The oft-repeated argument is, “If girls want sexually fair games, they should design them themselves.” OK, fine. What is being said here is that the women who do actually get hired at mixed sex companies still often aren’t heard in office. Instead, their ideas are steamrollered, and that may not even be to the financial benefit of the company.
Misogyny and the Marketing Chick talks about falsely relegating a woman into a position that she doesn’t really occupy. Why? Because then you won’t have to listen to her. It also explains that the “marketing chick” isn’t even a real person, but a construct designed to make women seem less worthy in an office, and even inspire infighting among women (divide and conquer).
https://medium.com/about-work/misogyny-and-the-marketing-chick-aa49dffc975d
You may think that ideas like, “The marketing chick has all those soft skills that patriarchy has taught us are undesirable, less useful, less expensive, less valuable, women’s work.” are really over the top - but you shouldn’t. Instead, go take a look at my review of the website designs for UCSC’s Natural Sciences Department. Out of three possible degrees - Science Communication, Chemistry, and Computer Engineering - only Science Communication (a “soft” science) directly addresses women as possible students. Computer Engineering doesn’t even have a single photo of a woman you can find without hunting.
It should also be noted that women are making the effort - even though the walls are there. Here’s one more article: “Women Don’t Want to Work in Games and Other Myths”
