If I am reading you correctly, you seem to have your cause and effect exactly backwards.
As society becomes less violent women can feel it is safe to seek power. In a violent society women are unlikely to choose to seek power because it is simply too risky.
Women see themselves, quite rightly, as too valuable. If women were to go charging into battle (forgetting for the moment the obvious strength differential) and risk dying, then that would put the procreative future of any society at grave risk. It is literally suicidal.
Yes, there are exceptions e.g. Cleopatra, Eleanor of Aquitaine, Joan of Arc, etc etc. But they merely prove the rule. It is only once men have made society far safer do women typically "demand" power.
If civilization were to collapse back into being immediately dangerous I would guess that all your "excellent military leaders" would fade into the background by necessity as well as by choice.
There is no doubt women can be excellent military leaders. Yet, society becomes less violent as women gain more power.
Lake Worth, perhaps he is suggesting that he is a breakaway Straussian, no pun intended. He will choose America and its freedom over Plan A.
And that he is willing to follow a woman doing it. I'm sure it goes without saying which female exactly won the Trojan War he took care to mention. That female is known for certain victory, and to reward followers.
Are you suggesting that Putin is more woman than man?