“In classes where any score above 90 counts as an A, the difference between a 91 and a 99 is a life,” Laura Damour writes in her New York Times article, “Why Girls Beat Boys at School and Lose to Them at the Office,” continuing, “We need to ask: What if school is a confidence factory for our sons, but only a competence factory for our daughters?”

In an opinion piece that has garnered over 1,500 comments from their readers since it was published earlier this month, the clinical psychologist argues that women’s lack of representation in leadership positions is caused by their learned tendency to work as perfectionists. Men, she believes, are by contrast opportunists.

Damour explicates how this difference can be traced back to schools, a place where girls learn to equate success with dedication. Boys, she claims, are on the other hand rewarded for cutting corners, and they learn to associate success with innovation. This pressure to reach perfection leads to women expressing low levels of confidence about their own work.

The solutions Damour proposes to equalize the bureaucratic hierarchy are: (1) for educational systems to stop rewarding workaholic habits, (2) for teachers to make girls question if so much effort is necessary to be exerted in order to excel and (3) for family and friends to push women to realize that what she defines as “being a little bit nervous about schoolwork” is normal and healthy.

While the premise of the article, that women are more prone to strive for perfection than men, is valid, this truth is too narrow in scope and focus to effectively characterize the complex issue of gender inequality. It paints over it with a broad brush, failing to consider a number of significant factors that are contributing to the problem.

“Women can enter the workplace with strong educational credentials but then be entirely overwhelmed by the burden of child care,” One reader, Georgia Lagoudas, wrote in a letter to the editor. “I was disappointed that [the article] attributed the disconnect…to girls doing extra work in primary school.”

The remedies the article provides are, to say the least, disappointingly reflective of a society that has a tendency to victim-blame rather than address the flawed narratives at work. Her answers to gender inequality elevate and prioritize what masculinity looks like within the workplace; they argue that because these strategies have served men handsomely, women should subvert to patriarchal ideals in order to rise in society.

Damour fails to consider how these same courses of action do not prove as fruitful for women. They cannot attempt to “beat the system” because the system is wired against them.

Depending on the gender of the employee, the same courses of action will be perceived radically differently by their co-workers and employers. Studies have found that in situations where women lead with outspoken confidence, they are seen as “bossy” and resistive to authority whereas men exhibiting similar behavior are viewed as “decisive” and as taking initiative.

This hole in the article’s argument brings it to the crux of what it lacks: a consideration of the sexism that is catalyzing women’s obsession with perfection.

In her response to the article, reader Homa Mojtabai expresses these frustrated sentiments: “Girls work too hard in school, and that sets them up for failure in the workplace…So now, after years of being told to ‘lean in,’ are we going to have to suffer years of scolding to ‘lean out’?”