Does all media have to include a meaningful female perspective?

I was recently having an argument that I think DU would find interesting.

We were talking about fight club. Personally, I love the book. It has so many interesting messages, especially the book as compared to the movie.

It talks about what it feels like to be alienated by a society that expects you to be satisfied and care about a minimum wage job that treats you like a meat robot.

It talks about how society lies to you. Society tells you you can fill the holes left by you career with material possessions. Possessions don't complete a person.

The book especially sends the clear message that even when you reject these toxic ideas and society, you aren't doing yourself any good. When you embrace your primal and destructive urges, they don't leave you any happier than you were when you were embracing mindless consumerism. It sends a clear message that such escapism can be just as horrible and counterproductive as the thing you are escaping from (I think this is a lesson a lot of people miss when they see only the film and a lesson a lot of those idiots who rush off to join ISIS are probably learning).

It is however, very much a story about males and male perspectives. The character of Marla is never really fleshed out and in the books is mostly used as part of a love triangle where the narrator loves Tyler, Tyler loves Marla and Marla loves the Narrator. Part of why I like fight club is how it very subtly touches on what it is like to be a male in unrequited love with another male who doesn't really care about you (lets face it Tyler was basically using the narrator to accomplish his anarchist dreams and was slowly taking more and more of his life).

My friend said this was a problem, that a book needs a female perspective to be truly valuable. I disagreed. I agree that there should be (and there are) books that include valuable female perspectives, but that not every book needs them to be great. The audience of fight club was listless young men who felt left behind by society. For that specific purpose it was a great book and I'm not sure fleshing out Marla as a character would have advanced that goal with that audience.

The author has written about women and especially what it feels like to be trans-gendered in the great book "Invisible Monsters". Where the main character is a supermodel who suddenly has to deal with how differently society treats her (and women as a whole) when they lose their beauty. So I don't think he is incapable of addressing female themes, it is just he chose to not do so in fight club, I believe because he wanted the novel to be primarily aimed at young men.

Is this wrong? Does a book have to speak to all genders? Or is it sometimes valuable to limit your narrative to aim for a specific audience, even if it might make other audiences feel excluded (though I certainly know a lot of women who loved and connected with fight club, despite its lack of a prominent and fleshed out female voice).

I can see both sides. I can understand WHY people want more media, especially interesting and challenging media, to connect to women and young women. Women are just as complex as men and their unique themes and perspectives are far too often ignored in fiction.

What do you think?