Your post comes across as needlessly biased, pejoratively modernist, and ignorant.
> Books from fifty years ago are difficult to read now, mostly due to a blatant sexism.
Fifty years ago was 1970. I don't think anyone has a problem reading Are you there, God? It's me, Margaret, Johnathan Livingston Seagull, or Ringworld due to blatant sexism.
"Finis" is a short story and was first published over 100 years ago.
> An example from the first page of this text: “Probably she had brains...”
"Probably she had brains..." is not evidence of sexism. It's not even evidence of a bias that people generally don't have brains, much less women. It's literally a character's (Eastwood's) conclusion based on observation of another character's (Mrs. Davis') behaviors and habits. Eastwood doesn't show surprise that a woman could be smart. He doesn't deny that she is smart in spite of the evidence. And even if he had done so, a character being sexist wouldn't ipso facto make the work as a whole sexist.
> Books from fifty years ago are difficult to read now, mostly due to a blatant sexism.
Fifty years ago was 1970. I don't think anyone has a problem reading Are you there, God? It's me, Margaret, Johnathan Livingston Seagull, or Ringworld due to blatant sexism.
"Finis" is a short story and was first published over 100 years ago.
> An example from the first page of this text: “Probably she had brains...”
"Probably she had brains..." is not evidence of sexism. It's not even evidence of a bias that people generally don't have brains, much less women. It's literally a character's (Eastwood's) conclusion based on observation of another character's (Mrs. Davis') behaviors and habits. Eastwood doesn't show surprise that a woman could be smart. He doesn't deny that she is smart in spite of the evidence. And even if he had done so, a character being sexist wouldn't ipso facto make the work as a whole sexist.