I think you are projecting onto the comment a bit.
If the usage of the word "scarcity" was what caught your eye (as an association with women being "resources"), it was simply pulled from the article, which labels the two contrasting types of thinking as "scarcity" and "abundance".
I think the real trick the top-level comment was trying to talk about is that you shouldn't think of women as a resource at all. It just kind of got framed as a resource thing because of the context you mentioned.
