Well that's not feminism. Sounds like someone who wants to discredit feminism has hung a whole lot of other things on it, hoping to slur feminism by association.
The first one - thinking that all prostitution is inherently bad for the women and that there cannot be anyone working in prostitution out of his/her own will - is basically a mandatory part of being feminist here in the UK. Essentially every major feminist activist organisation thinks this way, and they refuse to accept groups or individuals who disagree as feminists. If you go looking for a feminist group near you, you'll find a list set up by UK Feminista, a joint effort between all the major feminist organisations which refuses to list any group which doesn't think this way. Oh, and they're the feminists who have all the contacts in the press, which they use to smear women who disagree with them.
Interestingly, I've basically never seen anyone refuse to accept feminists who think this way as feminists, except when it's inconvenient for some argument they're making about feminism being all sunshine and roses and equality. The net effect of this is that nominally reasonable feminists - like presumably yourself - are actually supporting these extremists by protecting them from criticism.
While you are correct that people looking to discredit feminism often cast aspersions and claim that xyz behavior is the work of the feminist movement, which it is clearly not, there are plenty of self proclaimed feminists who are nutters. I doubt they want to discredit feminism, but by their acts they certainly fall into what people might call "extreme feminism". I call them what they are, which is man hating. Feminism (as I know it) is about establishing both sexes on equal footing.
A prime example of the nutters below; If you are not familiar with Dworkin, she is famous for many stupid, stupid things.
"In the book, she argues that all heterosexual sex in our patriarchal society is coercive and degrading to women, and sexual penetration may by its very nature doom women to inferiority and submission, and "may be immune to reform""
What can I say. All I have is a stack of dictionaries to check. Your beloved Wikipedia itself begins its feminism article "Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights" which agrees with the dictionaries I have and also with the simple definition I used above. If you think that using that definition means I'm guilty of No True Scotsman, our methods of rationality are so far apart that we are literally incapable of communicating.
Take another look at the definition you cited. Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining...equal political, economic, and social rights. All you are doing is excluding people whose definitions of "equality" you think are too extreme using a classic No True Scotsman argument.
Arguing this angle is pointless. I'm a marxist, and so face the same battle of the tons of people who use the term in a completely different way to myself. Including people who self-identify as marxists.
I've had conversations with people who also considered themselves marxists where our only point of agreement was that in "their" ideal society I'd probably be considered a criminal dissident, and would probably be involved in armed uprisings, and that they'd very much enjoy to see me locked up.
For a while I tried to fight the "wrong" usage of the term and related terms. Then I thought about picking other terms myself.
But eventually I realized that what worked best was simply to acknowledge the "wrong" usage, and distance myself in suitable way depending on what I write. E.g. by also using a more descriptive term, such as liberal socialist or left-communist, that most people either know or have to look up, that does not have the same immediate connotations.
As Friedman said, the ultimate end is the search for the acceptable means, and I think your little exchange highlights this pretty well.
Turns out, ideologies are rather good at branding themselves to appeal to all kinds of people, and at first blush, most ideologies sound eminently reasonable. That in no way implies that the actions of adherents to such ideologies are the same, or that the overall structure of the ideology couldn't lead to disagreeable outcomes.
The whole declaring equality and rights for all is the easy bit; that's just the ultimate end. The means, the dirty work of "defining, establishing, and defending", is where everything can and does go to hell. Feminists are just as susceptible to this problem as everyone else, and when they get it especially wrong, they create the blowback you are seeing.
It's the extremists who self-identify as feminists who create that association, not "someone who wants to discredit feminism".
While it is disingenuous of critics to treat those as representative of feminism in general, it is equally disingenuous for feminists to act like they don't exist.
