Eh, this should have gone to the Pit. 'Cause the “wackos” will be here shortly, and things won’t stay civil for long.
Anyway, the US has a nonreligious (officially) government and a largely religious population. There are large numbers of American people, especially here, who aren’t religious in any way, but the polls seem to indicate that at least a simple majority of Americans identify with a religion of some kind. I don’t know how many of those people are Creationists, but I’d expect at least a plurality.
Now, would I call those people “wackos”? Well, I’d call them ignorant and I’d hope they’d get some real science education, but I can’t call them “wackos” simply because a “wacko” is someone who is actually insane. If you posit that a plurality of all Americans are insane, you must come to the conclusion that the insane can act mighty sane in all respects.
Which negates the whole notion of insanity, really.
Militia members are rare. I live in Montana, the region most associated with militias, and I’ve never met a member and I’ve never seen a compound. I’ve heard news reports some years ago, and I can imagine that there may be a few living in the backwoods somewhere, but the absence of evidence leads me to suspect they must be vanishingly rare.
Also, note that very, very few gun owners are militia members. People own guns for numerous reasons, and to assume that all gun owners share a rather outrageous political doctrine is simply absurd.
Finally, I identify with the Libertarian Party. If you don’t know, that is a political party that does advocate a reduction of the size of government down to a level unheard of in modern Europe. However, very, very few Libertarians would advocate violence or other such asocial methods to achieve that end, and I would go as far as saying that those that do are not really Libertarians.
No, I’m not done yet. Nor am I flaming you. I’m simply stating my opinions of your opinions, and hopefully giving an American perspective on them.
As for anti-feminist women, yes, there are a few who would advocate the reversal of eighty-plus years of women’s liberation and voluntarily give up the vote, equal wages, and, indeed, any hope of living outside the home. But guess what? You guessed it: They are in a very small minority.
If you define anti-feminist as not agreeing with NOW, you’d get a larger group, simply because plenty of women think NOW is no longer speaking for anyone but itself. My mother, for one: She was a stay-at-home mom while I and my brothers were young, and she resents the idea that a woman is any less if she chooses to raise a family instead of pursue a career. NOW, in her mind, performed a valuable service in the 1970s, but has since become a self-perpetuating group of professional offenderati.
If my mom’s a “wacko”, well, I don’t think I need to tell you where to shove it. 
How do these people fit into our society? Well, how do fringe groups fit into yours? Pat Buchanan, someone whom you would doubtless consider a “wacko”, has never come close to winning the Presidency. In fact, the most important role he’s ever played was being the Candidate of Choice for old people from Florida during Indecision 2000. 
(If I need to explain my jokes, just ask.) I don’t know numbers, and I really have no way of tracking them down, but numbers really aren’t important: The impact they usually have on society is nil, aside from laugh value.
