I have a wife and daughters, none of them would relate to anything you claim.
Lots of women play basketball too, LOTS.
That doesn't mean they go and watch it. In fact there's been large numbers of women in many sports for a long time.
It's very easy to highlight that it never equated to rises in viewing numbers for those sports.
So your theory really doesn't hold any weight.
"In December 2011 ESPN negotiated a 14-year $500 million multimedia agreement ($35 million per annum) to televise 24 NCAA women’s championships including the College World Series and basketball tournament expiring in 2025. Desser Media Sports estimates the value for March Madness alone is between $81 to $112 million each year."
This is just one example of networks paying for women's sport. Networks don't pay for stuff that people aren't interested in.
More females are playing sport, more are engaged.
Networks structure their broadcast of all sports to facilitate as many people watching as possible.
The AFL and the networks know that crusty old white, homophobic slobs are dying off. They've known this for a long time, and have progressively been trying to build a broader customer base.