am I a joke to you

Ok so lets try this again with the actual argument shall we:

Right winger: 'The world would not be a better place and put an end to war if women were running everything, contrary to the idea presented by liberals. Statistically female led regimes in fact have more wars and are more volatile economically.
In fact where as male leaders cover the spectrum of terrible-to-great leadership, women only have a spectrum so far of terrible-to-mostly competent.'

This meme: 1 ancient example possibly

Not really... there is no evidence matriarchies are less stable. Queen Elizabeth II and Queen Victoria are proof of this. Unless you wanna be delusional and say 9th century england is better than the victorian era

well lets start here then: are wars more or less beneficial for a nations economic stability?

War is a good thing. Haven't you ever heard the phrase "War is peace?" Nothing unifies a nation like war.

The last of European royalty that had an immediate effect on the economics was Queen victoria who was dubbed 'The Famine Queen" due to the irish potato famine under her watch, after that she self-isolated for unrelated reasons and Royalty have been almost unanimously figureheads ever since.

The history I've found coincided with economic issues correlating to wars, and Queens were responsible for more wars than Kings, ergo there's more (for lack of a better word) intentional economic issues under a female watch

and to be clear, women (in this regard) aren't intrinsically worse than male leaders one-vs-one (though the stats sort of sway in that direction overall..) but they certainly aren't better than male leads