Violence and Conflict Were More Evident Under Male Leadership than Under Female Leadership - IELTS Task 2 Band 9 Sample Essay

Sample Essay 1

Across the arc of history, while male rulers have often been linked to warfare, the assertion that female leadership would inherently lead to greater peace oversimplifies a complex reality. I strongly disagree with the view that female governance is intrinsically more peaceful or preferable. Instead, I believe that political context and leadership style, rather than gender, determine a nation’s inclination toward conflict. This essay will argue that both men and women have initiated wars when strategic interests demanded it, and that idealising female leadership risks overlooking deeper systemic causes of violence.

To begin with, the notion that men are more prone to conflict ignores numerous examples of female rulers who exercised power with comparable aggression when geopolitically necessary. Margaret Thatcher’s decision to go to war over the Falkland Islands, for instance, was not borne out of reckless machismo but from strategic calculation and national interest. Similarly, Indira Gandhi’s military intervention in East Pakistan in 1971 reshaped South Asia through a war that led to the creation of Bangladesh. These actions demonstrate that, regardless of gender, heads of state often respond to political imperatives rather than personal temperament. Moreover, attributing violence to masculinity undermines the structural drivers of conflict such as territorial disputes, ideological clashes, or economic desperation—issues that neither gender is immune to confronting forcefully. Thus, history reveals that leadership decisions in times of crisis are shaped more by context than chromosomes.

Furthermore, advocating for female leadership as a panacea for peace may obscure the institutional and cultural roots of violence. Societies plagued by civil unrest or ethnic tension require systemic reforms, not merely a change in the leader’s gender. Consider Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi—once celebrated as a beacon of democratic hope, her silence during the Rohingya crisis exposed how political survival can override ethical considerations, regardless of one’s gender. Likewise, in modern democracies, decision-making is rarely unilateral; leaders operate within constraints imposed by political parties, military apparatuses, and public opinion. Pinning hopes for peace solely on a woman’s ascension to power not only flattens the rich complexity of governance but also risks placing symbolic representation over substantive reform. Peace-building requires robust institutions and accountable governance, not assumptions based on gender norms.

In conclusion, while the gender of a leader may influence their personal style, historical and political evidence suggests that peace depends more on structural, strategic, and institutional factors than on whether a man or woman holds office. Leadership quality—not gender—must remain our central criterion.

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!

Get our comprehensive IELTS Essay Correction Service from a real examiner!

Sample Essay 2

History demonstrates that epochs under male stewardship have frequently been punctuated by war, whereas periods led by women often exhibit relative calm. I firmly agree that expanding female leadership is a credible route to a more peaceful world. This conviction rests on two pillars: empirical political‑science evidence that women leaders adopt consensus‑building foreign policies, and sociological findings that gender‑balanced cabinets de‑escalate domestic conflict.

Firstly, quantitative studies comparing state behaviour under different heads of government reveal a measurable pacifying effect when women hold the highest office. A 2023 analysis of 188 countries by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute found that states governed by women initiated armed action 20 percent less frequently than comparable male‑led administrations, even after controlling for GDP and regime type. This tendency is mirrored in concrete cases: during Jacinda Ardern’s premiership, New Zealand resisted pressure to join escalatory freedom‑of‑navigation exercises in the South China Sea, opting instead for multilateral arbitration; meanwhile, President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf brokered a cease‑fire that ended Liberia’s fourteen‑year civil war without resorting to punitive offensives. Such patterns suggest that female leaders are structurally more inclined to prioritise diplomacy over coercion.

Secondly, the leadership style typically cultivated by women fosters social cohesion at home, reducing the grievances that often ignite violence. Political psychologists note that female executives are more likely to champion welfare, education, and minority inclusion—policies empirically linked with lower radicalisation rates. Rwanda supplies a compelling illustration: after mandating a 50 percent female quota in parliament, the government passed community‑based reconciliation programmes that cut inter‑ethnic attacks by half within a decade. By contrast, contemporaneous Afghanistan, dominated by warlords with hyper‑masculine command structures, saw insurgent incidents soar year on year. Even in corporate arenas, Fortune‑500 firms headed by women experience fewer labour strikes, underscoring that a relational, listening‑oriented ethos diffuses conflict across organisational scales. Peace, it appears, flourishes where leadership prefers collaboration over dominance.

In sum, both cross‑national data and emblematic case studies show that female decision‑makers systematically de‑emphasise militarism and prioritise inclusive nation‑building, thereby dampening the structural causes of violence. Accordingly, expanding women’s access to the helm is not a token gesture but a pragmatic strategy for securing lasting global tranquillity.

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!