I did keep reading, and I find that I do agree somewhat with their conclusion, but I wonder if they're aware of how ridiculous their framing is.
Of the many points I found objectionable, I'll focus on only one, the most egregious silliness:
It is neither "surprising" nor "curious" that "there is no concern about the under-representation of women in lower-level technical jobs, such as car mechanics or plumbing." Two paragraphs later they go on to spell out why it should be completely unsurprising: "the different numbers of men and women in these fields contribute, in part, to the sex difference in earnings."
If there's a problem with both A and B, and B generally pays 10x what A pays, I'm going to focus on the problem with B.
Duh.