Keep Your Ovaries Off Our Rosaries

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/30/vatican.women.priests/index.html
Ah, yes, once again the secular media is having a field day painting the Catholic Church as a misogynistic and patriarchal organization. I don't really know how to break this down into an argument the average American can understand. With the Feminist Revolution having firmly indoctrinated recent generations, it is hard to explain to people why telling a woman she and the rest of her gender are excluded from something isn't "mean".
From a Biblical perspective, it's pretty clear that women were never meant to be priests. When God dwelt with Moses, the Aaronic priesthood was all male despite Miriam's active role in Moses' life. Many Levitical laws were given in order to help the Israelites break from pagan influence and to sow the seeds for Christianity. It would have been an ideal time to establish women's role as spiritual leaders.
Jesus never called females as apostles, despite having Mary Magdalene and His mother around quite a bit. Surely there were women around who would have fit the bill if God had intended it to be so.
It is hard to make this argument with a celibate priesthood, because a woman called to celibacy would not be impeded by motherhood from serving full time as a priest. Therefore, you simply have to say that God intended for men to lead society and for women to follow that lead. That automatically attacks the pride response in people when you tell them some other person has authority over them (how many people embrace "celibate old men telling them what they can't do in the bedroom"?), but really shouldn't. Obviously if a man asks a woman to sleep with him, the woman has an obligation to refuse, which means that God expects her to engage her brain in learning His divine laws and to follow them in her life.
You can also support this statement biblically by demonstrating that Adam should have not followed Eve's lead in eating the apple, but because he shirked his decision-making duty, we all suffer the consequences to this day.
Instead of seeing male headship as a slap at women, it really ought to be seen from it's true perspective. Men tend to be lazy. Men would be more than willing to let women do everything in society, Church, anywhere and they would only lift a finger when it meant they would get food or sex. By making them responsible for women and children, God gave men a mission and a purpose, a reason to not be lazy, a punishment for failure. Women (usually) are not lazy in the second fiddle position. They clean, cook, budget, rear children, attend pta meetings and playgroups to improve things for their kids and a million other things that men would probably not do if left to their own devices. When you start letting women be priests, men start slacking and women end up running themselves ragged trying to do everything while men waste away in front of the tv or internet porn. Denying women the priesthood doesn't tear women down, it builds men up and, like it or not, women need men to be built up. Society functions best when both halves act responsibly. Look at how it breaks down when a man walks out on his wife and kids.
At any rate, one need look no further than to churches that do permit female clergy to see my point. Slowly but surely, the number of female clergy grows and the number of parishioners shrinks. So to recap: men need the priesthood because they're lazy, women need to quit butching their hair and worshipping trees, and we all could stand to be a bit more responsible in this world and a bit more humble and obedient to God.