Totally. What the article says is as a woman, you are more likely to find a family and have children. What the article says is as a woman, your level of necessary success to be judged as "successful" is lower. What the article says is as a woman, you are not only less likely to be a CEO, you are also less likely to be a prison inmate, a workaholic or a workplace casualty. Effectively, the article says that "average" women are judged as successful but men need to lean more towards extraordinary because that's the structure we've evolved. If you accept that you are more likely to be average than extraordinary, it's better to be a woman. The only negative aspect for women is that men are more likely to be extraordinary than women - a consequence of men more likely to be deeply substandard. But again - it's a statistical argument. Statistics can no more predict whether or not you're extraordinary than whether or not you're blonde. Yeah - it can give you odds, but numbers don't know you.