IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample 5 - Violence and conflict were more evident under male leadership than under female leadership
- Last Updated: Saturday, 05 November 2016 18:22
- Written by IELTS Mentor
- Hits: 23358
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, peace 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, Queen Mary, a.k.a. Bloody Mary, 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.
(Approximately 388 words)
N.B: You should be able to pick up different points from this essay and organise your answer in your own style. This model answer has been prepared by the site developer. However, please note that this is just one example out of many possible answers.)
Alternative Answer 2:
(In favour of the argument that violence and conflict were less under female leadership)
Though some people argue that war and conflicts among nations and within a territory are impersonal regardless of men and women leaders, the history suggests that world saw less violence, war and conflicts under female leaders. Considering this in in mind I suggest the idea that female leadership can be considered for a better world.
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.
Model Answer 3:
(Neutral Notion )
Certain people think that violence and conflict were more evident under male leadership than under female leadership since the dawn of the time. Throughout the history, Male leadership encourages violence and some other sets of people suggest considering female leadership to prevail peace.
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)
Model Answer 4:
(Neutral Notion )
If we delved through the major historical archives, it would be noticeable that many wars and conflict occurred under a male leadership. This observation led to some analysts to favouring a female leadership in order to maintain peace and harmony. This approach purporting leadership based on gender to attain peace seemed flawed and simplistic. Instead if would appear that leadership should be chosen based on democracy and the most qualified leader for the job.
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)
Model Answer 5:
Over the time, history has proved that male leadership shows some violence and conflict, while female leadership spreads peace. I agree that male performs more toughness than female in many aspects, especially in leadership, although, there are always some odds that break the rules.
It is well known that men are stronger and tougher than women. Maybe this returns back to his body's physiological structure, referring to his corporal side, hormones or even his nature that he was created on the superior shape by God, where each gender mostly shares many common desires. Although men's violent control, Hitler for example, but recent research studies revealed that two-thirds of the male's brain are mentally described and last third refers to the emotional part in his brain, while the female's brain shows two-thirds of emotions and the other is mental. So, this result leads us to vote positively for men leadership. In addition, we can see that man can stand for hard times and attend and violent moments easier than women without losing control of himself. And this is an important requirement for a good leader.
Unlike male, the female is more sensational and caters for perfect output. They are better in house leading, as they are used to considering small details. The woman in the house embodies the meaning of residence where each member gets rest and live peacefully, they can get all their pains cured in moments. And that is an essential need that humans seek all the time through their life. But this does not mean that the woman is unable to succeed in leadership. We can see clearly the obvious example of Queen Elizabeth, and how could she change the country she judges into a better state, her people love her and can live happy and safe under control. The truth about most of the women that they tend to calmness and peace could qualify her to lead complex organisations and countries even more than men.
Finally, we conclude that whoever male or female is in a leader position, however, all always search for freedom, happiness and peacefulness, and anyone can be a leader only if he or she owns leadership skills and humanity.
Model Answer 6:
History portrays that reign of war and chaos was on the rise under male rulers compared to their counterparts. Now in reality, does this imply that female leaders are more favourable candidates for non-violent governance? In my opinion, it would be irrational to globalise this and crowning of leaders should not on gender biased.
The mighty rulers of the past were predominantly males. History of conflicts and chaos during their time deceive that they possessed an innate quest to conquer the world. The great king Alexander and Hitler exemplify this. But the matter of fact is a deeper interpretation of historical facts reveals that this was the need and situation of that time. The global scenario at that age persuaded the rulers to war and conquer. Another fact would be the conflicts were not less in feminine ruler era too; the great ruler of Jhansi from Indian scripts would serve an example.
However, the nineteenth century has witnessed more organised and determined leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. They exemplify the unfairness in relating male rulers to violence on a global perceptive.
In the present day, where public involvement is emphasised while choosing a leader, the criteria set forward by an educated mass will never be gender biased, instead, they look forward to more sensible leaders. In spite of being under the feminine leadership, India did not address to any changes in its war protocols in last few years. Similar is the situation in another Asian country of Bangladesh.
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.
[ Written by - Vineeth V. ]
Model Answer 7:
The world has experienced many terrors and wars where there are many victims who suffered by the use of a deadly weapon or a political decision taken by a leader. Some people believe that those conflicts were mainly caused by male leaders who used their power and greed to attack other nations. Female leadership, according to many, could be an alternative option to prevail peace in the world as female leadership in history suggests less war and conflicts among nations and countrymen. I do not agree with this notion based on several reasons.
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.
[ Written by - Alief Rifky ]
Model Answer 8:
(Disagreement: Denied the fact that violence and conflict were less under female leadership)
The world history is full of conflicts and wars and most of them were led by male leaders. Considering this, a school of thought suggests that women leadership could be a great solution to establish the peace in the world while another group of thought opposes that idea. I strongly believe that it is not the gender of a leader that determines the peace. In fact, this has nothing to do to bring order in the world but honest and prudent leaders with required attributes, irrespective of gender, will harness peace.
There are a number of examples in recent history that show that violence actually increased under female leaders. For example, the wave of unrest in Indian-administered Kashmir is contributing to a great loss of human life and its being ruled by a female chief minister Mrs Mufti. Similarly, the latest streak of killings and stabbings of writers and foreigners in Bangladesh is known to world and Bangladesh’s prime minister is a female- Sheikh Hasina. There are several shreds of evidence of mass killings of religious minorities in Burma and the leader of this state is also a female. So history might suggest that many wars and killings occurred under the male rulers but we cannot generalise and tag this with male gender only. More than 95% leaders in the world history were males so wars and conflicts were mostly attributed to them. We cannot guarantee that if we had more than 95% female leaders instead of male, there would have no conflict and unrest. Recent evidence under female leadership does not advocate for that at all.
On the other hand, to stop brutalities, injustice and unrest all around the world and to infuse peace in the world, we need leaders with strong leadership ability and greater qualities. Furthermore, leaders should take ownership of all the wrongdoings and shortfall in the system and take decisions to rectify them. Leaders should understand that peace will be achieved with giving strength to people by establishing fair socio-economic balance. Delivering the young generation quality education, healthcare service, economic security, social facilities are important for the government to build a peaceful and self-reliant generation.
To conclude, leaders should be charismatic and possess an exemplary personality to influence the youth and inspire them to go out and dedicate for the well-being of the society. Interestingly, both male and female leaders should do that and being a female leader would not provide any competitive advantage to establish the peace. Strong traits of leadership will ensure peace and justice to prevail. Gender specific leadership will not guaranty world order.