The article begins by noting that there aren't nearly as many female engineers as there are male engineers at the tech companies. This is true. And this will be the question the article attempts to solve. Unfortunately, things go downhill from here.
First, the article points out that a former Facebook engineer did an analysis last year which found that the code of female engineers was rejected much more often than that of male engineers. So is this possibly evidence of sexism and therefore the reason why there aren't more women? Well, no. According to Facebook, the analysis was "incomplete and inaccurate" and if you take into account the rank of the engineers in question, then the rejection rates become equal. In other words, the only reason there was a difference is they were comparing low-level newbie female engineers against the most experienced male engineers at the company. Remove that difference and the supposed gender difference vanishes.
So why even mention this discredited study?
Well, because the author has little else to offer. Indeed, she suddenly jumps to this statement after mentioning the study and that it's probably meaningless:
While we have seen some positive change in more recent years, the reality is that there still aren’t enough female engineers at the top. The more women who progress to these leadership roles, however, the more likely other women will recognize their own ability to do the same.This is bait and switch. The author begins by mentioning a supposed problem and a discredited study which proves nothing and then jumps into advocacy based on this opening. Moreover, her statement is completely unsupported. Where is the proof that having more women at the top will somehow inspire other women?
And let me make this point, because I think it is the key point: this is loser thinking. I have never met a man in my entire life who needed to see someone else succeed before they decided they could do something. It is not part of our genetic makeup to need someone else to follow to help us "recognize our own ability to do the same." To the contrary, every man I've ever met has simply decided what he wanted to do and he went about doing it... whether anyone had done it before not. Moreover, the most successful ones did the things they did despite everyone telling them it couldn't be done.
If women want to succeed, they need to learn this. You will never be a success waiting for others to show you the way. You have to pick your own goal and make your own way.
The article then continues:
Perhaps there will never be a definitive answer as to why the proportion of men in technical positions, and subsequently leadership roles, far outpaces women.This is really ironic as the article has done nothing to look into this or advance our understanding of the issue... nothing. Yet, this author now speculates that we may never know. Gee, quit easily, do you? Seriously, she examined zero possible causes and now decides that, gosh, maybe we'll never know. Worthless.
Moreover, she then proceeds to tell tech firms: "don't just check the box. Take diversity seriously." But where is the evidence that they aren't taking it seriously? She just admitted she has no idea what is really causing this issue, so why jump to this conclusion. Where is the evidence that the lack of women in tech firms is in any way the result of anything tech firms are or aren't doing? In fact, doesn't the discrediting of the study above suggest that the idea she once again casually treats as true that tech firms are sexist isn't true? Could articles like this be the problem?
Here's the thing. Articles like this push a false belief that hinders many women. That belief is that somehow they shouldn't do something until their betters show them the way. Either they need to follow in the footsteps of female trailblazers once the path is well-worn and easily trod (read: exhausted), or they need the boys to pat them on the head and let them into the winners' club. That's bullship. No one ever won that way except the retarded children of alumni.
The real problem, as I have observed by watching the herd of young girls my youngest travels in (and other women throughout the years), is the very idea of this sisterhood. The sisterhood is like a union for women broken into competing cliques, and liberal society tells girls to join it. Television shows push the idea of the sisterhood. "Girl power" is all about joining the girl herd. So many moms I've seen warn their daughters to get in with the right herd. Feminists push the idea of one sisterherd all united in their victimhood by phallus creatures. Even articles like this push the idea by lumping all women into one helpless mentality.
The problem is, to stay in the sisterhood, you basically need to follow union rules: never work harder or try harder or be more successful than the least of you. Don't make anyone feel bad. That is exactly the recipe for failure. Boy don't do this with the exception of ghetto/trash cliques, where education is seen as some sort of trick. They have no problem competing or letting their friends excel - no one gets upset, no one feels betrayed by another's success.
So my advice would be this. If you want more women to succeed in science or any other field, then stop them from sabotaging each other throughout their lives, drop this sisterhood nonsense, and stop telling them they aren't expected to succeed until someone else makes them a success. If you want to be a success... chart your own course.