'Authoresses are liable to be looked on with prejudice'

We quite disagree with the premise of this BBC article which claims that 'women writers have often chosen to publish their work using a pseudonym'. It makes it sound whimsical when it isn't.

But even that single contemporary example cracks open how thorny this issue is: Rowling’s choices were not just about sexism, but also about a desire for anonymity, and the crafting of a new identity. 

And that is almost always the case – it’s rarely so simple as just the bad sexism keeping a good woman down. Perversely, assuming it is so actually perpetuates vague, muddled notions that, historically, only a few women ever managed to break through, and did so by pretending to be men – think George Eliot, the Brontës. (Holly Williams)

True, but why couldn't an identity be veiled behind a feminine name instead of a masculine name? Because they knew and they know that they won't be taken as seriously. Charlotte Brontë said it much better:

Averse to personal publicity, we veiled our own names under those of Currer, Ellis, and Acton Bell; the ambiguous choice being dictated by a sort of conscientious scruple at assuming Christian names positively masculine, while we did not like to declare ourselves women, because -- without at that time suspecting that our mode of writing and thinking was not what is called "feminine"-- we had a vague impression that authoresses are liable to be looked on with prejudice; we had noticed how critics sometimes use for their chastisement the weapon of personality, and for their reward, a flattery, which is not true praise.

Daily Mail carries the story of Ponden Hall being for sale. AnneBrontë.org has a post on 'The Old Apothecary, Laudanum And The Brontës'.