I feel like demolishing MaC's poins to be perfectly honest.
nclib: most feminists are intellectual, and of course, intellectualism is bad
Mac: first you are assuming that most feminists are intellectual. I see it as quite the opposite-mostly in the form of 'men oppressed us for 6000 years, and that pisses me off, so I gotta get back at them'
Have you ever
read any feminist literature? Not Andrea Dworkin or Valerie Solanas and those crazies who were truly only ever listenened to in the explosion of radicalism in the 70s (Given the some of the things Dworkin experienced in relationships with men it's not surprising she turned out the way she did.) but liberal feminism, libertarian feminism.. Feminism is a movement designed by it's nature to be libertarian, to free one's self from pre-conceived roles of 'gender'. (That isn't to say that there aren't natural differences between Men and women, but these differences must only be seen under the interpretation of culture. 500 years ago people's conceptions of gender differences would be different from ours.)
-any woman who speaks her mind is a threat to patriarchy, and of course patriarchy is desirable. However, if she is conservative, she can criticize any man she wants
-no 'archy' is desirable. If there are social norms, then it's not oppressive-difference between what's societally acceptable and legal. I don't know where you get the 'if she's conservative she can criticize any man she wants. 
But in general it is better to have more conservatives in society than liberals.
How can social norms such as, say, the practice of sati (ie. wife-burning) not be considered oppresive. In the history of the world most of the major political leaders, artists, intellectuals, people whose viewpoints we use to interpret our own world were men. Nothing wrong with male intellectuals (even if many of them had views vilier than Valerie Solanas) but literature and history has very little focus on the minds of females.
A society with more conservatives than liberals should scare me. But it doesn't as it describes the vast majority of cultures. (I'm talking of mentality here, not of actual fixed poltical 'actions')
-if a woman is married, she should lose her right to not be raped
-Why marry? Better yet-why would you marry and then not want sex? I suppose marital rape does happen, but why would she ever abstain if her husband was good at pleasuring her?
Why marry? I don't know personally I couldn't give a fig about a ceremony whose romantic connections are pretty much a Chivarly era-upper class\Victorian construction, one which has lasted for some reason, possibly to do with religion, but I really don't care what anyone else does. Why shouldn't women wish to abstain from sex - perhaps she is heavily preganant, or is suffering from illness or perhaps she just doesn't bloody feel like it. That should be her decision as much as his. Ireland just illegalized martial rape roughly 7 years ago.
-some careers should not be held by a woman simply because she is female. It does not matter if she has the right qualities for the job
-load of crap, nobody still says this. However there are physical limitations that are less likely for a woman to characteristically have. If it involves lifting heavy machinery or something that requires a great burden of physical exertion-by the law of averages and the way humans are built, a greater percentage of men are qualified for that job. Doesn't mean if she really wanted it she couldn't/shouldn't get it though.
What do you mean no-one says this? Look at the amount of women at head of major corporations recently, or political leaders, I have heard on this forum that Hilliary shouldn't be president simply because she's a she. (Admittely those were from annoying republicans anyway but it shows that such prejudices are still around). As for heavy machinery given that I have no personal body strength there are plently of women who could do a better job than me, a man.
-homosexuality behind closed doors is a threat to America
-no, but I am annoyed by the parades. I know a guy that likes sheep and he doesn't go prancing around saying "OMG LOOK @ ME I'm T3h Bestiality"
What does homosexuality have to do with anything anyways? It's not a problem for me.
Feminists allied with homosexuals as both women and gays were seen inferior within certain strands of mainstream culture at the time. The parades annoy me too. But free speech.
-women are meant to be mothers, regardless of whether they want to be
-if you take a pro-creation standpoint. At this point in history, our world is overcrowding though. Still, if there's a situation where in a family that a mother can opt for a full time job or staying home with the kids, it'd probably be incredibly beneficial to have a mom raising the kids rather than latch-key trying to raise them.
Why can't, now here's a radical idea, the father educate and stay with kids and the woman work. Not saying this way is better than the vice-versa option. But if I ever have kids that is how I would like it to be.
-an embryo has more rights than a pregnant woman since the pregnant woman is a woman and the embryo might become a boy
-again, utter nonsense. If your mom decided to abort you, would you support her decision? Better yet, if a mom could end an 'inconvenience' in her life by taking another life-well all is the better, no?
Not a fan of abortion but your arguments here are strawmen.
-women should take their husband's last name when they marry since it shows that a man is the head of the household
-it's not a matter of that-it's more or less to show unity. In Mexico they combine the woman and mens last names. I don't see any problem with that either.
Then how come in most cultures the children carry on the father's name? Family in western culture has usually been a very male-centred structure.
