Then why did the conference organizers allow the 9-year-old to attend and participate, going so far as to feature her presentation on their own website?

TechCrunch endorsed the 9-year-old girl's attendance.

You do bring up a very interesting point: examples of racism are just as likely to be dismissed as isolated incidents rather than symptoms of a more widespread phenomenon. Racial minorities in tech experience a lot of the same issues as women do, and the same frustration with the dominant paradigm refusing to acknowledge that it's actually real.

I'm pretty fortunate--my current workplace (I'm a woman in IT, obv) is as you describe, men and women working together in a pretty egalitarian environment. But even I'm not so naive as to think that my experience invalidates all of the other examples of sexism in the industry. For one thing, the happy scenario you describe hasn't always been my experience. It isn't the experience of many other women in the industry. And you don't have to visit any linkbait websites to see evidence of this, either. Try attending a tech conference like this one and just talk to the women in attendance about their experiences. Better yet, listen.

I wish I had a dollar for every tech job posting I've seen that required more years of experience with a certain language or skill longer than said language/skill has been in existence.

Good point--but it often happens that churches will deny access to social services to individuals that do not fit the church's definition of acceptable conduct (disclosure: I worked for a church with a homeless ministry--part of my job was connecting people with social services in the area). This could be something as simple as not being a member of the church, or something more fundamental like being gay or having a child out of wedlock. It's one thing if the church is prioritizing distribution of Sunday's collection plate offerings, but if it's taxpayer dollars then discrimination of this sort should not be tolerated.

Has anyone ever "gone clean" after you've debunked them (closed their business, publicly retracted claims, admitted fault, etc.)?

I don't know that "we" are the ones who are so strangely territorial about our bandwidth. Open wireless networks were a lot more common in the USA before ISPs started shutting people down for it.

It hasn't even been so long since ISPs had a problem with in-home networks of any kind. And it wasn't because they were worried about viruses or CP, either.

Remuneration yes, to creators no. Copyright law was developed to protect the livelihoods of publishers by granting a limited monopoly on the means of reproduction (i.e. printing presses).

Peanut butter's not a bad burger binder either.

I had Dr. Baase as a professor at SDSU for assembly language as well as a course with the same name as the book (albeit a much earlier edition). The book is a good read and Dr Baase definitely knows her stuff, but as previous comments have pointed out her book doesn't do more than touch on issues of copyright. What I remember from the ethics course had mostly to do with privacy and personal information, but being an undergrad course it didn't do much more than provide a broad overview.

I think part of the issue stems from the fact that what you'd call racism or sexism would merely be called "prejudice" by many scholars and experts on the subject. To a lot of people whose business it is to study these things, racism and sexism are specific cases of prejudice with the added component of institutionalized privilege or power. In such a context, the average American white male could indeed be the victim of prejudice, but not racism or sexism because it's still white males who are the dominant group in America (the "lowest difficulty setting", if you will).

YMMV of course; you may not agree with the definitions as they're used or commonly understood (and there are compelling arguments for and against defining them this way). But it may help you frame future discussions of this nature--I doubt parent is trying to say that men/whites are never victims of prejudice (and this is a problem), but it is a fundamentally different kind of problem.

Your argument might be more convincing if you provided evidence that this cultural backlash against men has actually resulted in a structurally-supported norm of female privilege in each of the arenas you mentioned.

I'm sorry that you've been made to feel "male guilt" (while I'm female, I'm also white and have experienced similar discomfort dealing with my own privilege, so I know well what "white guilt" feels like), but your hurt feelings are not sufficient proof of the systemic subjugation of men (in the video game industry? Seriously?). You seem very concerned that men have to "pass laws and decree pro female bias" but you're overlooking the fact that it's still overwhelmingly men who are in the position to pass those laws to begin with. This harms both men and women--and the guilt isn't a matter of assigning blame, but collectively shouldering the responsibility to make things more fair and equal.

So is it that the other 28 items on the list are demonstrably untrue, or are you merely choosing to exercise your privilege to disregard them (#29)?

It seems to me that family/home environment would have at least as much influence in "setting expectations." Children typically have a pretty good intuitive grasp on gender roles, and their culture's expectations of same, well before they enter the first grade.

Julia Roberts is the textbook example.