I found the female pronoun use, including the "separate the women from the girls" line, to be delightfully distracting. In a perfect world, I'd say pick a singular gender and go with it for the sake of consistent grammar. However, from my experience, women still deal with unfair perceptions in the work place. This is an easy, subtle way to combat that. I think it's completely worth the distraction. (Note, many writers have done this for the past few years, not just Ben, but it really stands out in the context of a tech startup CEO).

It's not only distracting but unnecessary. The English language has a perfectly usable way to avoid gender-specific pronouns: just use the plural. "A good CEO knows his/her values" becomes "a good CEO knows their values".

Or drop the gender altogether: "A good CEO knows their values." Grammar cops hate the use of the collective pronoun where a singular would be more correct, but I see it used often enough that it's slowly working it's way into the English language.

In Ben's case, he's making a political statement, so the use of "her" is appropriate in that instance though.

> it's slowly working it's way into the English language

It's actually been in English for a pretty long time, there is plenty of precedent. The people that complain loudest about grammar "mistakes" are often the least equipped to talk about them.

I'm not opposed to this, however I didn't realized having your pronouns disagree in number with your nouns had become generally accepted.

A singular form of "they" has long been used in English writing. Even Shakespeare used it.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Singular_they

That said, constructions like "didn't realized" are best avoided.

You're missing the point.

What's your second sentence supposed to mean?

"Men from the boys" is a common idiom. It harks back to the days when male adolescents would have to commit some act of skill and/or bravery to be considered adults. Writing it as "women from the girls" seems forced and clumsy. Especially since there's no history behind it; in those ancient societies a girl became a woman by getting married.

So because there's no history or common idiom referencing women in leadership roles, we should just speak of all hardship as though only men have ever, do ever, and will ever perform in difficult rites of passage? Please. This isn't clumsy, it's forward-thinking, and arguably present-aware.

So coin an all new term, don't knock a square peg into a round hole. Next you'll say that's sexist I suppose. Note that there are no real rites of passage for either sex in the present day, how is it "present aware"?

Sorts the pros from the wannabes, how's that?

What do you mean 'there's no history behind it'? You've just explained it. The whole purpose is to cause people to examine the metaphor.