This is an example of the fallacy of poisoning the well. – It is a good example how propaganda works.
The poisoning (by the first earnest sentence about the men) operates by ideological verbal shift (“be in the majority” --> “dominate”) suggesting (but nearly impalpably) a ubiquitous (social) bias. If sentences like these are printed in the media or read in the TV news, they induce a subliminal programming of the public. – But this kind of speaking is ubiquitous in the media.
In the case of the sentence about the men, it is thought as a reproach (of a bias). Everybody knows these sentences, how women (and homosexuals etc.) are victims of the (natural) social order, which however is the basis of a healthy people with an intact identity. Hence the second, thereof independent, sentence about the women is nevertheless an echo of the former sentence. It is meant ironically and additionally serves to increase the general mystification. These sentences are members of the same class even if they are from different articles. Probably they are coined by the same propaganda corporation (which is part of the same network that controls the bulk of the newspapers, scientific journals and electronic media).
The description (“evaluation” as you say) of the situation has hence in these sentences been subliminally and nearly impalpably supplemented with the suggestion* of the existence of a (social) bias (of a healthy folk) against the (crude) dogma of the equality of all humans.°) – That this suggestion* is nearly impalpable, effectuates that it is almost ironclad, because someone who feels that it is fishy, nearly cannot articulate it, since he risks to be called a quibbler.
A bias is always a questionable motivation. It is called bias regarded from a certain point of view*, which is suggested as the right one. Hence to suggest a bias is not a fallacy unless that point of view* is part of a manipulative ideology or mission (to poison the well and the identity), which is obviously the case here.
°) This is the politically correct or freemasonic standard dogma, which is a manifestation of Rumpelstiltskin’s principle.