Throughout history, male leaders have led us in 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 question?

Some people argue that female leadership should be over male authority. It cannot be denied that during past there were fewer wars and less violence when women were in power.

However

, I disagree with

this

attitude because, wars happen due to human greed, not the gender of who leads. Principally, the major reason for disagreement with the statement is that female leadership does not mean to have a more peaceful society. Wars are not initiated by gender, rather they are a result of human greed. It is human nature to want more and more

therefore

, when that greed is not satisfied, conflicts happen.

Moreover there

Accept comma addition

Moreover, there

were some examples in history that women as a leader caused wars

such

as, administration in Greece and Egypt that they showed no mercy to their enemies despite of being women.

On the other hand

, in today's society, people often claim that if female rules a country, it might not have any war due to less violence.

Although

, it would be more peaceful or more friendly, it does not necessarily mean not to have war.

Additionally

, history is full of examples and it will repeat. The only reason why past had fewer wars under female management is because, in older times, most people hesitated to follow a woman,

as a result

there were fewer wars when women were in power. In conclusion, conflicts and battles happen due to human's greediness not because of gender,

also

if we study through history, it can be seen that female leaders behave same as male governments and

hence

, reversing leadership from men to women do not mean the world to become a more powerful place.