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. To what extent do you agree or di

SATPREET SINGH's picture

Every country has some issues even though it is well developed, and world history consist all the chapters ended with brutality. However, There are many incidents happened in the past which showed that women leadership were more peaceful compared with men, So the question has been raised that is women leadership are far better than men. As far my am concerned I am strongly disagree this fallacy that women command is good.

Firstly, World history is full of war , crime and violence, and most of the countries are dominated by men, so that it gave an impression that male are rude and their policies are merciless. For an Instance, World had seen World war-1 and World war-2, and the reason behind these war were target men leadership only. This past experiences move us to think about alternative leadership.

On the other hand, History had many blunders which were made by women leadership, and still these wounds are yet not healed. For an Instance, Indian Prime Minister, Mrs. Indira Gandhi conducted a military operation on one of the holiest place. Operation name was give Operation Blue Star, and this action killed many innocent citizens. Till date, Sikh people did not forget that brutal act. Hence, The idea to give the responsibilites to the women to lead a country or a system does not bring peace and harmony.

So to conclude, As I mentioned change in leadership gender does not solve the equation of hate, violence or crime. History teach us lesson that to eliminate all the issues honest leaders are need, change the gender type will not outcome the desire results.

Votes: 
Your rating: None Average: 6.1 (1 vote)