For what it's worth, she goes on in the comments to point out that some significant number of those 50 were not men. Seeing that she consciously chose the inclusive '50 people' rather than '50 men', I think you may be reading something into the essay that was not intended.
I never assumed she was talking about 50 men, nor do I see what difference it would make. It's the scorekeeping style that struck me as absurd in this context.
My apologies then. I wasn't sure if your response was directed at the original or the edit, and apparently I was wrong. The original didn't strike me as focused on scorekeeping.
