Prompt: Throughout history, male leaders always lead us to violence and conflict. If a society is governed by female leaders, it will be more peaceful. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion? Give reasons for your answer and give any relevant example or experience you have to support your answer. too few women in charge on public positions

It will lead to less struggled if countries could be run by womanly presidents as opposed to being led by male ones. I quite agree with this opinion as the world would be in balance in a lot of aspects. Ċ Firstly, women do not prefer to live in war because of their harmonic instincts. The internal maternal instinct of female hardly constitutes by competed preference or dictatorial psychology. Moreover, their leading styles will be influenced by what they think, so one female leader's policy can be less strict than that of a man, which minimizes the risk of war, conflicted religions, and so on. As a result, they will reduce serious consequences for countries like deficient budget, mortality and tumbled economy. Elizabeth I is one typical example of the wise orientation as her prevention decree to Christianity and rejection to be at war with Scotland to reduce wasteful loss for England. Ċ Secondly, women who do not vie for personal benefits will spend time and budget improving citizens' living standard and tackling eternal problems. Furthermore, they willing to shoulder responsibility with conscious attitude and well-prepared strategies to man's little-concerned problems with women and children such as sexual discrimination, familial violence, etc. This method will make women's policies receive much public approval and connect citizens' expectation to their leaders. Ċ In conclusion, the women's rule will be more beneficial and democratic than that of men, which followed concord tendency and needed taking into account for many countries.