world history suggests that violence and conflict were more evident under male leadership than female leadership. So, for peace to prevail, female leadership can be considered as a better option than male leadership. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is strongly argued, historically, that with
men
in power, the world
faced more armed conflicts and violent ones than under women
leadership. Thus
, to conquer a peaceful life, females are taken as the best leaders
compared to men
. In this
essay, I will discuss my somewhat agreement towards this
topic.
From History books and testimonials, it is a fact that wars and catastrophic events happened under male commands,
because rarely had a nationRemove the comma
apply
one woman
as their leader. Add the comma(s)
, one woman,
Therefore
, I agree that under male command, the world
had more violent incidents. Additionally
, in the past, feminine leadership were not incentive
neither a highly discussed topic, because Correct article usage
an incentive
women
barely had their rights alike
to Correct your spelling
like
men
and only in the late twentieth century, they conquered similar positions. Then
, it is negligent to corelate
less violent incidents due to more Correct your spelling
correlate
women
in front
lead. What is possible to affirm is that, recently, after Add an article
the front
Second
World
War the world
became more diplomatic aligned with more
open-minded and respectful society.
After years of malevolence amongst human beings, they become more peaceful, because they accepted differences amongst themselves and Correct article usage
a more
therefore
, they evolved. Besides
that, they also
have accepted that women
could strongly contribute for
a better Change preposition
to
world
. Indeed, it is possible to outline strong women
who could peacefully avoid conflicts such
as Margaret Thatcher, known as iron
Correct article usage
the iron
women
who lead the UK for fifteen years, faced powerfully Fix the agreement mistake
woman
the
Socialism and battled their influence over the British. Correct article usage
apply
Thus
, nations leaders
regardless their
genre have recently praised by peace, and undoubtedly, strong female Change preposition
of their
leaders
contributed to that once they were in power. However
, this
does not make them better leaders
or more prepared than previous men
. Certainly, a man would have done the same as Thatcher, for instance
.
In conclusion, I somewhat agree to
the prompt, because several nations had meaningless Change preposition
with
men
leadership who sought blood conflicts during
centuries. Change preposition
for
Nonetheless
, at that time, any country had women
as a leader, then
, impossible to relate that with women
the world
is more peaceful. In recent decades, it is possible to value female leaders
who strongly defended their country with no battle conflict, however
I believe that Add a comma
,however
men
would have done alikeSubmitted by alexandretco on
Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Writing9 with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.