John C. Wright reconsiders the benefits of the 19th Amendment. The top comment made by HMSLion summarizes the "fruits" of women's suffrage over the last 140 years in a nice summary for which I am too ignorant to confirm its accuracy (but seems about right):
The strongest argument for the prohibition of women's suffrage is the history of the last 140 years.
Let's review...when the United States was organized as an independent country, the vote was limited to free men, 21 or older, who possessed either land or other income. 40 acres was the normal threshold. That requirement disqualified about 30% of free adult men. There was a reason...owning property or having an income meant that you had a stake in the nation. Something to lose. Unfair? Maybe. But it produced leaders like Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison - outstanding men of great wisdom.
In the 1820s, the property requirement was abolished, the vote given to all free men 21 years of age. This produced leaders like Andrew Jackson, Lincoln, and Davis. Good men...but not nearly as wise as their forebears. Less inclined to compromise, more inclined to corruption.
Starting in the late 1800s, the vote was extended to women (the 19th Amendment merely standardized what most states had already done). The early experiments in the Western states worked...but what we ultimately got was Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. Would-be fascists pushing personality cults as they misgoverned the nation. Inflated the size and reach of the Federal Government, got the country into major wars on very unfavorable terms.
In the late 1950s, the vote was extended to 18-year olds. This worsened matters...the only competent Presidents since then being Reagan and Trump. The GOP produced a string of incompetents, the Democrats a succession of sociopathic criminals.
As an engineer, I am a practical man. I know that the old requirement of free, male, 21, and property owner worked. We can tweak the property requirement into a minimum tax requirement...pay a Share of tax (the Federal Government takes in roughly $6,000 per adult annually, I think that a good starting point), and cast your vote. I'd allow active military service to substitute. But you have to have skin in the game.
Now, if you wish to argue that women who pay their Share should be allowed to vote...I'll listen. It's a defensible argument.
Remember, the purpose of a system of government is not "to be fair". It is to provide wise governance to the state. And the Declaration of Independence makes the purpose of government also clear. "That to ensure these rights, Governments are instituted among men."
I will add another remark. There is a difference between allowing someone to vote, and allowing someone to hold elective office. I could easily envision a system under which the franchise is limited to men...but women are perfectly able to hold office.
I much more prefer an elite run "Golden Book" kind of society as you saw with the Venetians or Spartans, so I am even more strict than what the United States founding fathers envisioned.
"Skin in the game" is a great concept. In today's society, where travelling between borders is so easy, I believe the "Golden Book" exclusions becomes even more important in order to maintain Christian values. If not, you will find it quickly converged and rotted out by those who would like to "progress" or "liberalize" (see Satanize). You also need to protect from so called "Christians" which is why the "Golden Book" approach is even more valuable.
Perhaps even the Old Testament approach of not taking in foreign brides would need to be enforced due to their influence over the husband. Once you take a foreign wife, you are automatically removed from the "Golden Book." It could cause some other problems like marrying first cousins so I will need to analyze this concept some more.