IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample 5 - Violence and conflict were more evident under male leadership than under female leadership
- Last Updated: Tuesday, 27 September 2016 12:54
- Written by IELTS Mentor
- Hits: 18218
IELTS Writing Task 2/ IELTS Essay:
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
Present a written argument to an educated reader with no specialist knowledge of the following topic:
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 disagree?
You should write at least 250 words.
Model Answer 1:
(Disagreement: Denied the fact that violence and conflict were less under female leadership)
The human history has been violence and conflict-stricken since the beginning of the human existence. If we look back in history or to the world around us, we see wars, conflict, power struggles and revolutions, peach making kings, prudent emperors and ruthless rulers. History also reveals 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 a vast spectrum 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 a 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 expanding peace whenever they deemed it to be expandable.
The two greatest wars of modern history, World Wars I & II, have taught us that wars are impersonal. Race, religion, nationality, sex are only pretences 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 road 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.
The major World Wars, conflicts among nations, civil wars mostly caused by the male ego, assassinations and conflicts of interests among men. Very few female leaders contributed making decisions to have war with other nations in their period of ruling a country. Sometimes people often mention the Trojan War and convict a female as the main reason for this war. But the fact is, it is not even a historically approved war and its root lies more in mythology than in evidence. And even if it was true, female leaders were not even remotely involved deciding to start the war. Though the number of male rulers throughout the history is much more compared to the number of female leaders and very few major wars could be related to the decision or action taken by women.
Women are naturally mild-hearted and avoid conflicts and wars by all means. They are more caring and less violent by their prototypes and that makes them better leaders in terms of serving people. The leader who is caring and has the mentality to serve people would naturally be a good leader and women are better candidates than men in this regards.
In summary, the idea of female leadership in terms of avoiding wars and serving nations better is indeed a good idea.
(Neutral Notion )
The issue whether or not 'female leadership can be considered as a better option to prevail peace' is always a debatable issue. There are strong arguments from both the sides and let us discuss in a detailed way.
Firstly, World history clearly suggests violence were more evident under male leadership .An instance illustrating this in action is first and second world wars .Male leadership encouraged violence in those 2 worlds wars and it is proved that violence is more evident under male leadership .In addition to this, women are against violence by nature and suffer a lot because of the violence thus the women leadership always try to prevail peace. For example, some Asian countries tried to restore the peace during women leadership. It is obvious from this that women leadership can be considered to bring back the peace
There is always an opposite side of the coin. Certain women leadership proved that they are ready to encourage violence. To illustrate this, Pakistan started a war during women leadership and it clearly proves that peace cannot be restored by changing leadership. In addition to this, Bangladesh also saw a great deal of internal violence during women leadership only. It is clearly proved that violence can be evident under women leadership also.
Thus it is recommended, to prevail peace in all circumstances irrespective of women or men leadership. Peace can prevail in many ways and consider female leadership is only one of those options.
(by Nirmala Pagolu)
(Neutral Notion )
On the one hand, supporters for female leadership cite the numerous wars and conflicts under male leadership such as Adolf Hitler or Benitto Mussolini. However, it can also be argued that a significant number of atrocities had likewise occurred under female leaders such as Queen Elizabeth during the Iron Age. Additionally, those who support females' leadership may quote their innate nurturing and non-aggressive characteristics as opposed to men's innate aggressiveness. Similarly, this would seem an inaccurate statement as observed in the aforementioned argument.
On balance, it would be more sensible to elect a leader based on democracy and his/her qualifications. Firstly, a nation's citizens should ideally be endowed a right to vote for a leader out of their own free will. Additionally, the most qualified person for the leadership may be another useful criterion. This characteristic may range from their previous experience as leaders, favourable leadership qualities and innate morale. Secondly, we all have to acknowledge the metamorphosis of gender's role. It may be that more violence was suffered under male leadership because fewer females were allowed in that role.
To summarise, it would appear that the approach to claim that peace would prevail under female leaders as rather simplistic. Ultimately, what would seem more crucial is for the most qualified person irrespective of gender should be chosen by citizens out of their own free will.
(by Fiona Lai)
Though our history , canvas male rulers as a source of carnage in the time of antiquity, it would be rather dogmatic to conclude that violence and conflicts are gender bias. Some of the examples mentioned above would serve the evident. I would opine that for peace to prevail, sensible leaders should be crowned irrespective of their gender differences.
Firstly, wars in the history are not about gender, but about political decisions. In many countries in this world, war becomes the last option to grasp in case negotiation diplomacy fails to cover national interest. For example, in WWII, Germany and the US failed to negotiate their national interest, war as a consequence was eminent. War is not about gender perspective, but a rational choice that forces leadership to take action.
Furthermore, there is no solid evidence that female leadership would bring peace over the world. Some people believe that male makes decisions with their logic and female with their heart, but there is no exact fact to prove this argument while some female leadership, for example, Margaret Thatcher, known as "Iron Lady" because of her rigid way of ruling the country. Conflicts and political deaths in many South Asian countries like India and Bangladesh under female leadership also shows how people have over generalised that a female could bring better world and peace. Thus, the idea about female leadership better than male leadership is not justified enough to change status quo.
To sum up, many people believe that the male leaders are prone to abuse their power to make war and violence while female ruling could bring world peace. Only a few woman leaders actually ruled the world compared to the overwhelming numbers of male rulers in history and that’s how this opinion got biased. Their opinion is not proved and I believed this current situation is not because of the gender issue, but for political rational choices.