Please help me to review and evaluate my essay IELTS task 2

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?

Nowadays, wars and terrors are two of the biggest concern among human kind. Whether a female leadership should be preferred over a male headship as an alternative option to prevail peace or not has sparked a heated debate. I do not agree with this statement and my reason will be explained in the following paragraphs.

Firstly, wars are not about gender, but about political decisions. In many countries in over the world, wars are 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, some people believe that male makes decisions with their logic and female with their heart, but there is no solid evidence 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 show how people have over generalised that a female could bring a better world and peace. Thus, the idea about female leadership better than male leadership is not justified enough to change status quo.

To conclude, many people believe that more violence was suffered when men take the leader position whereas women ruling could bring world peace. I believed this current situation is not because of the gender issue, but for political rational choices. Peace can prevail in many ways and consider female leadership is only one of those options.