As others have said, if you strip out all the opinionated crap about religion, marriage and (possibly, I'm not sure how to read it) fatherless households, I think there are some decent points made in the article.
The main thing I wanted to pick up on was already covered by Dauric: yes, it is evident that, at the moment, women are not particularly close to equality with men, as a whole, but if there is significant disparity in further education rates, that will (should) eventually feed through to the overall averages on wages, employment, &c.* The problem, as was pointed out, is that you can't see this happening in the simple wage statistics until it's too late - if you only start looking at it if/when women's wages equal men's**, you may have a situation where the bottom half of the highskill workforce by age is 60%+ women, and the top half is still mainly men. As those younger women get older and are promoted, the wage balance will continue to change until it is far past equality. Hence, problems with imbalance in education need to be addressed now - it's like any process control problem (go Chem Eng geekery!), if you just use a differential control scheme you're going to overshoot the target significantly, you need some integral control action as well.
It would be very interesting to see the wage profile of the workforce broken down by gender and age. Is there still a significant gender wage gap in the 20-30 age bracket, or is the higher attainment of college degrees starting to to show in the younger sections of the workforce? I'm sure this information exists, but I couldn't find it with a quick search.
*Although women do have an inherent disadvantage while it is assumed that they will be the primary caregiver for any children. This causes a sharp drop-off in average earnings of professional women relative to men around the age of 25-35. Source
**The problem becomes even worse if you insist on finding the remaining areas where inequality exists. If you don't do anything until over 50% of CEOs, politicians, &c. are women, you may well have a situation where the rest of the job market has already 'overshot' equality significantly.
EDIT: This, of course, assumes one actually wants wage equality. There are some positions (notably manual labour) where men are just physically better suited for the work than women. Thus, it may make sense (if we assume manual labour is going to remain on the low-paid end of the spectrum) for women to have higher average wages than men anyway.