There are many potential examples, but I'll explain an example from my own experience. I'm a woman, and I've enjoyed tagging along with my male friend who is very friendly at conferences and similar events, talking to all kinds of strangers and having good conversations.
That looked like a fun skill to have, so I tried doing it on my own - introducing myself to other attendees, asking about their work and projects, etc. And I ran into a bunch of awkward situations where the person responded as if I were flirting with them (inevitably most of the people I talked to were men, since most of the people at those conferences were men). No, I actually just wanted to learn more about your company's business model.
I was copying my male friend's style of talking to other men, and I was interpreted differently. I've adjusted my approach now to reduce the chances of misunderstandings like that.
And your conclusion is that if a man did the same (copying a woman's style of talking to other women, and going around introducing himself to (mostly) women attendees), the outcome would be different? If not, it's not really a case of male privilege.
Her conclusion is that when she follows the standard advice to get out there and talk to people, the men she talks to think that she's flirting with them. Whereas when you or I talk to men, they very rarely think we're flirting with them.
A subtext that you may have missed is that it's very awkward and uncomfortable to have only one party to a conversation think that the conversation is sexually charged, and the possibility of that happening is a disincentive to circulating and socializing.
I thought it was a pretty straightforward observation, but hopefully my summary helps you. Translating basic human experience to nerd-ese --- all part of the service we provide!
I don't like your tone. I think I got all of the subtext.
However, my argument was that if the situations were reversed, the outcome would be exactly the same. Go to a place where there are predominantly women (any dance class or even a Yoga class, feminist conference), and if you and I would try to "talk to them like we talk to men", many of them would assume that we're flirting with them. Or do my observations not concur with yours?
First, I think you're wrong. My wife does roller derby. I have gone to roller derby events with her. What do you think the male/female ratio is there? How many women there thought I was flirting with them? Zero.
Second, I think your response deliberately discards context. If socializing at "dance class" made women think I was flirting with them, and I was thus disincentivized from going to dance class, I'd... what, be a poorer dancer? Britta's story is about a career problem, not a "not fitting into dance class" problem.
Finally, I think your response totally misses the point. You do not win any kind of rhetorical award for coming up with some kind of table-turning scenario about "feminist conferences", because those scenarios don't have anything whatsoever to do with Britta's experience. She wasn't trying to score points. She was explaining why a piece of standard advice given to people about making connections in their profession is difficult for women.
Maybe imagine you're a happily married account manager for a baby formula company and then when you go to professional conferences (of mostly women), every time you try to engage someone or get involved in a group conversation the talk subtly turns to nipple tenderness and mid-term horniness. It makes doing your job and life in general harder than if you were just another woman.
For one, I talk less to people I don't know; the potential for awkwardness changes the risk/reward calculation.
I am also more serious when I'm talking to people I don't know - less smiling, more matter-of-fact, cool instead of warm. This is artificial for me since I'm generally friendly, but apparently it's less confusing.
I spend a lot more time reading the situation to get a better feel for how people are likely to respond, including whether people at the conference/event are likely to already have a reasonable amount of experience working/talking with women as peers.
Or I find ways to meet new people while I'm with other people, such as joining groups that have positioned themselves to be open to others joining in. Or convincing friends - or people I've just met - to tag along with me to meet other people.
It's still sadly the case that in many parts of the world, if you're, say, gay, and you "get out there" and end up talking to the wrong person, they might gang up on you in the parking lot as you leave and beat the shit out of you.
It's fairly unlikely in a civilised surrounding, but civilisation is rarer than you think.
As a straight white male, your potential downside from getting into a chat with someone at a party does not include serious bodily harm. Most people are nice to you by default.
Another example: an outgoing, alone woman might be perceived as easy or sleazy by some Neanderthal-like person she talks to, and could end up with a lot of unwanted attention from saying hi to the wrong people. Again, unlikely, depends on the surroundings/crowd, but still.
As a white straight guy, going to a totally random party alone is a much safer proposition.
I assumed we're speaking about the first world. I totally agree that different people are treated differently by the (majority of the) society, but to speak of privilege... Maybe women are more likely to be touched by strangers in a club, but most of my male friends have already been assaulted, either in clubs or in the street. I was assaulted in broad dailght. I don't personally know any woman that had anything similar happen to her, which of course doesn't say much, but claiming that one sex (or race) has it uniformly better or worse than another seems a bit of a stretch to me.
Even the "first world" can vary greatly. You'll get a different risk profile in some small town in the middle of the bible belt in the US than you would in central London, for example. As I said, civilisation is rarer than you think.
It's not that it doesn't apply, it's just not as straightforward.
As a white, cis, straight male (with a good job, I might add) there are few venues you aren't automatically welcome at and compatible with.
Flip any of those variables and "just get out there" is less applicable or harder. It's not like being a white male is a cheat code at life, but you spawn with a fuller inventory and a couple rings of +2 less bulshit.
In before the tired allusion to going out for skittles and tea after smoking weed at midnight (in florida)
Reality is it applies to everyone and its just a "woe is me" strategy. I "can't" socialize because I'm not pasty white, well there's a load off my back I don't have to be responsible for anymore.
That looked like a fun skill to have, so I tried doing it on my own - introducing myself to other attendees, asking about their work and projects, etc. And I ran into a bunch of awkward situations where the person responded as if I were flirting with them (inevitably most of the people I talked to were men, since most of the people at those conferences were men). No, I actually just wanted to learn more about your company's business model.
I was copying my male friend's style of talking to other men, and I was interpreted differently. I've adjusted my approach now to reduce the chances of misunderstandings like that.