Angry I'm not sure.
I read/ saw a thing about how TV progs esp skew music past, and I'm sure magazines news articles etc do the same. This I would imagine happens in society esp men and it all repeats and enforces together with big impact.
The thing I saw pointed out that the BBC arts features, other progs generally celebrate male artists and bands from previous music generations. Also that male artists and bands quite often get described as geniuses, groundbreaking, changing a whole scene etc.
I thought oh, not noticed that. And then started to notice it. I can't remember seeing more than a couple bands/artists featured, (though obv don't watch all), on the in depth band / musician from 50s - up to about 80s usually the era.
It's you know.
Beatles, stones, queen, iron maiden, kinks, oasis, nirvava, etc etc.
I've watched a few as some interest me. Also that thing I read was pretty much right.
Interviews were with band members if still about, producers, collaborators, sound people, session musicians etc etc loads of types people. Male male male. Lauding the genius/originality/brand new sound etc of.. men.
Women sometimes interviewed usually had sung with and generally fairly famous not in background.
Once prompted to notice I was. Well fuck. These things are so standard generally goes unnoticed. Men tend to remember, idolise, I suspect predominantly listen to male artists. And so history even recentish for music becomes male.
The women are... Forgotten in general public awareness.
Hugely famous remembered often (usually?) in a rather lightweight way with individual personal life often included, things that were flops/ went wrong. Dress style if 'sexy'/revealing. A sort of... Whatever means nothing exceptional, got lucky, got fame not because music.
Generally it's eg spice girls, Debbie Harry (not blondie even though that's actually what about), Madonna, dunno. Not so many at all.