I've often thought about this. On the one hand, I can hardly deny that the results of elections would be better if women weren't allowed to vote. Clinton, for example, wouldn't have been elected without women's suffrage. Now that I think of it, we'd have ended up with Bush I or Dole, so maybe I've just disproved my own contention. Not sure if this applies to The One or not. I'm sure women's emotional makeup comes into play. Families work in a more communist style, where everyone contributes and everyone benefits not necessarily in proportion to their contribution, and that works at a family level where everyone knows everyone and can be trusted to be honest. Women are family oriented and may view the governance of a nation using the same principles. Whatever the reason, they tend more than men to vote for people who shouldn't hold office. But I still can't square that with the principle of fairness. So it's a quandary for me.
John Lott has an interesting chapter in his book "Freedomnomics". It shows a clear correlation, probable causation, between women being given the vote and the expansion of government. Some states gave women the vote earlier and government grew more rapidly in those states than in the states where women did not yet have the vote.