Here we have a disagreement, it is sexist and you have ignored my point about books being judged on merit. Black history month is not racist, or rather it doesn't matter because it is not based on consumers, it is based on education and a variety of education is good. (Also really the only parts of 'black' history which have relevance today are slavery and civil rights) I spent a long time learning about slavery in high school, longer than a month. I digress.
This I find funny " even if you don't see it, women have less opportunities than men. " Even if no one sees it and it isn't there, it still exists, thank you god, or the patriarchy, they are fairly indistinguishable. Also no men and women have exactly the same opportunities, the publishers read the manuscript, you don't even have to give them a name. Then they judge it based on its CONTENT and the MERIT, of that CONTENT. Not the gender of the author.
You say that genres dominated by women are looked down upon, and yet everything is looked down upon by someone. Science fiction takes criticism constantly from people who don't like it, that is not a gendered issue.
You also talk about men being wildly unoriginal, maybe the same is true for women as well, forgive my male bias but romance novels follow fairly similar storylines, usually one of several. Fifty shades for grey is a perfect example of an enormous book deal for something incredibly unoriginal, along with Grey and whatever the twilight was is called.
You also state that no one has to participate, and that's irrelevant. You don't have argue with me but you are. And yes it will affect the 'salaries' of men. By choosing to boycott their books which you would otherwise have read, maybe not you personally but as a whole. Because authors are paid per book sold.
I have to 'be so down' on it because I disagree with it ethically. (This is exaggeration in the extreme but whatever) "why are people against the Holocaust, you don't have to participate you can just ignore it" or "why are people against the KKK they don't have to participate they can just ignore it". I have to respond because I'm tired of letting this stuff go unchallenged, it strikes me as wrong, logically and ethically. (Tangent start) I ignored all the gut feelings of wrongness when I called myself a feminist, (or would you prefer ally) I decided other people knew better than me, coincidentally I was wrong, I should have listened to myself. Therefore I listen to myself when I feel something is wrong. And finally I've decided to speak up about it. (Tangent end)
No it doesn't affect me, neither does police brutality against minorities, doesn't mean I can't be against it. As I said previously, it does affect male authors. And no I don't care about 'the whole' because these are individual people with individual lives and books, and should be treated as such.
Two problems with your point about pseudonyms. The past is not the present, campaigning now does not affect people in the past, currently women do not need to use pseudonyms to be taken seriously, therefore it does not apply today.
Also you are not supporting or demanding diversity in authors, you are demanding singularity. Furthermore, and I'll say it as many times as is necessary.
DIVERSITY DOES NOT EQUAL AN INCREASE IN PRODUCTION VALUE.
In a truly equal society the best books gain popularity and the worst books do not, REGARDLESS OF ANY ATTRIBUTES OF THE AUTHOR. This doesn't work because different people like different things and sometimes writing and depth isn't as important (read Twilight) and other times a person can afford better advertisements