Not true. There are many dimensions of diversity (see: intersectionality). Straight, white, cis gender, able bodied, affluent, males are definitely at the top of the privilege pyramid, though.

True. Agism is a huge issue, as well. Thankfully, most of the diversity discussions I've been around (at tech conferences) are acknowledging the many dimensions of the problem. It's just the tip of the spear, though -- we have a long way to go.

Like many things, it's an all of the above strategy. People should invest their time, money, and effort in fixing the things they can have the biggest on. For instance, I may support a lot of causes, and within each cause I may support a lot of tactics -- but I invest in the tactics and causes where I can make a difference. If each of us takes that approach, we'll cover all our bases. For me, that means educating the non-technical on IP law, educating fellow WASPs on privilege blindness, and educating employers on how to write job descriptions that don't select for "ninjas" or "gurus" with egos the size of Mars (thereby scaring away most underrepresented people). What's most accessible to you?

Really? Anecdotally, I haven't met a feminist that wouldn't notice. Is it that we're talking to different people? Or is it that we're having wildly different conversations with the same people?

Gender parity is important. But women are the one's who are truly disenfranchised. It's a matter of picking our battles -- if you ask most feminists, they probably see the lack of men at FIDM as an issue, too.

I'm pretty sure research bears out that both education and hiring processes are deeply flawed when it comes to hiring underrepresented people. One issue may be more "root cause" than the other, but they're both important. I'm actually kind of surprised Code.org went on record saying this...