Essay Sample 19

Powered By Eduhyme.com


Home

Essay 1 Essay 2 Essay 3 Essay 4 Essay 5 Essay 6 Essay 7 Essay 8 Essay 9 Essay 10 Essay 11 Essay 12 Essay 13 Essay 14 Essay 15 Essay 16

Essay 17 Essay 18 Essay 19 Essay 20 Essay 21 Essay 22 Essay 23 Essay 24 Essay 25 Essay 26 Essay 27 Essay 28 Essay 29 Essay 30 Essay 31 Essay 32

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task. You should write at least 250 words. Present a written argument to an educated reader with no specialist knowledge of the following topic:

"World history suggests that violence and and conflict were more evident under male leadership that under female leadership. So, for peace to prevail, female leadership can be considered as a better option that male leadership."


The history of humans has been violence and conflict stricken since the beginning of time. As far as we can look back in time we see wars, power struggles and revolutions.

We also see 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 spectrums 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.