I think the author is doing that which she was trying to avoid. Men placed the man in the front and she saw it as male-centric. She changed it but she placed the woman in the front. What she did is the same as the male designers did: she put her gender in the front. Surely in our our age of gender diversity, both examples are equally narrow in their assumptions about gender identity: assuming there are only two.
Another point here. I think focusing so much in the appearance of the woman’s hair could be interpreted as advocating a clear separation between gender specific hair characteristics. Some would call it discriminatory.