Neither does a men's, but they get to do that, and all the pre-race talk will be about who survives over it. The gradient of that first ascent is weak and so its impact on the field will be attritional without giving opportunities to add to the race, whereas in the men's race there are multiple platforms for attacking. In recent years the women have shown time and again that when given a course that's interesting they provide interesting races, but in the last few years there has been an active movement to keep the most talked-about obstacles for the main event, the men's race, rendering much anticipated selling points of major championships off-limits to the women. Innsbruck had ascents which were for men only in both ITT and road race, Doha's section in the desert - the only selective part of the race - was for men only, and the Mount Fløyen ITT climb in Bergen was for men only too.
It is set against this backdrop that the backlash against the Olympics RR has taken place. Because yet again it's a course that is insulting and self-fulfilling. The UCI's own argument was "men do lots of hard races, so they can do a hard race, whereas women don't have a lot of hard races, so they don't need as hard a race". Which is particularly galling when coming from the same organisation that arranges the WWT and specifically marginalised all of those races which did include significant climbing, in favour of a homogenised race of rolling-to-hilly races that favour the same type of rider (and then wondering why the same names keep popping up at the top of the result sheet and there isn't the extent of specialisation that we see in the men's péloton).