Arguable, but there are counter arguments.

Wars don't happen because blokes are going round raring for a fight, they happen because the people running things decide that a war is the best way of achieving their ends, and the people put in uniform obey orders and fight. On the occasion when the people in charge are women, they have seemed just as willing to resort to war, and when the people are uniform they have seemed to be just as ready to obey orders.

In general oppressed groups within society don't win equality by waging war. The minority who have seen this as appropriate have always included women.

I'd like to believe that a society in which there was no oppression of women would necessarily be a more peaceful and less oppressive society. I hope it is true - but I've got a sneaking feeling that it might not be.

In any case, it doesn't make any difference. Even if there was reason to believe that an end to oppression would increase the dangers of violence and so forth, it'd still be necessary to try to end the oppression.

Thought experiment - imagine a society in which women are in charge and men are subjugated. Would it be right to oppose a "male rights" movement on the grounds that males were claimed to be more prone to violence? Even if that were actually true? (Myself, I might see that as a good reason for not joining a "male rights" movement, but that is another matter.)