"World history suggests that violence and and conflict were more evident under male
leadership that under female leadership. So, for peace to prevail, female leadership
can be considered as a better option that male leadership."
Model Answer:
The history of humans has been violence and conflict stricken since the beginning of
time. As far as we can look back in time we see wars, power struggles and revolutions.
We also see 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,
Queens Marry, a.k.a. Bloody Marry, Victoria, and Elizabeth of Britain, all have ruled
over vast spectrums 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 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 expending peace whenever they deemed it to be expendable.
The two greatest wars of modern history, World Wars I & II, have taught us that wars
are impersonal. Race, religion, nationality, sex are only pretense 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 rod 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
20.You should spend about 40 minutes on this task. You should write at least 250 words.
Present a written argument to an educated reader with no specialist knowledge of the
following topic:
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |