But the "essential criteria" for feminism from an historical perspective do not exclude misandrism. Feminism has been an organic movement seeking to combat the historical subjugation of women which contains variegated strands which often contradicted each other. And a few of these feminist strands and people working as feminists have been misandristic. This isn't to impugn feminism, but to recognize that there is no such overarching "platonic ideal" of feminism which excludes misandrism that you can use to define out some of these strands from the feminist whole.

So an equity feminist, an egalitarian feminist, a marxist feminist and a "man-hater" would all be feminists and they certainly will not agree on everything.

Historically Betty Friedan, Simone de Beauvoir, Mary Wollstonecraft, J.S. Mill, Stephen Pinker, Andrew Dworkin, the Redstockings and Valerie Solanas are/were all feminists even though they didn't agree on the causes of women's oppression, how these problems should be solved (I included Solanas because she tried to aid women's liberation by shooting Andy Warhol) or even the role men played in this equation. But they were nonetheless all feminists, considered themselves as such and acted/act as such.

The situation is kind of similar to a leftist saying that the Red Brigades in Germany or the Bolsheviks in Russia weren't "real leftists" because they killed people and were bad, and by definition leftists are all nice people like Bernie Sanders and Noam Chomsky. Well, yes, that follows from the definition given, but the definition doesn't match the historical reality. So the definition is incorrect. But even if the Red Brigades and Bolsheviks are included in leftism and we can agree they were bad, it wouldn't mean that there aren't other strands of leftism which seek to make a fairer world without these malign elements. And as with leftism in general, so too with feminism in general (actually much more with feminism).

I think the primary problem is that the strain of feminism found in American colleges is without a doubt an egalitarian, male-friendly version to which I think almost everyone here subscribes. It is to the left of equity feminism and to the right of marxist-feminism and is mostly bereft of "misandrist" feminism. And people who learn about feminism in this atmosphere conflate this general substrain of feminism (which probably includes the majority of feminists in general in the West) with "Feminism" in general and define any other strains of feminism which diverge from this strain as being "not real feminism", thus leading to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy above.

But this would be equivalent to assuming that all leftists are like my friendly, non-violent Marxist Latin American History professor from college and then defining out Mao Zedong and Pol Pot from leftism.

And now I feel like I've become much too serious and need to make a poop joke.