> You would essentially have to be a robot to make this statement without purposefully implying that women are less capable of running a Fortune 500 company. I

> You would essentially have to be a robot to make this statement without purposefully implying that women are less capable of running a Fortune 500 company. I highly disagree. Imagine this statement in an example context: A: Most fortune 500 companies are lead by men, we need more women at the top. B: Very few women are capable of running a Fortune 500 company effectively. B could either be sexist and imply that fewer women than men are capable, or they could simply state that selecting a random women to promote just because she's a women won't help the situation. The reading you have depends a lot on your biases, given that you have no information about B at all. If you need another example, you can replace "women" with any other subject in this sentence - even fortune 500 CEO's: > Very few Fortune 500 CEOs are capable of running a Fortune 500 company effectively. I bet you can still find people agreeing with that, but it reads a lot less like it implies that a random person not included in the subject group is more capable.