Here’s a thought. The representation of angels as men has more to do with their nature than we give the artists credit for recognizing. Especially in the case of St Michael, who faught Satan and cast him out of heaven, his representation in art and in the Bible reflects his nature.
Angels are powerful creatures. They are incorporeal (no bodies) also, and have no sex. However, “no sex” does not mean that the character with which God endowed them when they were brought into being is not more properly depicted one way or another. Personally, I think of all angels as being masculin. I do this not out of some conceded sexist bias, but because men are generally stronger than women, and I don’t like thinking of angels as being weaker than me… because they’re not. The masculin character that I attribute to angels is also one that surpasses my own. By this I mean to say that the strength and singlemindedness of the weakest angel would make me look like the most effeminate man who ever lived if those attributes were all that masculinity is.
As for the representation of angels as females being wrong… I don’t think it is. I would say, rather, that it is a deficient representation. It may, as someone said in one of the previous posts, be appropriate in a case where the compassion of the angel in question is being emphasized. Biblically, however, the roles of angels have been ones of warrior-protectors and guides with power that makes those to whom they are revealed fall on their faces in fear.
God bless,
Agricola