IELTS Writing Task 2 – Throughout the history, male leaders always lead us to violence and conflict
Throughout the history, male leaders always lead us to violence and conflict. If a
society is governed by female leaders it will be more peaceful.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
Similar Topic – World history suggests that violence and conflict were more evident under male leadership than under female leadership. So, for peace to prevail, female leadership can be considered as a better option than male leadership.
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
You should write at least 250 words.
IELTS Writing Task 2/ IELTS Essay Sample
Sample Answer 1:
Throughout the history, male leaders always lead us to violence and conflict. If a
society is governed by female leaders it will be more peaceful. To what extent do
you agree or disagree with this opinion?
In the history of mankind there have been many records of violence and conflicts in
the form of wars. Some people think that if a society were governed by female
leaders, it would be more peaceful. However, if we look into the past history we can
get numerous examples when there have been wars and conflicts even during the
rule of women rulers. So, I disagree with the statement.
If we had female only rulers, we probably wouldn’t be alive today. Sure most wars
were caused by men, but that is only because more than 90% of rulers were men.
Female rulers have also caused wars and their fraction is a lot higher than male
rulers. For example, during the Tang Dynasty, the first female ruler of China, Wu
Zetian who was well-known for her tyranny and cruelty, launched a series of wars to
expand the territory of the empire. This didn’t happen only in China. It was Queen
Victoria who invaded India, China and many other countries in close succession.
Even our late Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, led India in a war against neighbouring
Pakistan which resulted in the creation of Bangladesh, formerly East Pakistan.
It is understandable if you say that generally, women are more affectionate,
thoughtful and gentle as compared with men. They are also less ambitious and
aggressive. However, politics is decided by the interest. If you are the leader of a
society, you surely have the required leadership qualities regardless of the gender.
Apparently, leaders, male or female, will have to make a decision according to
special interest.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, a society will not necessarily become
more peaceful merely because it is governed by a female leader because, essentially,
there is no difference between female and male leaders when it comes to politics.
Model Answer 2: (Disagreement: Denied the fact that violence and conflict were less under female leadership)
The human history has been violence and conflict stricken since the beginning of the human existence. If we look back in history or to the world around us, we see wars, conflict, power struggles and revolutions, peach making kings, prudent emperor as well as ruthless ruler. History also reveals that society has always been predominantly male dominated, with leaders and rulers mainly being men. It is, hence, easy to blame the ruler and put the responsibility of atrocities on the shoulders of men. But a deeper perspective always reveals to historians that conflict is a generic tendency of humans. So peace being disturbed is not the liability of men only, but humans in general, and a power shift, from men to women, is destined to be futile in prevailing peace.
Most of the women who are known to be great till date, e.g. Queen Isabella of Spain, Queens Marry, a.k.a. Bloody Marry, Victoria, and Elizabeth of Britain, all have ruled over vast spectrum of power. And they often have done so ruthlessly, achieving goals with an iron hand. They have waged wars that are barely comparable to only few of those devised by men. These women are not anomalies of history, but examples from numerous others, who went beyond the boundaries of gender in the path of prevailing in power while expending peace whenever they deemed it to be expendable.
The two greatest wars of modern history, World Wars I & II, have taught us that wars are impersonal. Race, religion, nationality, sex are only pretense to the universally human lust for power. It is true that during both the global conflicts men were in the rulers’ thrones. But it will be foolish to say that Margaret Thatcher, the famed Iron Lady who spared no rod against a minnow enemy in the war of Falkland, would be more peacefully diplomatic than how the greats Winston Churchill and Franklyn D. Roosevelt had been tackling the Axis of Hitler.
The gender issue is only a determinant in the battle of the sexes, not the battles among nations and peoples. It is therefore impertinent, if not irrational, to conclude that world conflicts result from the rule of a particular gender and the finer sex would do a better job at prevailing peace if selectively put at the helm of human nations.
Alternative Answer 3: (In favor of the argument that violence and conflict were less under female leadership)
Though some people argue that war and conflicts among nations and within a territory is impersonal regardless of men and women leaders, the history suggest that world saw less violence, war and conflicts under female leader. Considering this in in mind I suggest the idea that female leadership can be considered for a better world.
The major World War, conflicts among nations, civil wars mostly caused by the male ego, assassinations and conflicts of interests among men. Very few female leaders contributed taking decision to have war with other nations in their period of ruling a country. Sometimes people often mention the Trojan War and convict a female as the main reason of this reason. But the fact is, it is not even a historically approved war and its root lies more in mythology than in evidence. And even if it was true, female leaders were not even remotely involved deciding to start the war. Though the number of male rulers throughout the history is much more compared to the number of female leaders and very few major wars could be related to the decision or action taken by women.
Women are naturally mild-hearted and avoid conflicts and wars by all means. They are more caring and less violent by their prototypes and that make them to be better leaders in terms of serving people. The leader who is caring and has the mentality to serve people would naturally be a good leader and women are better candidates than men in this regards.
In summary, the idea of female leadership in terms of avoiding wars and serving nations better is indeed a good idea.
Model Answer 4: (Neutral Notion )
Certain people think that violence and conflict were more evident under male leadership than under female leadership since dawn of the time. Throughout the history, Male leadership encourages violence and some other set of people suggest considering female leadership to prevail peace.
The issue whether or not ‘female leadership can be considered as a better option to prevail peace’ is always a debatable issue. There are strong arguments from both the sides and let us discuss in a detailed way.
Firstly, World history clearly suggests violence were more evident under male leadership .An instance illustrating this in action is first and second world wars .Male leadership encouraged violence in those 2 worlds wars and it is proved that violence is more evident under male leadership .In addition to this, women are against violence by nature and suffer a lot because of the violence thus the women leadership always try to prevail peace. For example, some Asian countries tried to restore the peace during women leadership. It is obvious from this that women leadership can be considered to bring back the peace
There is other side of the coin always. Certain women leadership proved that they are ready to encourage violence. To illustrate this, Pakistan started war during women leadership and it clearly prove that peace cannot be restored by changing leadership. In addition to this, Bangladesh also saw a great deal of internal violence during women leadership only. It is clearly proved that violence can be evident under women leadership also.
Thus it is recommended, to prevail peace in all circumstances irrespective of women or men leadership. Peace can be prevailed in many ways and consider female leadership is only one of those options.
Model Answer 5: (Neutral Notion )
If we delved through the major historical archives, it would be noticeable that many wars and conflict occurred under a male leadership. This observation led to some analysts to favouring a female leadership in order to maintain peace and harmony. This approach purporting leadership based on gender to attain peace seemed flawed and simplistic. Instead if would appear that leadership should be chosen based on democracy and the most qualified leader for the job.
On the one hand, supporters for female leadership cite the numerous wars and conflicts under male leadership such as Adolf Hitler or Benitto Mussolini. However, it can also be argued that a significant number of atrocities had likewise occurred under female leaders such as Queen Elizabeth during the Iron Age. Additionally, those who support females’ leadership may quote their innate nurturing and non-aggressive characteristics as opposed to men’s innate aggressiveness. Similarly, this would seem an inaccurate statement as observed in the aforementioned argument.
On balance, it would be more sensible to elect a leader based on democracy and his/her qualifications. Firstly, a nation’s citizens should ideally be endowed a right to vote for a leader out of their own free will. Additionally, the most qualified person for the leadership may be another useful criterion. This characteristic may range from their previous experience as leaders, favourable leadership qualities and innate morale. Secondly, we all have to acknowledge the metamorphosis of gender’s role. It may be that more violence was suffered under male leadership because fewer females were allowed in that role.
To summerise, it would appear that the approach to claim that peace would prevail under female leaders as rather simplistic. Ultimately, what would seem more crucial is for the most qualified person irrespective of gender should be chosen by citizens out of their own free will.
Model Answer 6:
Over the time, history has proved that male leadership shows some violence and conflict, while female leadership spreads peaceful around. I agree that male performs more toughness than female in many aspects specially in leadership, although, there are always some odds that break the rules.
It is well known that, man is stronger and tougher than woman. May be this returns back to his body physiological structure, referring to his corporal side, hormones or even his nature that him was created on by God, where each gender mostly share common desires. Although men’s violent control, like Hitler for example, but recent research studies revealed that two thirds of the male’s brain are mentally described and last third refers to the emotional part inside him, while the female’s brain shows two thirds of emotions and the other is mental. So, this result leads us to vote positively for men leadership. In addition, we can see that man can stand for hard times and attend and violent moments easier than woman without losing control of him-self. And this is an important requirement for a good leader.
Unlike male, female is more sensational and caters for perfect output. They are better in house leading, as they are used to considering small details. The woman in the house embodies the meaning of residence where each member gets rest and peaceful, they can get all their pains cured in moments. And that is an essential need that humans seek all the time through their life. But this does not mean that the woman is unable to succeed in leadership. We can see clearly the obvious example of Queen Elizabeth, and how could she change the country she judges into better state, her people love her and can live happy and safe under control. The truth about most of the women that they tend to calmness and peace could qualify her to lead complex organizations and countries even more than men.
Finally, we conclude that whoever male or female is in a leader position, however, all always search for freedom, happiness and peacefulness, and anyone can be a leader only if he or she owns leadership skills and humanity.
Model Answer 7:
History portrays that reign of war and chaos was on rise under male rulers compared to their counterparts. Now in reality, does this imply that female leaders are more favorable candidates for non-violent governance? In my opinion, it would be irrational to globalize this and crowning of leaders should not on gender biased.
The mighty rulers of the past were predominantly males. History of conflicts and chaos during their time deceive that they possessed an innate quest to conquer the world. The great king Alexander and Hitler exemplifies this. But the matter of fact is a deeper interpretation on historical facts reveals that this was the need and situation of that time. The global scenario at that age persuaded the rulers to war and conquer. Another fact would be the conflicts were not less in feminine ruler era too; the great ruler of Jhansi from Indian scripts would serve an example.
However, nineteenth century witnessed more organised and determined leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. They exemplify the unfairness in relating male rulers to violence on a global perceptive.
In the present day, where public involvement is emphasized while choosing a leader, the criteria set forward by an educated mass will never be gender biased, instead they look forward to more sensible leaders. In spite of being under feminine leaderships India did not address to any changes on its war protocols in last few years. Similar is the situation in another Asian country of Bangladesh.
Though our history , canvas male rulers as a source of carnage in the time of antiquity, it would be rather dogmatic to conclude that violence and conflicts are gender bias. Some of the examples mentioned above would serve the evident. I would opine that for peace to prevail, sensible leaders should be crowned irrespective of their gender differences.
Model Answer 8:
The world has experienced many terrors and wars where there are many victims who suffered by the use of a deadly weapon or a political decision taken by a leader. Some people believe that those conflicts were mainly caused by male leaders who used their power and greed to attack other nations. Female leadership, according to many, could be an alternative option to prevail peace in the world as female leadership in history suggests less war and conflicts among nations and countrymen. I do not agree with this notion based on several reasons.
Firstly, wars in the history are not about gender, but political decision. In many countries in this world, war becomes the last option to grasp in case negotiation diplomacy fails to cover national interest. For example, in WWII, Germany and the US failed to negotiate their national interest, war as a consequence was eminent. War is not about gender perspective, but rational choice that forces leadership to take action.
Furthermore, there is no solid evidence that female leadership would bring peace over the world. Some people believe that male makes decisions with their logic and female with their heart, but there is no exact fact to prove this argument while some female leadership, for example, Margaret Thatcher, known as “Iron Lady” because of her rigid way of ruling the country. Conflicts and political deaths in many South Asian countries like India and Bangladesh under female leadership also shows how people have over generalised that a female could bring better world and peace. Thus, the idea about female leadership better than male leadership is not justified enough to change status quo.
To sum up, many people believe that the male leaders are prone to abuse their power to make war and violence while female ruling could bring world peace. Only a few woman leaders actually ruled the world compared to the overwhelming numbers of male rulers in history and that’s how this opinion got biased. Their opinion is not proved and I believed this current situation is not because of gender issue, but for political rational choices.
Model Answer 9:
There is a general consensus that had the world been governed by female leaders, as opposed to their counterparts, mankind would have achieved a more peaceful life. However, this essay is written to discuss why that belief is unfounded and that the relationship between gender and peace-making is remote.
There is no point denying that males have always been perceived as more aggressive, ambitious and violent to certain extent than the opposite gender. On the contrary, women traditionally face the ingrained belief to be more caring and gentle persons in their nature. As a result, it is understandable why people hold that if more women are to be elected for top positions in the government, the world will be a more peaceful place.
Despite such a popular opinion, it should be emphasized that a leader’s decision is rarely a product of personal dispositions but a reflection of the collective needs of the whole society. More than often, politicians formulate a policy mostly according to public opinions with the main interest of gaining more support from their community. For example, the rise of Adolf Hitler and his attempt to colonized Europe reflected more a common desire shared by the German then his own will. Secondly, there is no guarantee that women when given the power and authority will be any less violent and aggressive. A person who could exemplify this notion is Margaret Thatcher, who was the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and responsible for the order of a naval attack on Argentina to settle an international dispute.
In conclusion, the belief that women should be better peace-makers than men when they are in leading positions is fallacious. Despite prejudices on the natural characteristics of the two genders, the link between these factors and a leader’s policies and decisions is yet to be proven.
Model Answer 10:
Violence and conflicts exist in almost every society in our world, which basically take the form of wars and slaughters. Therefore, some people believe that this unsatisfactory reality should be ascribed to a male- dominated society, owing to the fact that males are often considered more aggressive than females. Nevertheless, if a society is governed by female
leaders, the society will not necessarily be free from wars and conflicts.
Admittedly, males are commonly more militant than females, but when it comes to politics, the question of whether to launch a war is not determined by a single leader even if he or she is at the top of that political hierarchy. In other words, decision-making depends on the interests of a society or organization as a whole. Thus, leaders, regardless of the gender, are prone to act according to the principle of national or organizational interests. However, these interests will not last for a long time.
Since eliminating violence cannot be achieved by simply changing the leadership from a male-dominated one into a female-dominated one, the most effective way to eliminate violence is to awaken people’s consciousness that violence is very useless when used as a way to solve problems. A peace-oriented government will not be established unless the
majority of people are aware of the fact that those temporary interests brought about by wars will inevitably be deprived of by other wars and eventually disappear.
All in all, a desirable government does not depend on its leader’s gender but on the people who elect the leader.
Model Answer 11:
In current political situation, some people argue that male leaders are often catalyst for society becomes more aggressive and clash, while others suppose leviathan position should belong to women. Personally, I prefer to cogitate both arguments whereby provide a synthesis.
It is undeniable that men are consistently elected being a leader for almost every country across the globe. Culture, belief and folklore, which appear surrounding locus, could be strong influence why some societies favored to elect men instead of women. Literally, if the citizens who have affiliation to those factors lie in the election situation, they tend to vote based on gender preference; in this case, men are elected by majority. Approximate number of studies examining, the percentage of women who have voting rights are only a quarter of whole population due to gender bias which exist in some countries. Increasing numbers of women awareness for voting could provoke drawback effect for male candidates. The claim, therefore, which states that men are sufficient to reduce violent is no more than delusion.
Although the researched stated that the number of men holds big proportion than women, it also shows that women are potential to occupy certain position, and become ‘big-boss’ for certain governmental position. In the surface, some feminist movements which protest against unbalance policy are tendency for momentous change in some regulations where would rise the proportion of women in parliament. The other studies also reported that some countries where women are elected as a leader then a number of violent are decreased rapidly. However, the sample of women who becomes a leader in some countries is quiet modest subset. It also could not be strong argument to conclude that women would insure peacefulness.
To conclude, although violent are common today which attend simultaneously with male leaders domination, it is not directly mean that women could do better than men. I eminently believe that if the possibility of being a leader is open for everyone who has credibility to manage conflict, it would shift society towards harmony.
Model Answer 12:
It is true that human beings have suffered from numerous wars through the stone age to modern society, and it is a fact that most of the leaders of those conflicts were male. Therefore, some people hold the opinion that it is the male leaders that led us to violence and wars. They also propose that our society should be governed by females in order to be more peaceful. However, in my opinion, there is no definite link between the historical conflicts and the gender of leaders.
To begin with, I admit that men’s human nature tends to be more aggressive. In ancient times, conflicts between two men would usually be solved by fighting, which was kind of cruel. Even in modern society, men are easy to get angry and sometimes you can see some people fighting with each other because of losing control. When it comes to making political decisions, males tend to use violence as the effective measure to solve problems.
Nevertheless, it is not necessarily true that female leaders would result in a more peaceful world. First, in modern government, it is not the case that any single person can make the final decision about starting a war. Usually, a large group of people such as congress would participate in the decision-making process. This would make the decision more rational. Also, there is no evidence showing that women would choose more peaceful measures when they have the power to use violence. As a matter of fact, there were some female leaders in history who were very cruel to their people.
To sum up, the gender of leaders is not the key factor that leads us to conflicts and wars. We should choose right leaders based on their virtue but not on their gender.
Submit your Essay here in the comment section, we will add your essay in our post.
(Collected, Source – Book, Internet)
