Organic chemistry is often a prerequisite for a career in biology or medicine. Women do fine in some parts of medicine, especially OB/GYN, pediatrics, family practice, and dermatology. There is also a wide range of 'biology and medical technology' careers where organic chemistry is from important up to a prerequisite; likely we should also include pharmacy. And some women might want to try for a career in research biochemistry.
Also chemistry in college can be a good path to a career as a science teacher in high school.
Similarly for mathematics: At a teacher training college, it is common for the girls to major in math on the way to being a high school math teacher. But don't look for girls in math departments in the better research universities or in the math oriented careers (say, DoD work or as a Wall Street 'quant').
Women are attracted to biomedical careers due to the role of human to human contact; generally women seek careers with such contact.
Although I omitted it, one of the strongest emotions of women, and one of their most common directions in hoping to get security from praise and approval from others, e.g., their community, is to have a career that "helps people", and biomedical careers seem to qualify.
Computer science as a college major has had ups and downs due to (1) the NASDAQ tech stock bubble of 1999 and its bursting in 2000, (2) the stories of software jobs going to India, (3) the role of the NSF in writing into academic research grants that graduate students must be supported and, then, the common practice of getting such graduate students from India and Taiwan and, thus, convincing many US citizens, especially girls, that they will not 'fit in' in computer science, and (4) a bubble and its shrinking for 'feminism'.
One of the problems with a woman being a computer science major is that so far it has not been a common K-12 certified teaching subject.
With 'feminism', some enormously talented and determined girls as high school seniors believed "Women don't have to just be cared for. Women and do things, too.", made terrific grades in college and let that reinforce their belief, charged into 'male' careers, and paid a very high price in lack of children, busted marriages, and sometimes even their lives, literally. "It's not nice to try to fool Mother Nature.".
That "A woman's place is in the home" and otherwise as either a nurse or school teacher has moderated. So, right, the patterns are not actually 'static'. But that women can do as well as men in any field where their 'rational' abilities seem to permit is a big, HUGE mistake as I tried to make clear: Rationality is NOT enough and, instead, an appropriate emotional 'environment' is crucial.
Also we have to consider: At each generation, there will be (A) some women who do well as mommies and (B) others who are weak, sick, or dead limbs on the tree. It promises to remain that technical fields will be much better for (B) than (A).
I omitted a huge point: At present the Western European gene pool is likely in the most rapid change in the last 40,000 years because genes of women who are not just DETERMINED to be mommies are being pruned out. So, in another few generations, we will be left with women who are determined to be MOMMIES.
There is another point hidden in the fog: As in E. Fromm, Western Civilization got the norm from the French Revolution that any difference was a threat of tyranny. So, in particular the norm was that men and women should be as 'equal' in all respects as possible. Combine that norm with some simplistic, naive 'rational' model that anyone can readily do anything their rationality permits, and can arrive at the long running story, back to 'the women's movement' and farther, that any difference in careers of men and women is evidence of something ugly or unfair. Then, in particular, as in this thread, we look for what is 'wrong' that so few women major in computer science. Uh, sorry, but that the fraction is small need not be evidence of anything wrong.
Fromm's summary remark was, "Men and women deserve equal respect as person but are not the same.".