I don't think this response really raises the level of discourse. It is probably better than the original, but there are some serious problems. Note that I am n

I don't think this response really raises the level of discourse. It is probably better than the original, but there are some serious problems. Note that I am not taking a stance on any of the points below, just pointing out the irony in calling out a crappy blog post with one that doesn't quite live up to its own high standards. For instance, in a paragraph calling out fallacious statements, we have this: "Getting into circles that are run by men or being selected for a position by a group of men will inevitably give an advantage to men." Really? This is a known fact? Is it not possible that men actually prefer selecting women, but don't for some other reason? Regarding statistics: "But, in Sweden and Finland, 30% of board seats are held by women compared to 16.6% in the US, so if one wants to make the argument that the best people for the board are men, it has to be a cultural argument and not a biological one since there is a significant change over national borders." Culture isn't the only thing that changes over national borders. Maybe a higher proportion of companies in Sweden and Finland are those that are better-served by female board members. And: "Only 6% of women are tech chief executives, but 8% of venture backed startups are women. So women are creating startups at a rate higher than they are currently present as chief executives." You can't draw conclusions about rates from these numbers. And: "And, even better for women, 14% of venture capitalists (who are primarily successful entrepreneurs) being women means that women startups are succeeding at a higher proportion than their male counterparts." I can't begin to understand how this conclusion is drawn. I'm not sure VCs are primarily successful entrepreneurs, so I'd need to see data on that. But even presuming they are, how do we know that men and women are equally likely to become a VC after having a run with a successful startup? Bias is creeping in everywhere. On women taking care of the young, old and sick: "This means women should be better at serving on boards as “care takers” of the company." Bit of a stretch. This conclusion is only drawn if you assume taking care of something should make you good at taking care of anything. In all honesty I was hoping to get to the end and have it all be an intentionally ironic piece to start off a meta-discussion about how easy it is to write strongly-worded articles that draw unjustified conclusions. My disappointment is what led me to point out all of the above.