雅思大作文：媒体中的暴力To what extent do you agree or disagree

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?

范文

The human history has been violence and conflict-stricken since the beginning of the human existence. If we look back in history or to the world around us, we see wars, conflict, power struggles and revolutions, peace making kings, prudent emperors and ruthless rulers. History also reveals 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.

从人类存在之初，人类历史就充满了暴力和冲突。如果我们回顾历史或回顾我们周围的世界，我们会看到战争、冲突、权力斗争和革命、缔造和平的国王、谨慎的皇帝和无情的统治者。历史也表明，社会一直以男性为主，领导人和统治者主要是男性。因此，指责统治者并将暴行的责任推到人们的肩上是很容易的。但一个更深层的视角总是会向历史学家揭示，冲突是人类的一种普遍倾向。因此，扰乱和平不仅是人类的责任，而且是人类的责任。从男人到女人的权力转移，注定在普遍的和平中是徒劳的。

Most of the women who are known to be great till date, e.g. Queen Isabella of Spain, Queen Mary, a.k.a. Bloody Mary, Victoria, and Elizabeth of Britain, all have ruled over a vast spectrum 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 a 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 expanding peace whenever they deemed it to be expandable.

迄今为止，大多数以伟大著称的女性，如西班牙的伊莎贝拉女王，玛丽女王，又名血腥玛丽，维多利亚女王和英国的伊丽莎白，都统治着广泛的权力领域。而且他们常常是冷酷无情，用铁腕手段实现目标。他们发动的战争几乎无法与人类发明的战争相比。这些妇女并不是历史上的反常现象，而是许多其他妇女的例子，她们超越了性别的界限，在掌权的道路上占主导地位，并在他们认为可以扩大和平的时候扩大和平。

The two greatest wars of modern history, World Wars I & II, have taught us that wars are impersonal. Race, religion, nationality, sex are only pretences 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 road 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.

现代历史上最伟大的两场战争，第一次和第二次世界大战，告诉我们战争是没有人情味的。种族、宗教、国籍、性别只是人类普遍渴望权力的借口。的确，在这两次全球冲突中，统治者都是当权者。但是，如果说在福克兰战争中，撒切尔夫人(Margaret Thatcher)不遗余力地与一个小敌人作战，她会比伟大的温斯顿•丘吉尔(Winston Churchill)和富兰克林•d•罗斯福(Franklyn D. Roosevelt)对付希特勒轴心国的方式更为和平外交的话，那就太愚蠢了。

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.

性别问题只是性别之战的决定因素，而不是国家和民族之间的战争。因此，如果有选择地由人类国家掌管，那么世界冲突是由一种特定性别的统治所造成的，而更精细的性别在普遍的和平中会做得更好，这种结论即使不是不合理的，也是不恰当的。