When I say that the situation is sad I'm referring to the loss to everyone involved by not realizing that the issue of work-life balance is a truly global issue, and by boxing it in with specifics (such as women only, tech worker only, etc), the debate is far shallower and loses out on a lot of important history.
.. but why?
The reason is that there should be no 'gender specificity' at all in the article. Including it is a mistake and detracts from the very important message and makes it difficult for male experts in the field to enter the discussion as well. It's a loss for everyone involved.
In spite of men treating women as equal and sharing responsibilities, in my experience, most of the time women carry the greater part of the daily load related to running a household and tending to children.
Women feel an unspoken pressure from society to have a clean beautiful well run house. Add to that the pressure to look good, be in a good shape and dress well.
They are bombarded with images of professional women in business attire and women in aprons cooking gourmet meals with children frolicking around. They are constantly struggling to be both these type of women.
On the other hand, society and media don't put out so many conflicting images of men. Men have been consistently expected to be bread winners, be successful in their professional life.
I am not saying, men don't understand that with a working wife, they have to lend a helping hand at home, but from what I have seen, women end up carrying most of the daily brunt and they feel like they must because of what they see on tv and thousands of years of history.
[EDIT: fixed typo]
So, if anyone, a man or a woman, is doing the majority of the housework and child raising ('second shift'), this article speaks to them.
Because it is a reaction to coverage and pressures on women to be overachievers for the sake of feminism and related causes. Other than that, no reason.