I think you'd best stick with your own field since you don't seem to know much about history or sociology.

"Unmarried queens, however, were more frequently attacked than other types of rulers. This may have had something to do with perceived weakness of female sovereigns. King Frederick II of Prussia, for instance, declared “no woman should be allowed to govern anything” and, after Maria Theresa took the Austrian throne in 1745, promptly seized a chunk of her country. (She fought fiercely but never won it back.)"

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

Female rulers, particularly when they ruled on their own, had to constantly prove their worth as sovereigns in a way that men did not. This is not exactly a controversial assertion. It's history 101.

The main point of my OP is that a dominance hierarchy is a dynamic where the elites use the little people to attain their aims. Since throughout history and even today, men hold the vast preponderance of military and governmental power, it is completely factual to note that most wars have been started by elite men for their own economic benefit. The fact that some wars were sometimes started by queens (acting as the head of their own dominance-based hierarchies) does not in any way negate or undermine this assertion.