Nice response, you took points out of the article that were so weak, I think I may have blocked them out. Of course I have to admit, when I started reading the article I assumed it was satire, and the points you made might reveal why.
On a secondary note, I do think it is interesting how you challenged the logic of the article, specifically where the author conceded that this was infact “unfair”. Without sound reasoning, one must assess the author's motive. Often when logic is ignored, and motive is not shared it is due to the motive being selfish, weak, vapid or contradictory (often a combination of these).
If the author did not write this because it was simply fair (or right). Then why did they do so. Examples of potential hidden motives include: 1.) The topic was popular, and they wanted to attract attention to self. 2.) They wanted to be contradictory, but could not do so based on solid reasoning. 3.) The fell in love with an idea, but were unable to test it. 4.) They thought that having such a belief would benefit them socially, but could only carry it as a facade. Or they may even believe the opposite, and thus have an interest in the topic, but know that publicly stating so could hurt their status, or public perception.
The author ends the article concluding this is part of being a good human, but why limit good treatment to women, when the same can be achieved by valuing all humans, oh yeah no logic presented regarding that conflict in the article either.