It's all good. I enjoy these kinds of discussions, don't feel bad! To be honest, a big reason why I do this is so that I can clarify my own views. It's like practice. If someone brings up something I haven't thought of, it's important I figure out how to justify it.

Anyway, if you don't mind, I'll address some of your points because I think they're important, and I think you seem like you have an open mind about things so if I can get you to think a little differently I consider that a net positive.

I'm just saying I feel to call the issues women face oppression brings up those ideas and presents the issues women face in a western society as much worse than they actually are.

They are often pretty bad. I say this as someone who used to think women just complained over nothing. Also, someone could easily say that about the issues that men face, and I think both you and I would think that was shitty. Men are oppressed by rigid gender expectations. Gay men are oppressed. Black and brown men are oppressed. Etc. To be a male in American society is definitely to receive a lot of benefits at the expense of women, but there are plenty of problems that men face that women do not.

Anyways, for men, I've heard suggestions to have the father be able to opt out of child support for no parental rights.

I think you'd agree that the potential for this opt out is hugely problematic. Sure, is the status quo perfect? No. But think of how much more an opt out clause would harm women than the current system harms men.

For the case of supporting the child, the government would ideally be assisting (since the current child support system is also a way for the government to make money and why it is punishable with jail time).

The gov has money to do this? You must not be from the US...

I think a good suggestion might be to make it so that an attempt to notify or talk with the father is done to inform them of the decision.

In a perfect world or a vacuum, sure. I know I'd like to be notified if any partner of mine has an abortion. However, to make this a legal precedent is:

a: not reasonably enforceable b: really potentially damaging to women and their autonomy and safety

By having all of these things coexisting

You mean they don't bomb each other? I don't understand, how are they coexisting?

I think almost every other feminist would like them gone, but they just sit by ignoring them, letting them taint the name of the rest.

wat?. I'm sorry, I know you mean well, and I've enjoyed discussing with you, but please acknowledge that you have some major gaps in your understanding of the different subsets of feminism.

Have you ever been to a community meeting of feminists? I have literally never seen so much strong opinion and vitriol hurled at other feminists. The process of writing in "feminist theory" is literally called criticism. Also, what about all the criticism of second wave feminism?