The Brontes originally had to publish under male pseudonyms (or rather, pseudonyms of intentionally indeterminate sex). George Eliot is a male pseudonym. Jane Austen arguably wasn't considered serious literature until recent decades; previously her status was more similar to, say, Miss Read in that she was a writer of rather lightweight tales for mainly a female audience.
Males currently have no problem to get printed, get publicity and get attention. It is just not true that it would be impossible or hard for male writer to get success.
So, there is not reason to reprint male under female pseudonym. With exception od romantic literature, male pseudonym is not disadvantage at all.
But, my original point was that there is nothing strange or unusual about morality that is sexist in one way or the other, that was actually norm.
How about: strange post-Enlightenment to see explicitly sexist morality become trendy? I take your point that viewed from a broader historical context it's not strange at all.
