History lessons have labeled males as tyrannical creatures and females as a peace-bringing character. In the majority of cases, this statement is often correct. However, to become a leader of a society, cruelty matters more than compassion. Cruelty may bring violent acts like war and sanguinary, however, it is due to this that a country may survive. Without war and selfishness, united territories will remain divided as it used to be prior to war. Kingdoms of old ages will never be built, even tribes and villages wouldn’t be formed. Humans will perpetually live divided amongst each other without someone to lead them. There is a reason why it has always been male that lead the majority of groups; because they are more confident, bolder, and riskier than females.
Most who agree with this statement think that female leaders are more emotional than male leaders and is the primary reason why female leaders are much more suitable to become the leader of a group. This is true. Male leaders all across history have been depicted as rational; always choosing the options which benefits best to them and their group, without caring of the imminent destruction they bring to those around them. This means male leaders sacrifice the peace of others to bring peace towards himself and his group. Many often disagree with this idea. They think that if oppositions had never happened then both sides would get to live in peace. Such ideologies are what makes female leaders look superior to male leaders.
While the reasons above depict female leaders as more suitable leaders than male, I hold a differing perspective on this matter. I see man cruelty as an integral element towards the peace of mankind. As was stated above: without war and selfishness, united territories will remain divided as it used to be prior to war. Divided territories bring many disadvantages such as; lack of resources, manpower, and intelligence. War is similar to the effects of a volcano. When a volcano erupts, it brings destruction to the environment near it, however, after a period of time, the aftereffect brings prosperity and health towards them. War may have many short-term disadvantages, conversely, in the large scheme of things, it brings peace. Without war, divided territories in the long-term would have troubles dealing with economic crises, depleting resources, and lack of innovations. In the end, to counter these troubles, engaging in war is crucial for long-term peace.
In conclusion, history has made a stereotype where male leaders bring nothing but destruction towards their surrounding and females as a peacemaker. Many who agree that female leaders are more suitable than male leaders are mostly fascists who is shortsighted and don’t see– not the consequences of their actions, but the consequences of their un-actions. Hence, male leaders suited best to lead a society as they are bold to engage in war and war may bring destruction in the short run. However, it will bring peace in the long run.