[makomk]

There's one really, incredibly glaring flaw in this argument right near the start. He argues that it takes men to come up with sites like Twitter and Facebook because most venture-capital-backed startups are created by men. Except, of course, venture capitalists openly admit they choose startups to back not just on their merits, but "pattern matching" the founders to what they expect a startup founder to look like - and everyone expects startup founders to be male. Even if women were just as good at founding successful startups, we'd expect them to be less common than male founders simply because VCs go with what they're used to.

He is essentially arguing that women are inherently worse at founding tech companies because they're under-represented in an area where people discriminate against them based on the belief they're inherently worse at founding tech companies.

[unfamiliar]

And your argument doesn't explain why venture capitalists would have got that impression in the first place.