That footnote does not even admit that gender discrimination exists, let alone address it.<p>It admonishes feminists for doing feminism wrong. Which I always find a little rich from people who are not themselves doing the thing. It feels to me like when non-developers tell me how to develop. My reaction is, &quot;Oh, you know how to do this better? Why don&#x27;t you show me?&quot;<p>The point of this article also wasn&#x27;t Jessica&#x27;s involvement in YC. It was correcting the general public&#x27;s lack of understanding of her involvement.<p>That lack of understanding fits the broad pattern of women being undervalued, and the work of women being written off as subsidiary to prominent men. It&#x27;s a topic that has been much discussed, and was, as I linked, in the New York Times less than a week ago.<p>Given that he literally asks why more people don&#x27;t recognize a woman&#x27;s contributions, it seems weird to me that he lays it entirely at her character (and his), without reference to known systemic biases. That footnote only makes it weirder, in that he seems to be claiming sufficient acquaintance with the discussion of this problem that he should be aware of the biases.