There are several ways to view the argument. Constitutional rights, practical politics, and human nature are the strongest.
The most easily justified is that women should not vote until they are subject to the Selective Service (draft). As part of this, the voting age is 18 because men were drafted but women can vote at the same age regardless. I'll note that the SS/draft was ruled unconstitutional this year (!) so this point will hopefully be moot in the coming years.
Second is practical politics. To take a mercenary position on the matter, reducing the amount of women who vote would decrease the votes of democrats or similar parties that promote their policies. It would also decrease support for re-distributive policies and policies emphasizing safety at the expense of freedom. It's a purely utilitarian point backed up by voting trends and social events over the past few decades.
Lastly is human nature, specifically gynocentrism, which the centering of women as the most important part of society. Which isn't as clear cut. On one hand, the absolute numbers of women voting would decrease, making it harder for politicians to pander directly to women. On the other, women have been politically and socially effective WITHOUT the vote (Women's Temperance Movement, "proto" feminists, etc). This is because men pander to women and women pander to each other.
Which brings me to the conclusion that removing women from the franchise is not viable. It is not politically viable as there are more women voters and more pandering male voters than not. It's not socially viable for the same reason. It is not constitutionally viable given that Selective Service registration will be universalized.
The only thing that could change the above is winning a social battle against the twin gynocentrisms of feminism and traditionalism (aka "women should hit men" and "never hit a woman"). And if that's the battle, it would be easier to reduce the disparity in political policy between the sexes than to defeat human nature as a relatively even split between R/D among the sexes was historically true for many years.
There are several ways to view the argument. Constitutional rights, practical politics, and human nature are the strongest.
The most easily justified is that women should not vote until they are subject to the Selective Service (draft). As part of this, the voting age is 18 because men were drafted but women can vote at the same age regardless. I'll note that the SS/draft was ruled unconstitutional this year (!) so this point will hopefully be moot in the coming years.
Second is practical politics. To take a mercenary position on the matter, reducing the amount of women who vote would decrease the votes of democrats or similar parties that promote their policies. It would also decrease support for re-distributive policies and policies emphasizing safety at the expense of freedom. It's a purely utilitarian point backed up by voting trends and social events over the past few decades.
Lastly is human nature, specifically gynocentrism, which the centering of women as the most important part of society. Which isn't as clear cut. On one hand, the absolute numbers of women voting would decrease, making it harder for politicians to pander directly to women. On the other, women have been politically and socially effective WITHOUT the vote (Women's Temperance Movement, "proto" feminists, etc). This is because men pander to women and women pander to each other.
Which brings me to the conclusion that removing women from the franchise is not viable. It is not politically viable as there are more women voters and more pandering male voters than not. It's not socially viable for the same reason. It is not constitutionally viable given that Selective Service registration will be universalized.
The only thing that could change the above is winning a social battle against the twin gynocentrisms of feminism and traditionalism (aka "women should hit men" and "never hit a woman"). And if that's the battle, it would be easier to reduce the disparity in political policy between the sexes than to defeat human nature as a relatively even split between R/D among the sexes was historically true for many years.