It's a misogynous analogy. If we call it out we can make the world a better place, where everyone is actually equal and break the horrible let's-pretend-we're-equal-while-holding-some-people-down status quo. Everyone's a winner. Except misogynists.
"what about being human when it matters most? In person" - doesn't this exclude people with social anxiety disorders?
"mix of knock-off stilettos" - doesn't this exclude people who wear flats?
"people bumbling about who looks a hair too much like Dwight Schrute" - doesn't this exclude people who do look like him and may have body image issues?
"You have just entered the land of networking hell" - this imagery is deeply offensive to some religions
"Screw the schmoozing" - using sexual imagery? No thanks.
"The people who hand out business cards like they are condoms in a high school sex ed. class" - alienates those with a conservative upbringing
"Disclaimer – keep those condoms, kids" - again, pretty offensive to Catholics
"They want meaningful relationships" - again social anxiety
"And people respond to kindness." - not everyone. Exclusionary to those on certain parts of the autistic spectrum.
"The same philosophy goes for networking" - I can imagine quite a few real philosophers getting offended about the belittling of their profession
"One good conversation is better than five quick ones every day of the week" - not the Shabbat!
"It’s for people who will never be more than middlemen" - think of all the middlemen out there, feeling excluded at this hate speech and switching off
"when you remember to be human" - deeply insulting to robots
And I've always thought of misogyny to mean the hate/dislike of women; in other words, a perpetual and sustained belief, but these days it seems to be attributed to singular insults/moments of disrespect. The two are related, and hate may imply disrespect but a moment of disrespect does not imply hate.
The point of the article was making fun of a small subgroup of humanity who like meatspace networking events in a format similar to cosmo-style psuedo-risque dating advice. And some folks don't like his use of an analogy of exhibitionistic-ish women. The problem is if you stick to a dating advice theme, what analogy would you prefer? White men can't jump would be much more politically correct because they're a politically safe target, but doesn't fit the theme at all. Also the theme of "lets make fun of suboptimal behavior of a subgroup" is completely incompatible with your proposed "lets pretend we're equal" theme, so the article not fitting your criteria is the opposite of a fail, under the defined theme and purpose of this individual article, however good it might be as general life advice.
So either its a great analogy for this specific text, or its a horrible text so the specifics of the analogies and other details don't matter. But it can't be both at the same time such as a bad analogy.