The reason there is some societal risk in granting women the franchise is that men and women are hot-wired differently. In some ways, this is obvious. Men are more aggressive and therefore more alert to threats to their territory and to their families (more on that later). Women are more conciliatory and more concerned about "fairness" and "equity". This is why national security tends to deteriorate in nations that are concerned with "gender equity". The more sexually egalitarian a nation is, the less concerned it becomes with its own defense. It's increasingly pre-occupied with spending money on nanny state programs.
This isn't to say that every man is conservative and pro-defense, and that every woman is the opposite. Clearly that isn't the case. But as a generality, it's true, and it accounts for the so-called gender gap in voting patterns and the leftward drift of the Western nations since universal suffrage became the norm.
It's the nature of women to be concerned about themselves. That's not necessarily bad. There's probably a biological reason for it since an individual woman's life is more valuable than an individual man's life. For example, ten women and one man on a desert island can produce more offspring than ten men and one woman. So in the real world, women are concerned about women and children, and so are men. This is why there's no discussion of men's issues among political candidates. It would sound silly if there was such a concern. But it's necessary for candidates to focus on women's issues and women's concerns in any given election.
A dynamic is thus created in which women are deemed to have interests other than those benefitting the society as a whole, and which are contrary to those of men. This is one possible explanation for why the once vibrant Western nations increasingly don't care about defending themselves, whether it's from Islamic terrorism or illegal aliens crossing the border. It's why our main concerns are how much money the taxpayers are going to spend on the next six entitlement programs.
Even simpler-—
Men measure the value of their lives on conquests and empires... in global, large concepts. Relationships are usually more surface and simplicity is key, the shortest direction between two points being a straight line...therefore A+B=C and that’s that.
Women measure of their lives in relationships, their world within reach.... in intimate, personal, familial concepts. Because they can form closer emotional/mental bonds and because they see the complex web of inter-connectedness, they also can see how A+B etc can eventually lead to Z.
One isn’t better or more important to the other. Each has it’s place in humanity surviving. And neither should be belittled or dimissmed by the other.
Societies who’ve done so have failed also.