You've established your own perfectly respectable ancestors. They speak to you the way that you can most directly be reached. There may be women among them, I don't remember from the generous sample you sent me a year or more back but they were all clear spoken and they all made good use of images.
You may not be able to chose your parents, your brothers and your sisters or your family in general. But your community of kindred spirits is at least in part a matter of affinity across time. The failure in not loving most of Emily Dickinson is in not trusting the value of your own taste as a guide for your reading. That's it.
Writers chose their own creative ancestors. It's part of how we create who we are.
If other people want to quarrel with your taste, let them. All you need are the ancestors who will help you be the writer you need to be when it's you and that piece of paper. Everything else is extra baggage, optional, and occasionally excess.
Myself, I tend to like more of her.
She is wilder than most people think. Her only punctuation marks were dashes, so a lot of the ways that people have forced her verse into meaning aren't true. She was more ambiguous, harder to catch and hold than that. More like the people who work without punctuation today, and force extra layers of meaning into the texts in that way. The folks who did the first editions were small minded, and were trying to make her sound cute, which she emphatically is not.
The first edition to do a good job with her text is the Johnson text in the late 60s or early 70s, should you wish to take another look. I wouldn't blame you if you chose otherwise, of course.