> I'm sure he's heard all the traditional arguments like we have, which means he has additional information that I don't.
It means nothing of the kind. Occam's razor suggests, rather, that he reasons differently than you (or at least me).
> Don't you think it's more intellectually honest to question and hear what others have to say
In theory, if we had infinite "compute time" in our lives to hear and evaluate all the arguments of those advocating regressive politics, then yes, sure. But we don't. Instead, we rely on a cluster of markers to heuristically determine if it is likely that someone has anything to say that doesn't just reduce trivially to the same BS you've already heard.
In this case, we have an arrogant economic royalist lamenting the consequences of women having a political voice. It is quite obvious that he has a ton of raw intellectual horsepower in that brain, but equally clear that he has no novel, reasonable justification for disenfranchising women.