over at Quartz Gwynn Guilford has a piece about how throughout the history of Europe women rulers were more likely to be war-wagers than men

One of the responses to a proposed remake of Lord of the Flies with an all female cast was to proclaim that the plot of Lord of the Flies was only conceivable with an all male cast because with women it couldn't happen.  Clearly the gender essentialism of such a reply would be unexamined but the unexamined nature of such essentialist assumptions is probably going to continue regardless of any counterevidence.  We could think of any number of examples from the last half century to suggest that having women in major political roles may or may not reduce conflict.  Was Margaret Thatcher a peacenik?  For that matter could Hillary Clinton be said to have an anti-war streak? 

For that matter, in a piece by Gwynn Guilford, there's some discussion of what some authors observe as a trend in which Europe's queens were more likely than kings to take up military campaigns.

https://qz.com/967895/throughout-history-women-rulers-were-more-likely-to-wage-war-than-men/

...
Nowadays Isabella is less known for her conquests than for having paid Christopher Columbus to sail the oceans—maybe because we don’t often think of queens as warmongers.
But apparently, they were. In fact, between 1480 and 1913, Europe’s queens were 27% more likely than its kings to wage war, according to a National Bureau of Economics working paper (paywall). And like Isabella, queens were also more likely to amass new territory during their reigns, found the paper’s authors, economists Oeindrila Dube and S.P. Harish.

But why? A lot of it comes down to the queenly management style—and how radically it differed from that of kings.

The first clue comes from the fact that, of all European sovereigns, married queens were the most bellicose, launching more wars than unmarried queens, and kings of all types. This might be because, thanks to gender norms, women rulers tended to benefit more from marriage alliances than kings. Married queens were likelier than kings to wage war alongside allies, often their spouses’ nations. And queens frequently roped their husbands into helping rule—something that kings hardly ever did with their wives.

Even Marston, who made the character Wonder Woman, could have taken some time to observe that his essentialist view that women were better than men in leadership was not necessarily a given.  It isn't really clear to me that either men or women are necessarily better at leadership.  Chalking things up to a patriarchy cooks the premise into the conclusion.  I've been skeptical about the idea that a patriarchal society is the main or only thing that leads to extended militarism.  It may play a role and it may have even played a role across much of global human history, for that matter.  But the idea that if women ran the world there would be less war is so idealistic I think it's dangerous to take such an idea seriously even if we assume for the moment that a matricentic society is going to happen, which seems ... unlikely.  There's no particularly good reason for me to believe that if Clinton had won we'd be further away from armed conflict now than we are under a Trump administration.  That doesn't seem to be how military-industrial societies work.    Had Clinton won we might have already had a military action within the first 100 days.