Prompt: Throughout history, male leaders have led us into 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?

Based on the historical background, several violent and conflicting situations are a consequence of having men leaders. Some people think, if the government is led by women, the country will be more peaceful than in the past. In my point of view, I disagree with this statement because it depends on the individual's attitude, and the causes of violence and conflict are the results of other factors. Ċ Firstly, the reason why I disagree is the leading into the hardness and disagreement based on the individual attitude. Neither male nor female, if they have a wrong vision, it will be harmful to society. For example, one of the women Prime Ministers in my country who is corrupt led Seoul which is the capital city into public protest. It can prove female leaders do not direct society to be peaceful. Ċ Secondly, another reason is some disagreements or harshness are the results of other factors such as economic or finance. Thailand, for instance, had a female leader in 1999, but at that time, had a protest in the centre of the city. The protesters were affected by the TomYumKung crisis which made a large number of people go bankrupt. Hence this violence and conflict are not due to the leader, but it is a consequence of the economic crisis. Ċ In conclusion, male leaders usually lead the public into harshness and disagreement, but, if the government is led by females, the society will be calmer. In my opinion, I disagree with it because the situation of violence and conflict depends on personal vision, and having a bad situation is a result of other essences.