A few thoughts
This article addresses many of my own issues. I was encouraged into Science, but chose not to go on in Physics partly because of the maleness of the industry. There were so few role models for me, and I didn't have the strength to mold my behaviour to fit into the patterns you find in that kind of male-dominated discipline - so while male students were out drinking with their supervisors, I was hoping mine wouldn't want to pay any attention to me until I was *sure* I had what I was doing finished and absolutely faultless.
Since then, I've spent a lot of time on my computer as I try to decide on my next direction, and since my father and brother are kinda sorta hackers, and I've had a lot of fun with scripts as a Physics student, and I now run linux, I'd love to be a geek. But I don't know what to do - would uni turn out just the same way? Can I teach myself enough to get a foot in the door? And this article has been really enlightening.
Anyway, I have an interesting nature/nurture point to make. Just as you suggest that women are encouraged to be more social, I think I can extend that to say that in general women seek praise and credit for who they *are*, whereas men seek the same for what they can *do*. Who you are is bundled up with how you look, behave, etc. Obviously talent is a part of both of these, but it means we channel our efforts in different ways. And since praise, encouragement, acclaim etc. are important motivators for we humans, this means the work we do is to a great extent motivated by it.
This could be nurture-driven, but there is a nature argument. If you watch *any* nature documentary (wow, hard science here), it's always the female of the species who choses the male she thinks will provide the best genes for her offspring. This is demonstrated by strength, prowess, physical looks/display, etc. It may be the way some male bird builds a nest, or the way a baboon fights off opponents, but it's always the same philosophy. The male has to perform feats and demonstrations of what his genes could provide to her offspring.
However, the female's test comes when she has to raise her offspring. She has to know the nuances of the social group they are a part of, she has to be the teacher and the nurturer. Her skills have to be broad and many, and her communication has to be strong. Now we get into the realm of fantasy when we try to stretch these generalisations to explain the lack of geek chicks, but I think there's *something* there.