My point is that the issue is completely blown out of proportion. I consent that this ad is targeted at men, so it shows things that appeal to men (not the least women being attracted to them). Would you say that in itself is a problem?

I think it is ridiculous to make that out to be a problem, because it would imply that no ads would be allowed to target men or women specifically.

If you show me that there are no ads trying to entice women into computing it is an entirely different matter (and presumably you would find few such ads in the 70ies - I don't claim they weren't biased). But dissecting a single ad doesn't make sense. Or rather, it doesn't make sense to deny the existence of sexual attraction and desire.

I'm sure you can find lots of ads where women do x (whatever, use some perfume, drive some car, whatever), and as a result men carry them on their shoulders or buy them a house, or whatever appealed to women at the time (maybe also men stripping for them, no idea). That would be "sexist" in the same way, except that it is ridiculous to complain about that because the desire to be attractive to the opposite sex simply is a fundamental part of human existence.