It's not, actually. You're just too busy being offended to notice. Read the section headlined "Stereotypes at Harvard." There's a point being made, but since that point flies in the face of "women are underrepresented because patriarchy" you tuned out and went full snark, zero refutation.
It's not even a complicated argument. Here - I'll spell it out simply:
Because it takes one womb to create one child, women are effectively assured reproduction. On the other hand, one man can have countless progeny which requires men to compete with each other in order to reproduce. This competition has genetically selected for diversity in male behavior while the assurance of reproduction in women has genetically selected for homogeny.
How 'bout simpler?
Men have to stick out and take risks if they want to have kids, while women have to survive. A man who does nothing to distinguish himself is unlikely to reproduce, while a woman who strives to distinguish herself actually reduces her ability to reproduce through undue risk.
The key phrase is actually in the text:
Almost certainly, it is something biological and genetic. And my guess is that the greater proportion of men at both extremes of the IQ distribution is part of the same pattern. Nature rolls the dice with men more than women. Men go to extremes more than women. It’s true not just with IQ but also with other things, even height: The male distribution of height is flatter, with more really tall and really short men.
Here's how that reveals itself in GPA, with women earning better grades than men:
A pattern of more men at both extremes can create all sorts of misleading conclusions and other statistical mischief. To illustrate, let’s assume that men and women are on average exactly equal in every relevant respect, but more men at both extremes. If you then measure things that are bounded at one end, it screws up the data to make men and women seem significantly different. Consider grade point average in college. Thanks to grade inflation, most students now get A’s and B’s, but a few range all the way down to F. With that kind of low ceiling, the high-achieving males cannot pull up the male average, but the loser males will pull it down. The result will be that women will get higher average grades than men — again despite no difference in average quality of work.
Here's how it reveals itself in the workplace, with women earning less pay than men:
The opposite result comes with salaries. There is a minimum wage but no maximum. Hence the high-achieving men can pull the male average up while the low-achieving ones can’t pull it down. The result? Men will get higher average salaries than women, even if there is no average difference on any relevant input. Today, sure enough, women get higher college grades but lower salaries than men. There is much discussion about what all this means and what should be done about it. But as you see, both facts could be just a statistical quirk stemming from male extremity.
The article presents a statistical, evolutionary argument for why women get the shaft academically, professionally and historically without resorting to "the patriarchy." Simply put, it says that the basic underpinnings of society were created by men to one-up other men and that historically, women largely opted out because the fundamental unit of female society is smaller than the fundamental unit of male society. It goes on to say that there's conflict now because we're reshaping our society to fit women into the larger context.
But you were too busy literally getting your panties in a twist.
'member this? That's yet another example of the most controversial words I've ever committed to the internet:
Not to put too fine a point on it, but a half dozen generations ago you bitches were de-facto property. If we wanted in your pantaloons we'd fucking ask your dad, not you. So next time you get all catty and bitchy about shit, remember that we're dealing with our instincts in your world and try not to be too fucking complicated about it.
It's part of an argument whereby I point out that both genders are adjusting to a changing social dynamic and that we ought to account for and understand the deficiencies both genders are dealing with. But, like countless times before, somebody completely lost their shit over the "a half dozen generations ago you bitches were de-facto property" part...
...without recognizing that not only is that painted as something bad, it happens to be true.
You came in looking for a "rah rah men's rights" argument so superheated that you literally ignored everything that wouldn't give it to you. And you're better than that. And you looked at it, and said "who the fuck badged this", and snarked the fuck out of it, and I called you on it, and you called it "a silly article with a rather pointless premise" instead of wondering what,
I saw in it.
And I'm better than that and you know it.