Camille Paglia would suggest the majority of them don't.
I would add to this by pointing out the majority of modern men don't know anything remotely about themselves or the world around them either. If you wanted to do the reasonable thing you'd take suffrage away from women and men who do not own property.
This would have three beneficial effects almost right away :
1. People would want to become owners, not renters or mortgaged. Even if it meant a smaller piece of turf they'd want to own it outright. This would build a country a lot more stable than the one you see now.
2. Every person who voted would be quite clear on what they were voting for as part of the ancient biological rules that govern life itself : territory, progeny, security from invaders. These values in turn promote that most efficient of all family organizations, the nuclear household of husbands and wives defending their children.
3. You would be effectively neutering all R-Types in the population, consisting of whiners, felchers and hysterical drama queens creating never-ending storms in teacups. If they had no votes, politicians would laugh openly at them instead of being forced to nod their heads the way you do with spoiled rotten children and concede to their every crazy, lunatic demand. We'd go back to the 19th century and such people would lose the capacity to reproduce themselves without any means or the wherewithal to even get simple manual laboring jobs.
When I was born in 1963, in around 3/4 of the United States outside of the big cities, just speaking to a woman with a funny tone in your voice or giving her the wrong kind of look means you would be surrounded by her brothers, her father, her husband and maybe the town sheriff in about ten minutes. So much as making a suggestive comment to a woman might see you getting tied up and then tarred and feathered at midnight and thrown onto the back of a boxcar with instructions from local law enforcement to never show your face there again. One experience like this was usually enough to guarantee that even hobos would hold their hats in their hands and look at the ground when they spoke to a strange woman the first time in a new place. You never knew how many champions she might have close at hand.
The lives of women have never been so cheap as in the modern world under feminism. The belief that the State can protect females from males when women have lost all of their value to them as kin and family members is a Marxist fantasy. Feminism has fixed females so they are no longer considered qualified to be wives, sisters, mothers and daughters but flesh puppets in a three minute porno and nothing more. Feminism has seen to it that females are now regarded with less respect than at any time in recorded human history. If your male protector is the State, ladies, you picked a real wimp to guard your household. The State is an abusive husband who is never around when you need him and has nothing but apologies when he shows up after intruders have ravaged you and your loved ones. If the State loved you the way a man should love you, would they attempt to strip the female of the greatest equalizer of them all - arms against predators? Of course not. No heterosexual man anywhere has ever supported keeping arms out of the hands of women. Betting on the State to protect the dignity of women is betting on a losing horse. That's just another thing they claim to be able to do when experience shows they can't. That doesn't stop centuries of Marxists from promising that rainbow stew express will pull into town any day now bringing the earthly paradise with it. The really incredible thing is that so many idiots still believe it.