That misses the point. Yes, the world would be nicer without jerks, but "let my (female) students do well in the world" is a far more realistic goal than getting rid of all the jerks.
The author makes the point that selectively being a jerk can be effective, and that women might be more succesful if they obtained this ability.
It doesn't miss the point at all. This is a zero-sum game.
That is, men being SAJ more than women is problematic because it means they will get more attention. If men reduced their level of SAJ-hood to equal that of women, then men would have no advantage over women. There would still be winners and losers, but they would be female and male in equal proportion (according to this theory).
It may be a zero-sum game (no idea), but it's still a good idea to change what can be changed, instead of invoking some grand principle (I'm all for grand principles; it's just that the result of invoking them is either changing what can be changed or doing nothing constructive, usually the latter.)
Besides, it's not really good for women, per se, if the jerks are a bit less successful; it's equally good for everyone who isn't jerk-ish, which includes many men.
The author makes the point that selectively being a jerk can be effective, and that women might be more succesful if they obtained this ability.