The concept of privilege implies that the majority of the members of a particular group enjoy some degree of advantage due to their membership in said group … it doesnʻt, and never has, applied to all members of the group. It is a useful concept if we use it to identify those groups that are—again, to some degree—disadvantaged, and look at how, and to what extent, we can minimize those disadvantages and, hence, level the playing field.

You appear to be interpreting it to mean that all men, in all situations, have distinct advantages—and then you look at individual instances and try to refute the idea. Respectfully, you are mixing apples and oranges and missing the point.

In every society there are formal power structures (offices and positions that typically exercise authority). There are also informal power structures (individuals who are not in positions of authority, but who may have great influence for other reasons). Great wealth certainly gives people the ability to exercise a disproportionate amount of influence—and 21 out of the 25 wealthiest Americans are men. Jeff Bezos is in the top position, followed by Elon Musk, etc. The wealthiest woman on the list is #12. So I think you have to recognize that the largest share of the influence created by wealth is enjoyed by men. Not you, and certainly not me—but still by men.

Regarding your comment about Queen Elizabeth … you were actually making my point: her power and influence have now passed into her sonʻs hands. Until recent years, virtually all of the hereditary monarchies followed male primogeniture—meaning that a son would inherit the throne before a daughter, regardless of who was born first. Once again: an advantage to a man simply because of his sex.

Have a good day.