You haven't provided any real evidence of the existence of a "halo effect of meritocracy" that is benefiting women in Silicon Valley.

There are lots of women who are well-compensated outside of Silicon Valley. Have you never met a female lawyer, doctor, investment banker, accountant, dentist, real estate agent or small business owner who lives and works outside of this area?

> It's almost ludicrous to use what is basically a black-swan, lottery ticket winner as some sort of point of comparison for progress.

That is a reasonable argument, but just because you can show that this is a less-than-convincing way of debunking the notion that Silicon Valley is a meritocracy doesn't mean that you have proven Silicon Valley is a meritocracy.

> The real story isn't that there aren't enough of these female lottery ticket winners in SV, it's that if you are a smart and hardworking woman, you can make a lot more money than most startup founders ever will.

You keep pot-shotting "startup founders" but it's not clear what point you're trying to make.

Given the high failure rate of new businesses generally, you're not saying much by pointing out that it's easier to "make a lot more money" through gainful employment than entrepreneurship. Heck, a person making minimum wage is earning "a lot more" than the broke, couchsurfing founders you will inevitably meet from time to time in Silicon Valley.

Entrepreneurship itself is a massive black swan event. With failure being most common outcome, and success a rarity.

The whole idea of a start up revolves around the concept of persistence. Its a long drawn battle, which demands a arduous march towards a point where some thing magical is supposed to happen. If you are not ready to put in efforts which can kill you, only face crippling failure on routine basis, don't start a company.

There is nothing fair/unfair merit or otherwise about it. This is how the game is.

Don't expect to walk into a boxing game and expect to be hit by cotton buds.