What in particular do you think has merit, here? Perhaps I'm missing something (it happens, of course) but I can't really see their point. I'll go through each point of GP's post and see what merit I can find therein.

>It should absolutely be solved, somehow, but it's not by harassing a company that hires women for what they're worth.

This is starting out at the point that the difference in wages arises out of how much the person is "worth", which may be true but I can't see any evidence for it, nor how you could accurately judge this.

>My personal theory is that women are so cherished - they aren't held to the same standards in education. We try to pull them into the CS department by making it easy for them. That should stop. It's ridiculing women, and making them into inferior workers.

This "personal theory" sounds like rubbish. Is there anything to support it, even anecdotal evidence? I find it hard to believe that CS courses are made easier for the purpose of bringing more women into them, and by their logic, it would also mean that the men who come out of CS degrees are also "inferior workers", so his previous argument collapses on itself. What's the merit in that?

>At the same time women need to proactively become 'beta' and study exact sciences. Put in their fair share of the effort.

Why exactly? Why can't women (and anyone) study what motivates them? And I think the conception that "soft sciences" (inexact?) are easy is quite demeaning to those who study it, and somewhat humorously the commenter is making this point having just earlier complained that CS being made easy is itself demeaning to women. What about this part of the comment?

>Fucking social sciences are "fun and easy" - and women outnumber men there.

So what if women outnumber men? So what if men outnumber women? Is the commenter saying that women choose social sciences because they're "fun and easy"? I'm sure some people find CS "fun and easy", too. Or some don't find it fun and easy. My friend is doing Sociology and he doesn't find it easy.

>I think women should man the fuck up already. Don't get fair salary? Go away. That's what men do.

Ignoring the fact that "man the fuck up" betrays and indeed perpetuates this commenter's perception that manliness equates to moral character and strength (itself a patriarchal conception), it does a disservice to our society to say that people should just leave rather than bargain for equitable treatment. Would the commenter say the same about unions for example? After all, union workers should just "man the fuck up already or go away if they don't get a fair salary"? It's an affront to worker rights.

>It sounds weird, but think of it this way: If women came at a discount, why would you ever hire men? At least some companies should realize this.

Because to my knowledge most countries have laws against companies which hire or fire only based on gender/sex. I don't know if the gender pay gap is "real" (I haven't done enough searching on this myself), and if it exists I do not know to what extent it exists (I know that there are various inaccurate or false figures floating around the Internet).

>Truth is you can't find a good woman programmer.

This is ridiculous and ignores the fact that there are plenty of female programmers.

Out of interest, where do you find merit in these arguments?

Edit: Why is this comment being downvoted? I have tried to make a calm and cogent response to the GP comment. Would the downvoters care to explain, please?