The question of whether male leaders tend to incline towards violence and frustration has become progressively contentious as some argue
can bring in the peace that the general populace is demanding in societies. In my opinion, though not many sources have backed
up, their viewpoints are legitimate.
On the one hand, the most frequently cited rationale for opposing
statement is a range of past examples of female leadership.
argument rests on the fact that few peaceful
leaders were presented throughout history.
can be most apparently seen in myriad female governors like Hilary Clinton and Queen Elisabeth I, who were notorious for provoking and escalating violent conflicts. The claim that
are more peaceful is not supported by historical evidence.
, the accumulated evidence has reasoned why it is almost impossible to proclaim how peaceful the world would be if females played a pivotal role in ruling societies.
On the other hand
, albeit conceding the limited support from the historical fact, I would contend that
are innately associated with aggression and
should be granted the opportunity.
is predicated based on the assumption that
produce more testosterone than their female counterparts and have the tendency to behave in aggressive manners.
, one of the salient illustrations of
is often indicated in the way boys are raised from a young age, in which they are taught to be tough, not to compromise and not to back down.
, the majority of male role models are predominantly violent, ranging from historical figures to action stars to videogame characters.
, the fact that
are predisposed to show violence confers a valid standpoint as we have witnessed the tangible societal force influencing them.
In conclusion, thanks to the naturally violent instinct of
should be offered more powerful positions to rule widely. In my final thought, educators and governors should jointly propose a more holistic approach in order to promote gender equality and strike some balance between male and female leadership.