I'd like to highlight two interesting pitfalls that society has opened itself up to by allowing women to own land and other high-value property.

The first is fairly obvious- women don't really do anything productive with the property they own. The point is moot for the woman's residence, but real estate includes also agricultural and industrial properties, as well as ownership of entire companies. Rarely self-purchased and self-founded, of course- rather, mostly passed down due to the untimely demise of their "beloved" husband. So, what might an enterprising female do with all this goodness? The options, generally, are two: either sell it, or milk it for all the cash it is worth, depending on which of the two is the more profitable one. If the call is to sell, another man, who seeks to expand his holdings, will have to shell out a sizable sum just to make that property once again productive for society. But let's follow the money further: what might a woman do with a large sum of money descending upon her? Being generally disinclined to provision for the future, the money will likely be spent on luxury property and goods in an attempt to boost their rank the social ladder. Who does that kind of spending benefit? Large, established companies that produce generally pointless things. Companies owned by already obscenely wealthy individuals, and not by the wage slaves they employ.

Wage slaves like young men, hoping to contribute to society and build their fortunes in a fair manner. Good luck with that.

The second point of interest is inheritance. Women will, on average, live longer than men, and this is relevant when we investigate children inheriting the property of their parents. Aside from the devastating inheritance tax that will often make children unable to keep the land they grew up on, women have a clear upper hand here. By the time both parents pass away, their male children are often already dead, causing the property to go to the remaining female siblings. Assuming the husband is the last living parent, he might draw up a will and pass the property to an enterprising grand child or other relative, but that's a fairly rare occurrence, and the the odds are squarely against him outliving his wife. Once again, women end up with property to be milked and butchered.

The solution, effective as it is radical, would be to make women unable to legally own real estate and pass any inheritance to the closest living male relative, instead. Those who might cry misogyny should know, that this is not about just men- this is in the interest of society as a whole. Men who find themselves entrusted with capital or companies will, most of the time, rise to the challenge and make productive use of the newfound assets. They will take risks, create new value, and flow cash towards other rising entrepreneurs. They will do this in the hopes of establishing their position as a productive member of society- after all, few things are worse for a man than destitution and hopelessness. They could fail or spend the money on pointless pursuits, but if I had to choose between a random man or a random woman to entrust capital to, I will absolutely bet on the man.

Also, women will hardly become homeless after failing to inherit the home they live in. No self respecting man will kick out a well-behaved female relative, and will generally make other living arrangements for her. Failing that, there is the innate female drive to manipulate anything that moves to take care of them- as a society we really don't need to prop them up any further than that.