ABSTRACT Numerous attempts have been made recently to argue from premises about ‘human nature’ to conclusions about social policy. This essay offers a critique of one such attempt, Melvin Konner's argument from the fact that women are more nurturing and less aggressive than men, to the claim that the world would be safer if women rather than men had control over the world's armaments, especially nuclear weapons (and thus they ought to occupy positions of power). I claim that the argument is badly flawed at several points, and that as such, it does not advance but impedes the movement towards equal access to governmental positions.