Historical narratives often associate major wars with male rulers, leading to the claim that female leadership is inherently more peaceful. While this observation has some surface appeal, I largely disagree that gender alone determines the prevalence of violence. Peace is shaped more by political structures, incentives, and accountability than by the leader's sex.

Firstly, violent conflict usually arises from economic rivalry, territorial disputes, or ideological competition, which constrain any leader regardless of gender. Female heads of government operate within the same military institutions and security pressures as men. For example, women in power have authorised armed interventions when national interests or alliances demanded it, demonstrating that context frequently overrides personal disposition.

Admittedly, supporters argue that women tend to favour negotiation, social welfare, and inclusive decision-making, which can reduce the likelihood of escalation. Such leadership styles may contribute to long-term stability in certain settings. However, these traits are not exclusive to women and can also be cultivated by male leaders through democratic norms and institutional checks.

Overall, associating peace primarily with female leadership oversimplifies the causes of conflict. Sustainable peace depends on governance quality, rule of law, and responsible foreign policy rather than biological differences. Therefore, promoting effective institutions and ethical leadership in all leaders is a more reliable path to reducing violence than prioritising gender alone.