I think I disagree with him, but he writes so poorly that I can't be certain.

It's a good topic, but not well presented.

Not even sure what his main point is, but it seems to be to defend some degree of traditional gender roles. And at the risk of being labelled 'sexist', I'd suggest that his position of male privilege makes it a mighty convenient point.

Actually I think that that is part of his point. If not, it's certainly part of mine. We seem to have reached a point where certain groups cannot be criticised by others because of something. To invalidate a man's point of view about sexism because of "male privilege" is nonsense.

Well 'invalidate' is kind of strong. I'd just say that it needs to be taken in context.

Yes, it is. Fair point. I've been dealing with 'weasel words' all week and I'm perhaps sensitive to the issue. It did occur to me (and I chuckled) that 'male priviolege' is a sexist term and I wasn't sure whether you were being ironic.

Male privilege is a real thing, like white privilege. There's no question that historically men have enjoyed greater freedoms, higher pay, and more opportunities, both personal and professional. These biases still exist. On the political front, men continue to make laws to restrict women's health choices.
If it's a sexist term, is white privilege a racist term?

By the same token, female privilege is also real then? Though perhaps not as expensive than male privilege. For the large part of the human history, the males were considered to be more expendable than the females. This was due to basic reproductive biology. On average, each woman can only be pregnant with 1 or 2 children at one time, therefore you need a decent amount of fertile women to maintain a tribe's population growth. While all you need is a few men to impregnate the women. This is the very reason that men have been considered to be the more expendable gender in society for much of the human history. Men had to prove their social worth amongst their peers through other means besides reproductive roles, physically inept men were chastised. And thus men evolved to have traits such as better bone density and muscle mass through millenniums of social and natural selections. While women did not have the same evolutionary pressure to develop similar traits as men and instead evolved to have traits that would better help them survive their pregnancy and nursing the young, such as storage of more body fat, etc. And likewise, women who couldn't bear children were also often chastised.

Unless the one is in a position of power. This has led women into being treated as valuable social commodities, and men being treated as social fodders. And both are dehumanizing. To acknowledge one while disregard the other is unfair and unproductive.

This has led women into being treated as valuable social commodities
Very revealing phrasing. and while you could make a point that as such, women at times have been valued and protected (as well as being enslaved and exploited), while men have been 'social fodder', think about who almost always has ended up calling these shots.

Call me what you will, but what popped into my mind after reading the first paragraph was, "Helen Mirren at 71 is still beautiful." I'm guessing most women would agree. Should I feel bad about myself for thinking that?

You sexist pig!

So by 'beautiful', do you mean 'fuckable'?
If so, you should definitely not feel bad about it.

That's actually a good question. "Beautiful" and "sexually attractive" are distinctly different, but non-mutually exclusive qualities, producing four possible combinations. In Ms. Mirren's case, I have to say she possesses both.

I'd agree, of course, but with acknowledgement to her considerable acting ability and intellect. Because the key here really is to embrace the full person, not merely their outward physical appearance.

Acting ability is a highly appreciated sexual skill.

Perhaps, though imparting and receiving actual orgasms is even more highly appreciated.

True. I had a crush on a girl in high school whose attractiveness to me came primarily from her amazing piano playing.

"Beauty is only skin-deep" is one of the oldest cliches, and yet it remains as relevant as ever when it comes to contemporary gender roles and assumptions.

That's the meaning, probably 90% of the time.