You've clearly not read much of Austen or Bronte—and equally clearly, aren't deeply versed in the contexts in which they wrote.
They were in fact dismissed because they were perceived as writing "women's fiction." That's why Charlotte wrote as Currer Bell and Emily wrote as Ellis Bell. Austen used pseudonyms for similar reasons, and absolutely wrote for commercial reasons. She wanted to be paid, and she made no bones about it. You'll likely have noticed that she ruthlessly mocks the literary critics of her day—especially in Northanger Abbey.
You'll have to take it on faith that I've read and written critically about Austen's entire oeuvre, though I am less familiar with the Bronte sisters' work.
Austen wanted to be paid--she once said something along the lines of "I want to make more money than God" in a letter she wrote. But that's neither here nor there as far as my argument in that particular post was concerned. My point was that genre as a concept--especially from the point of view of the writer--is often hokum. It doesn't hold up under much scrutiny. Is Tristram Shandy postmodern (and if so, the term "postmodern" must be a misnomer)? Is (again I ask the question) Austen's fiction chick-lit.? Did Dostoyevsky write thrillers?
If you'd like to discuss the possibly commercial nature of Austen's fiction, that's fine, but for those purposes please engage with my arguments from the topically corresponding conversation (I realize it's easy to get confused as I seem to be talking to at least 5 different people at once within this thread).
As for your second point, I'm glad to see that you agree with me. Based on your tone, you know as well as I do that "women's fiction" is a ridiculous way to categorize a piece of literature--especially anything Austen's written--and that writers shouldn't concern themselves with what is primarily a marketing device.
I really didn't think "write the best novel you can write" was going to be such a controversial piece of advice.
EDIT: To avoid making three different consecutive posts, let me quickly respond to your remarks about Shakespeare and others. If the argument that the person I was talking to was making (again, your mixing up the conversations I've been having and taking things out of context, which may be an understandable accident) was that the work should be universal and inoffensive--which it was--then clearly Shakespeare fails by this standard. His depiction of Italians as people who were essentially barbarians would no doubt alienate Italian readers of that era, the frank sexuality in his plays may indeed offend the religious (or merely the prudish), etc.
As far as Fitzgerald goes, I was discussing the text in that conversation. The wealthy aren't looked upon very fondly in a lot of F. Scott's work, most notably The Great Gatsby. Again, if a good story is something that is universal and as agreeable as possible, it's not clear to me that Fitzgerald or any other great writer like him was doing this.
Last edited: