It's about archetypes.
Restrictive archetypes are (obviously) not limited to women, but the power of patriarchy in our society means that art based on the 'female' experience will always highlight the damage the archetype can inflict.
Funnily enough, it's exactly this that makes female or feminist-associated art both accessible and valuable to everyone:
Because it becomes a universal motif that shows us all that we're not alone in our determined and unbelievably frustrating struggle to be seen as complex individuals who don't always fit inside the archetypal frame.
It's that everyday experience of fighting the archetype that is inherent in the 'female' experience, just as it is in many other minority and oppressed groups.
The ability to see that is the power of empathy.
Reading feminist literature, whether you're a man, woman, intersex, black, white, hispanic, asian, etc, and feeling like you understand and empathise with the writers struggle to have their beliefs taken seriously and represented is a good thing.
That is a valuable experience to write about, not only that but feminist literature can become extremely, extremely economically viable with the reduction of bad press in the area.
The female experience is unbelieavbly accessible, to everyone, because it's about the struggle for individual expression after being painted into a corner.
Today our society is facing a weird split: Our generation has been left a dichotomy in which we see the effects of opposing socialisation tactics, we see the archetypes framed by members of older generations, and we don't know where we fit.
The malaise we've been experiencing, coming into our twenties, is actually real life. So that sucks, but the important thing is that by providing new narratives via art (and this is something Picasso talked about ages ago, but in all honesty I can't find the quote I'm talking about. I read it in a university reading ages ago.) mean that we can change that and actually produce an intersectional and accommodating society.