Ancient world history depicts that violence and conflict were more evident under male leadership as compare to female leadership. From some peoples perspective female leadership can be considered better option than male leadership for peace and prevail. This eassy will delve into both perspective and will provide a reasoned stance.
On the one hand, female leadership can be considered for alternate option for peace, as females are good at balancing two different situtation at a time and this skill can be useful in managing citizens with quiet different thought process and would eventually decrease the chance of violence and conflict. For example, in Italy their current president is a female candidate under whom country has experienced least number of outbreak of people for protest as a result their economy is stable and comes under top ten largest economy in the world.
On the other hand, in some condition male leadership has proven this worng. The main reason can be the emotional side of female which takes over the critical condition, whereas male would follow the more technical way to tackle the challenge. For example, in recent years U.K had conducted election twice, the reason was, that the country was under female leadership previously who’s main focus was on completely elimenating the class system(rich, middle class and poor). As to do so the taxes on the items where reduced to the lowest. Which created money shortage in the counrty, and at the end lead to protests which made the prime minister to leave her post.
In conclusion, I side with the later, as the break out of conflicts does not depend on wheather the leader is male or female. It mainly depends on the current condition of the situation as well as available ways to tackle the issue.