[cletus]

Apparently it only took 16 minutes for the take-offense-out-of-context strawman to rear its ugly head. Did you even read beyond the headline?

The author doesn't say "all women" to the point that a single counterexample disproves the hypothesis. Not only does the auther qualify statements such as "fewer women" but any such analysis is a statistical study of a group. It says something about a group and similar groups but nothing about a specific individual (in a definitive non-probabilistic sense at least).

It's a bit like arguing that the research into the ill-health effects of smoking are nonsense because your Uncle Jack smoked 3 packs a day for 80 years and died at age 95 when hit by a bus (ie not lung cancer).

[sprout]

The offense taken at this article is intentionally undertaken to change the norm, to encourage men to take more responsibility for their children and for women to take more responsibility in society at large.

The offense is not at the statement of fact, the offense is that the fact is stated as if it were the good and proper order of things. The good and proper order of things is equality.

Now, you're free to disagree, but don't misunderstand us.

[jdp23]

The article says "And I’m not even going to go into the idea of women having a startup with young kids. It is absolutely untenable. The women I know who do this have lost their companies or their marriages or both. And there is no woman running a startup with young kids, who, behind closed doors, would recommend this life to anyone." How much more contet do you want?

[ajju]

It's a bit like arguing that the research into the ill-health effects of smoking are nonsense because your Uncle Jack smoked 3 packs a day for 80 years and died at age 95 when hit by a bus

Except she does not cite one bit of research to back up her claims.

What do you call research without data? Assumptions.