So what is the social contract in this instance? That men are entitled to women? That strikes me as... trying to run a society through coercion, just with the target being a group that people here seem fine with coercing.
Sometimes unpleasant times are necessary in the fight for human rights. Otherwise we would still have things like slavery. Additionally, women wouldn't have the right to vote, and they also wouldn't be able to make independent financial decisions like have their own bank accounts or mortgages. These things aren't that historic, and taking the side of trying to restrict women's relationship choices strikes me as being on the wrong side of history again.
It looks like the concern is less their voting, but more their propensity toward domestic terrorism.
Moreover, voting to subjugate a group of people and restrict their human rights is horrific. Men are not owed girlfriends or wives, and certainly not via the ballot box. Geez.
I mean if you're at the point where you can't enforce laws in your society, you have even bigger problems; especially if you've allowed a small minority of men to hold your system hostage. So clearly, if that is the concern, better to nip it even sooner rather than let it fester.
There is a recurring theme on this topic, and the article alluded to it via these men potentially stirring "political trouble", that the freedom of women needs to be clamped down on because these men won't otherwise find partners, and thus will cause social instability.
To me it strikes me as the entirely wrong approach. Women should in fact continue to push for their autonomy and freedom, and a functioning society should be keeping these men in check rather than yielding to them in any capacity.