The structural sexism in this story is arguably the investor choosing to spare himself the minor risk to reputation, the assumption that the CEO isn't likely enough to listen to the advice fairly for it to be worth giving.
(it's not at all a given that the situation would blow up in his face…)
> (it's not at all a given that the situation would blow up in his face…)
The article was talking about risk. Risk isn't binary, if it was then there wouldn't be a risk...
> minor risk to reputation
I think the article, and at least from some candid comments in this thread, indicate that people perceive this risk as much more than minor. Almost as if not being labeled a racist or sexist or homophobic (founded or not) is worth a few $m lost from the inaction taken to avoid that labeling.
Statistically, ~0% of normal business interactions result in any Twitter outrage at all.
The premise that powerful men having interactions with women is risky isn't proven, there's all sorts of evidence to the contrary, where egregious behavior is ignored. Recent years there have been some consequences for things like physical sexual assault, not widespread consequences for misinterpreted advice.
(it's not at all a given that the situation would blow up in his face…)