Sadly, I doubt it. I have no scientific data to back this up, but it seems from my experience that males are much more likely to read male authors, while females tend to read both - and proportionally more female authors. (I'd love to see an actual study done!) I can't count the number of times I've mentioned Jane Austen to a male friend and watched his face glaze over. I've compared her social commentary and satire to Kurt Vonnegut, but she is still often dismissed as a writer of "light" romantic fantasy - chiefly, though not exclusively - by males. Some of the scorn may stem from the popular modern approach to her works, which tends to romanticize the quaintness of the customs rather than focusing on her sharp and human writing. And part of it may simply be gender bias, a refusal to acknowledge that domestic drama can contain great stories and truths.
Agatha Christie drives this theme home with her detective character Miss Marple, who is constantly being underestimated. Miss Marple, with her 'limited' experience, always surprises the more cosmopolitan characters with her understanding of the world. Would that people would give authors like Austen a chance to surprise them as well.
But the question remains, would Austen's works be taken any more seriously if she had chosen a male pseudonym? It's hard to say; what's your perception of Middlemarch?** A more direct comparison might be found between Elizabeth Gaskell and Charles Dickens - they were both of an era, writing excellent novels about social issues. But few people have read or heard of Gaskell compared to Dickens. Her works have often been undervalued - at least, until they get made into BBC miniseries. Unfortunately we can't rewrite the past to perform social experiments. But I hope one day authors will be judged on the quality of their writing, and not on the gender of their pseudonym.
*Anne, Charlotte, and Emily Bronte, if you were wondering.
**Written by Mary Ann Evans (George Eliot).