Throughout history, war and civil conflicts in many countries were in the hands of male leaders. which makes men appear to be worse rulers than women. This historical evidence suggests that to ensure peace in the world, female leadership is a more appropriate option to lead nations everywhere. I disagree with this perspective because the percentage of female and male leadership is completely unequal during history, with over 50 percent of countries never having a female leader. I also contend that male and female leaderships are not better from each other and have both equally promoted conflict and violence.
Most of the countries worldwide have had male leaders, with only 10 percent of female leaders in history. Numerous violent male leaders existed in many nations, and they have many opportunities to implement their terrible political decisions. On the other hand, there were fewer ocassions for female leaders to show their violent political idiologies. Europe, Russia, and China all had terrible male leaders, such as German polititian Hitler and Russian ruler Stalin. To illustrate, Hitler initiated World War II and provoked the Holocaust.
Furthermore, as female leaders have been uncommon in history, they have had fewer occassions to show their unjust political decisions. Therefore, this evidence demonstrates that it cannot be assumed that female leaderships is better than male’s. For instance, queen of England Elizabeth I promoted social inequality, transatlantic slave trade, and violent persecution of Catholics.
In conclusion, as male leadership has been more common in history, there are more examples of their violent political decisions. However, among the few female leaders who have existed, there are also examples of terrible female leadership, which demonstrate that they can be as violent as male leaders. To ensure peace prevail in every nation, citizens should elect their leaders considering their candidates’ integrity without taking into account their gender.