What I basically mean is that you are referencing the op's question in a huge historical framework and that most often is dangerous science. The best science is the one that is easy and foolproof. I am not saying that you are wrong but I for example am not so rooted in my history. I am trieing to look at it detached from all historical influences and try to view myself as an indidiviual. Therefore self-reflection isnt for me a comparism between the now and the past, self-reflection means for me to see how I fit in and how I am in the now and there only. I need no reference from the past for that, I basically invent my personality in the here and now....and which history are you referencing? I'm curious.
Also, the op mentioned browsing through amazon books and bookstores that pop psychology(psychology is still very young, thus mentioning women's role in partaking) and philosophy (I'm thinking self help references) written by female authors are generally for female audiences. I see where the op is coming from, and I'm simply suggesting that the roles of feeling vs thinking could possibly have been stereotyped to the gender from larger generalizations. Correlation? yes, if you see it so. Causation? No. or maybe. depends. I don't know.
I am not saying that you need to do so as well, I am just sceptical if a history of men being whatever and woman being whatever does directly affect the reason why woman may be more self-reflective in the here and now. There of course may be a connection, but if I'ld rely on that, I'ld describe myself as a product of my past effectively ripping myself of individuality. Cause eff the past, I can be what I want in the here and now, at least I can believe in it.
Another thing that I may add to the ops question: woman generally like to communicate more than men. That doesnt necessarily tho mean that all they communicate is always quality work. So maybe a lot of the reason why pop psychology is written by woman is due to them liking to communicate more.