Women who decide they want to join a high risk, high gain startup and have the skills to do so, are free to and do just that.
Men who decide they want to be treated equally have to leave their stable jobs for startups.
edit: formating
Were the discriminatory practices that led Jews to start their own business also an "unfair advantage for the Jews"?
Also, do you have any principle beyond "I have negative feelings" which suggests I shouldn't discuss certain human experiences? If so, what is it?
Someone, I'm sure, will rebut this comment with an example of a successful founder who started their company due to oppressive affirmative action policies. But you worded your comment as if this was some kind of obvious industry norm. It is not; you should reword.
OP's study about women being promoted 25% faster than men just means it's an industry norm to promote women.
At least nowadays. I'd like to attract your attention that the world is changing, I'm happy with more equality at my workplace, and women were obviously oppressed in workplaces I've been to 10 years ago. Just, at least, not today in UK anyway.
Also, you mention your experience is focused in the startup world, which differs from the employment scene at large.
That leads men to leave such companies and start their own businesses. Small companies are often more agile and innovative and far more likely to make founders and skilled employees rich.
So the programs to promote women (and underrepresented minorities) that are intended to achieve equality just promote even more unfair advantages for men. It's a common pattern: even the best designed policies need to be constantly expanded so that unfair advantages for men can be mitigated.
But no one can say that the proliferation of small innovative companies is bad for society. New innovative ideas make all our lives better, and some of that is owed to big corporate HR departments encouraging more entrepreneurship by limiting promotion opportunities for men.