The greatest women writers, George Eliot, Wharton, Austen, Woolf, O'Connor, Dickinson, would have been forgotten if not for male critics championing their work.
Women have typically dominated in novels. Maria Edgeworth was the most popular author of her time, but nobody save academics remembers her mediocre work. If a man believes in his art, then he is usually willing to sacrifice his career and short-term success for the sake of perfection. No woman would do what Flaubert did and 'die before death'. A woman sees big sales as proof of her quality; many men would see success as a cause for self-doubt.
Many female writers, primarily novelists, obsess either about crass moralism (always lacking in gravity) or self-indulgent neuroticism. Contemporary poetry is basically venting about trauma, true or otherwise; there is no genius or mystery to be found in it. Could a woman write about guilt and sin in the way Baudelaire did? Could she write the grotesque characters of Browning? What about the playfulness and irony of Shakespeare's sonnets? Great poetry, as with great prose, requires cold precision in self-judgement, but also an awareness of all human emotions (good and bad), to convey experience convincingly. The reason why free verse is so predominant now, other than its general ease, is because writing in metre is too strict, too cold. It excludes those who do not write in it ("poetry is aristocrat" said Hazlitt). This does not gel with society's obsession with levelling everything down to mediocrity. That the best writers of Free Verse, TS Eliot, Wallace Stevens, Pound, were aware of metre -Eliot basically wrote in traditional Blank Verse without line breaks- is proof enough that the other 99% that is published is simply bad prose masking itself as something higher.
Dickinson is the exception to this for she is masculine minded (this could be applied to several other female writers). Rarely does metaphysics broach the feminine narrative. And literature is such an artificial artform that metaphysics is essential.
Typically, films will try to show a character as being smart by making him well-read. This is nonsense and usually written by a screenwriter who is not too smart himself but is believed by an audience who do not read. I studied two degrees in English Literature at a middling and a well-regarded university and much of the sentiments expressed in both can be found in your average office space. I would say now I am more comfortable with someone who has learned perspective on their own terms then one who has read a profound thought in a book (a hard lesson to learn if you’ve read too much too early). Schopenhauer was right that too much book learning is like wearing a wig: you might be able to refer to facts and quotes, but it is not a part of your character. It is like reading a thousand romance novels but never falling in love.
Literature courses are dominated by women, and they tend to do quite well because they are great at regurgitating theories and know what to write to achieve a quality grade. Often my seminars featured women verbatim quoting essays as opinions. Women are liberal only because their teachers, those in power, tell them to be. It really is all about power.
There is a brilliant short story by Maugham that conveys this quite well. Writing proficiently and being well-read is a hobby any average person can learn. Similarly, many learn to play an instrument, but how many compose an unforgettable tune?