' Alliance and shared exclusively with the Mail. Ofgem has come under fire in recent years over the cost of bills, its handling of the prepayment meter scandal and its failure to prevent suppliers going bust. Joanna Marchong, of the TPA, said: 'It's beyond parody that as Brits face some of the highest energy prices in the world, our energy watchdog is spending time on woke movie nights and quizzes. 'Ofgem has repeatedly failed billpayers with its endless meddling in the energy market, which has both added to the costs of bills while also failing to prevent major firms from going bust. 'It's clear that there is a complete lack of focus on the core priorities of the organisation.' An Ofgem spokesman said: 'Our workforce reflects the communities we serve, offering a wide range of experiences and skills which helps to support our work as an effective energy regulator.' The spokesperson added: 'Staff networks are no longer funded centrally following the introduction of the EDI Expenditure rules last year.' Firms are spared green levy Thousands of businesses will be exempt from paying green levies in an industry shake-up, the Prime Minister will announce. Sir Keir Starmer will vow to slash energy bills for more than 7,000 firms by up to 25 per cent from 2027 when he launches his industrial strategy today. The ten-year plan to promote growth will see some firms exempted from the Renewables Obligation and Feed-in Tariffs. Manufacturers have previously warned energy costs are much higher in the UK than overseas. Government sources insisted the move would not be funded by raising taxes or household bills. Sir Keir said last night the plan would deliver 'long-term certainty' for British businesses.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Kemi Badenoch dismisses Labour plans to introduce new equality law as 'ideological dross' and says public sector could be heading for paralysis
Labour will paralyse public services and hand more power to unaccountable quangos under plans to introduce an equality law, Kemi Badenoch warns in the Mail today. From next year, the Government will force public authorities to give 'due regard' to disparities in income and socio-economic status when making decisions. This 'socio-economic duty' – part of the 2010 Equality Act that has yet to be enacted – could enable public bodies to make spending decisions that penalise middle-class areas. Writing in the Mail, the Tory leader brands the plan 'ideological dross' that could submerge Britain into a 'bureaucratic nightmare'. She warns: 'It means your council obsessing over 'impact assessments' while local roads decay, schools spending money on 'equality training' instead of textbooks, government departments taking more time analysing postcodes than fixing real problems.' She says the Tories blocked the duty for 14 years as it was 'obviously misguided', and accuses Labour of running out of ideas and doing things 'nobody asked for'. It will 'paralyse public services and hand more power to unaccountable quangos', she says. Labour is consulting on how to implement the duty, having pledged to roll it out in its manifesto. The Act was pushed through by the previous Labour government, but the section on socio-economic duty was vetoed by the Tories after the 2010 election. Theresa May, then home secretary, announced the scrapping of the duty, and said the government would fight inequality 'by treating people as individuals rather than labelling them in groups'. Council bosses fear they could be taken to court under the duty if disadvantaged groups claim officials haven't paid attention to their needs, The Times reported. A Government spokesman said the duty was 'part of our mission to break down barriers to opportunity. This will ensure public bodies consider how their decisions might help reduce inequalities associated with socio-economic disadvantage. Public bodies can ensure their views are heard by engaging with our call for evidence, which is currently live'.
