I've never understood the presumption that any particular field of endeavor should have some sort of gender balance.

People - women and men - should be encouraged to pursue whatever career they want to pursue. It doesn't make sense to encourage women to pursue computing - no more sense than, say, detering men from pursuing it.

I take issue not with her analysis, but with the way she's framed the problem. Her frame seems to disregard the individual, sacrificing their interests to the alter of gender balance. I wonder if she assumes some moral, ethical, or other imperative for balance?

When people actually choose a career (most people just fall into a job they're reasonably good at), they'll use whatever discriminating factors are most important to them. Skill, pay, interest, risk - just to name a few. Without any evidence at hand, I'd guess that women and men tend to weight factors differently, which would lead to natural distribution differences.

Now, I should say that no one should be discouraged from pursuing a career because of what's between their legs. And wherever gender hostility exists, it should be eliminated - be it in an entire field, an office, or a single person. (Note: do not eliminate the person, just the hostility.)

The notion, however, that a field should somehow change itself to be more appealing to a particular gender is just bizarre.