I have no idea if you are asking this in good faith or not, but since I have little else to do, I'll give you an answer. The problem with the commenter's (Casanova-Quinn, from the linked TRP thread) evidence here is that he is using the difference between the average wages of men and women working within a single occupation (in this case, the disparity in pay between male and female models) in an article that attempts to refute the gendered wage gap (which, in the context of contemporary American politics, refers to the idea that, throughout the American economy, male workers are typically paid more than their female counterparts). Proponents of the wage gap are stating that generally, a man will recieve higher pay than a woman, even when one factors in things like credentials, job experience, time taken off work, etc. This a broad claim about the entire American economy, not just one sector or one specific occupation within the economy. As a result, this means that Casanova-Quinn's evidence is essentially irrelevant to the discussion at hand, as it is perfectly possible for female models to receive a far higher pay than male models, and at the same time for the average woman to be paid less than the average man. The existence of outliers within a large set of data (such as the average pay of men and women who are models) does nothing to disprove conclusions derived from said large data set. A good comparison would be trying to disprove climate change by citing the particularly harsh winter that occurred in America last year. The fact that one winter was colder in one area of the world does not disprove the conclusion that average yearly temperatures on Earth have risen, nor does it suggest that this trend will cease. The sample size (one winter in one area of the planet) is far too small. And it is fair to assume that this is what the author was implying because he is posting it as a response to a comment that sarcastically mocks the rhetoric of those who agree with the idea that the wage gap exists. The commenter also wrote the following in the next paragraph:

Of course we know why, fashion is a bigger market for women than men. It's simple economics. Yet if you reversed the genders, feminists would be yelling "inequality" regardless of the economics. Unless he was somehow attempting to subtly dismantle the argument set forth by the previous commenter and/or Maddox's article (which is an interpretation that I can't find any support for in the comment at hand), the most reasonable assumption is that this piece of evidence was posted as an attempt by the author to dispute the wage gap.