Isn't the irony here that the author is not exactly a technical person? I don't think she made a great counter-argument about women and science/technology education. Even if she was, that doesn't mean the side she is rallying against isn't right. Women do succeed in spite of the "social norms," or whatever it is, but not proportionally for whatever reason and that's clear. It's kind of like an autodidact that wants to revolutionize education because of his or her personal experience, which do not necessarily apply to others en massee.
She's a social media person and a reporter, not a hacker. I think GP feels that this would have carried more weight if she was a kernel developer or open source guru, instead of someone who paid attention to the social aspects of computing more than anything else (she talks about BBSes, chat rooms, etc.)
As in, it appears her job history doesn't involve technical roles. She self-describes it as "writing, old/new media, entertainment, social media strategy, ideation, online communications and community management". Source: http://www.wulfeck.com/
This is a good statement from an accomplished, successful and apparently happy person who gives some credit to her parents for exposing her to computer programming and computer systems starting at the age of seven. What's not to like about this message?
