They don't just "seem advantageous to women at first glance", they are advantageous to women. I mean how the hell is not getting drafted not a privilege? If a person is excused from having to forced labor that everyone else has to do, particularly dangerous, dirty, unpleasant work that's a privilege.
"but when examined more closely they in fact reinforce sexist institutions that keep both women and men from true equality. "
But the definition of privilege does not include "doesn't reinforce institutions that are generally bad for the person", even assuming that "patriarchy" is generally bad for women, which isn't exactly certain. Many people get privileges from systems that are designed to keep them down, e.g. prison trustees, NCOs in conscript armies, mothers in sexist societies who get (often abusive) power over their children.
"This is because, although many strides towards equality have been made over the years, women as a class have not yet leveled the playing field,"
That depends on what you call "level". But more importantly nobody is claiming that male privilege is evidence of female privilege. People are saying that women being excused from duties or punishments and given things that men do not get is that evidence.
"While feminists do agree that the practices that are commonly ascribed to 'female privilege' (such as women being the recipients of chivalric practices) are expressions of inequality, they disagree that such practices should be considered a form of institutionalized privilege. "
But they are things that if given to any other groups would be considered privileges and are institutionalized.
"This is because being rewarded for not going against the status quo and being the recipient of institutional privilege are not the same thing. "
But these privileges aren't given for not going against the status quo, they are given for having a vagina and not a penis. Many men do not go against the status quo (most actually) and they aren't excused from the draft.
" The system of privilege uses that kind of reward system in order to perpetuate itself, but the existence of a reward isn’t proof in of itself of privilege. "
But the reward system by definition is a dispenser of privileges. It's not a reward if it's not a privilege.
"But the reason that benevolent sexism works and “female privilege” does not is because it better identifies the system behind the beliefs."
But again, the definition of privilege doesn't include a description of who give privileges. A privilege is privilege regardless of who gives it.
". However, the difference is that the status quo for men is one which grants them status and power "
It gives _some_ men status and power.
"whereas the status quo for women is one which limits their power to the much smaller, and more specific, domestic sphere."
But there is still power and status there. In any case some women certainly do get power and status from the status quo, and always have. Hillary Clinton and Queen Elisabeth I have far more status than the average man. The king's whore always had more status and power than 99% of men
"whereas men are presumed to possess the traits associated with competence at high-status roles "
And also at roles that are dirty, dangerous, violent and painful
"See, I think that some of the problems that men face now- some of the things that people like Burton complain about and see as examples of female privilege over males- are a direct result of the flaws a patriarchical system. "
If they were flaws why did they persist for the whole history of civilization? Conscription has been a constant for thousands of years, only starting to die out in the late 20th century (and it's hardly dead). The female privilege of exclusion from conscription has also been a constant for that long. Hard to see it as a "flaw". It's not like there hasn't been a chance to correct it.
"To summarize the point of this section: When it’s called benevolent sexism it’s recognized to be tied to the system of sexism, "
But when it's called female privilege it's also recognized to be tied to the system of sexism. It's just that both types of sexism are recognized.
"I’ve seen the argument floated around that if there’s such thing as “male privilege” that there must therefore be an equivalent of 'female privilege'. "
By who? Has made this argument?
"The tendency of most people is to think of “privilege” in terms of its common usage, which is an individual advantage that a person can earn and possess. "
You mean they think of privilege in terms of what it actually means.
"But the problem is that male privilege isn’t that kind of privilege; it’s a kind of privilege that is systematic, rather than something that an individual has control over."
All privilege is systematic, and the individual doesn't have control over any system of privilege. Not even the ostensible rulers can do that.
"It’s different than the common usage because it’s specifically backed up by institutional authority "
ALL PRIVILEGE IS BACKED UP BY INSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY! God you're dishonest.
"Or, as it is put most commonly, the counterparts to privileged groups are that of the non-privileged groups."
So then for you privilege is all or nothing? I guess you've never heard of intersectionality.
"To summarize the point of this section: Since the concept of privilege inherent in the term “male privilege” expresses a hierarchy (ie. an in-group/out-group dynamic), the placement of men in the in-group (because of the power that their class holds) necessitates placing women and other non-men in an out-group (because of the lack of power). Thus, “female privilege” doesn’t work as a counterpart to “male privilege” because it doesn’t fit into that dynamic."
But that only works if you assume that those in the out-group have no privileges. But that is rarely if ever true. Blacks in the USA for instance had the privilege of not having to live up to sexual norms like fidelity. Women aren't expected to risk their lives for men like men are supposed to risk their lives for women. Most famously of all Jews could become money-lenders. I would guess that most out-groups have some form of privilege that the in-group doesn't have. That it is less significant than that of the out-group goes without saying, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This entire article has been nothing but an elaborate denial of facts known by any who care to see.