also, imo "women can't game" is based on a deeper sexist view that you find expressed in other ways like "women can't drive" or "women are bad at chess" or "women make bad engineers" or "women make bad leaders" or "women operate on emotion." imo the deeper sexist view uniting all of those is that women are not goal oriented. all these "male hobbies" are meant to be exercises in goal-oriented thinking, which is what many men view as the mental trait distinguishing them from women and the mental trait that allows them to be dominant and to lead others. this in turn makes it the mental trait most relevant to male self worth under patriarchy.

imo the way to combat it in media is to show complex, deep-thinking women 1) wanting something unrelated to men and children, and then 2) self-assuredly figuring out how to get what they want

https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths

This link explains it very well.

"One reason—among several—is that as soon as subcultures start getting really interesting, they get invaded by muggles, who ruin them. The muggles who invade and ruin subcultures come in two distinct flavors, mops and sociopaths, playing very different roles.

Before there is a subculture, there is a scene. A scene is a small group of creators who invent an exciting New Thing—a musical genre, a religious sect, a film animation technique, a political theory. Riffing off each other, they produce examples and variants, and share them for mutual enjoyment, generating positive energy.

The new scene draws fanatics. Fanatics don’t create, but they contribute energy (time, money, adulation, organization, analysis) to support the creators.

Creators and fanatics are both geeks.2 They totally love the New Thing, they’re fascinated with all its esoteric ins and outs, and they spend all available time either doing it or talking about it.

If the scene is sufficiently geeky, it remains a strictly geek thing; a weird hobby, not a subculture.

If the scene is unusually exciting, and the New Thing can be appreciated without having to get utterly geeky about details, it draws mops. (members of the public) Mops are fans, but not rabid fans like the fanatics. They show up to have a good time, and contribute as little as they reasonably can in exchange.

Geeks welcome mops, at first at least. It’s the mass of mops who turn a scene into a subculture. Creation is always at least partly an act of generosity; creators want as many people to use and enjoy their creations as possible. It’s also good for the ego; it confirms that the New Thing really is exciting, and not just a geek obsession. Further, some money can usually be extracted from mops—just enough, at this stage, that some creators can quit their day jobs and go pro. (Fanatics contribute much more per head than mops, but there are few enough that it’s rarely possible for creatives to go full time with support only from fanatics.) Full-time creators produce more and better of the New Thing.

Mops relate to each other in “normal” ways, like people do on TV, which the fanatics find repellent. During intermission, geeks want to talk about the New Thing, but mops blather about sportsball and celebrities. Also, the mops also seem increasingly entitled, treating the fanatics as service workers.

Fanatics may be generous, but they signed up to support geeks, not mops. At this point, they may all quit, and the subculture collapses."

deleted by creator