Women's suffrage has worked out badly. Women believe in the personal, but politics has to do with how groups operate when they're big and diverse and personal connections are less important. In those settings women's interest in the personal and their consequent lack of political comprehension play them false, and they end up supporting bad things like the nanny state. That's especially true when they don't have husbands and feel the need of someone else to look after them.
Why then do people feel so outraged when someone suggests limiting suffrage? Why shouldn't the choice of public officials be limited just like other public offices? The outrage shows that the right to vote is considered something that's necessary to full humanity. If you say it's better for just Xs to vote then you're saying non-Xs aren't really human, and you're looking for an unlimited right to exploit them.
At bottom, the view that there's something downright evil about questioning universal suffrage is really the view that government is based on human will, so if someone's will isn't counted that must mean he's not a human being. There's no common good that should guide politics. In that case the question would be how to discern that good and put it into effect, and it might work better to limit suffrage in some way. Instead, there's just a mass of conflicting wills, each looking out for itself and trying to get the better of every other will, so we can't trust or rely on each other even within families unless each of us has a gun at the other's head in the form of a share of government power.
That, of course, is the view pioneered by Hobbes and basic to modern government: "I put for a general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death." The problem is that you can't base a social order on such a view. If war is the fundamental reality there's no escape from it (Hobbes's theory of the beneficience of government terror to the contrary notwithstanding). You can try to establish mechanisms, representative government for example, to turn war into justice, but the mechanisms will be captured by one of the parties and become just another weapon. Your theoretical participation in government -- one vote out of scores of millions, in a setting in which elections and the electorate can be manipulated or overridden in any event -- won't do you any good.
So the understanding of politics on which the insistence on universal suffrage is based makes political hope -- and so political action -- absurd. If that's so, what good is it? Can't we talk about things on some other basis?