...but there are factual representations of the inequality between women and men, rates of rape and sexual assault for instance, or wage differences.
The question, though, is what is inequality and what is non-identity. As for instance the fact that there are going to be very few female on male sexual assaults, because of basic difference in physiology and psychology. There are also instances in which the balance tilts the other way, in favor of women. It's still quite possible for a woman to walk away from a marriage with a very large (non-child support) divorce settlement, even though the man has produced most or all of the income. (See e.g. Tiger Woods.)
Curricula in schools (e.g. how many female authors are taught...
But why should we care whether the authors are male or female? Surely what matters is that they are good writers?
1. The inequality in divorce thing is absolutely stupid. Something that happens a lot when feminism or gender inequality is brought up is just this kind of question, that basically says, "but what about this other inequality that's toward men?" I agree with you actually, I don't think feminism is only beneficial for women, I think it will benefit men in many ways too. I don't think men should have to be strong and stoic to be masculine, I don't think they should automatically have to be the go to guy for cars, construction, or other "manly" pursuits. I don't think they should be expected to buy diamonds, pay for dates, and all that crap, and I don't think men should be relied on to be primary income makers in a family by default. However, I do believe that there are massive inequalities that women deal with and most men do not. I speak internationally as well, there are many places where women literally do not have rights. At. All. We are still defending freedom to choose in this country (u.s.). And there are many more places where women have rights, but not autonomy. There are still day to day issues of harassment that I think happen more frequently to women. Not ONLY to women, they happen to minorities of all kinds. So I think because of that it's still important.
2. Well, yes, what matters is that they are good writers. But that logic is a bit dangerous, you could say that a company with all white employees isn't discriminating or problematic at all as long as those white employees are all qualified. Would that be true? Writing also isn't math or science, it's personal, creative, expressive. It involves characters, world building, struggles, and themes. So the difference between a science dissertation written by a woman versus a man- I honestly don't know if you could even tell. But I think based on the differences in human experiences, female writers and male writers often have different approaches. Male writers are less inclined to have female protagonists, and generally as a teacher wouldn't you want to reach as large an audience as possible? When you're teaching to a group of men and women, it's nice to have work that speaks to BOTH experiences, not just one as a default. I also don't think you should teach only white writers, only rich writers, only American writers, only writers born after 1970, etc. There's also a strong history of discrimination in the writing field, and since for years female writers were undervalued and under-read, many of the greats never quite made it into the canon of LITERATURE. Since times are changing it seems that should as well.