This is true but, despite some attempts, men couldn't vote until 1918 in the UK and the male right to vote has always [unlike the female right to vote] been conditional on responsibility such as conscription etc.

It is not really possible in the past to differentiate between the physical point of view and the career point of view. The two are completely interconnected as societies marshal their resources to the best of their ability. It would be silly for example to have a woman farmer working in the fields away from the house and a man farmer working close to the house because while children [assuming that these farmers have children] are small they need their mother for food etc. Also [planting and harvest aside where everybody is needed] the work in the outer fields is more physically intensive than the work in the house. Therefore it is reasonable for the stronger member of the partnership to do that work and the weaker to do the less labour intensive work. In this instance stronger and weaker does not relate to value, only physical strength. While females can own land [and often did] a female can't be a knight [or at least not as good a knight] because of the physical requirements of the job. It would be a massive waste of any societies resources to place subpar female knights on the battlefield when you could have them doing tasks they are much better at.
The same is true of a queen. In order for a Queen to rule alone you need to have a reasonably developed monarchy [or at least one where the king doesn't need to resolve differences by battering his foes on the head personally]. It is also a really bad idea for a Queen [or a King] to rule alone as the first job of such a person is to have an heir.

Oddly enough I think a lot of the reason we think [21st century society] that women were considered lesser than men in the past is because of a combination of our values, which are different to theirs, Vicotrian historiography and feminism.