Sure, it just depends on what type of feminism we're talking about (as with any group of people).
There are extreme feminists just as there are, say, extreme Christians (e.G. Those who boycott funerals of "sinful" people). Simply because there is confusion about who the representative people of the group are does not mean there isn't any useful criteria for that group.
We could take several groups of people (e.G. Liberals) and debate about what makes them those things. But their definition may depend on many factors, unlike feminism. According to Wikipedia, feminism is "...Aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women." It's equality for the female gender, in a nutshell. Anything that promotes male inferiority is, by definition, not feminism. It's supremacy. Extreme feminists who call themselves feminists are really just trying to make themselves look better. "Feminist" makes you sound like a hero to some. It sounds nice. That's how they want themselves to come across.
The criteria for being a feminist is sparse and easily accessible which allows for what some people argue is a "misrepresentation" of the ideals however because of the lack of criteria it is presumably impossible to oust these people as actual dissenters from the greater goal. The events in May, for instance, referring to #KillAllMen contained people who claimed to be feminists, and they may have been, even though a lot of feminists disagreed with their violent stance, but this duplicity in the nature of the situation is confusing as it doesn't set a precedent for which side is correct and which side is wrong.
To say "Those aren't REAL Feminists!" produces a "No True Scotsman" (http://www.Logicalfallacies.Info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/) fallacy but without any actual standard by which to measure them by other than a loosely associated ideal of female political progression there is a loss of sensibility in communication and discourse on the situation itself. In essence when people say "Feminists are HORRIBLE!" they are just as correct, referring to the misandrist groups as their opponents would be in saying "Feminists are WONDERFUL!" referring to the more Humanist groups, and this all doesn't incorporate the grey area groups who simply seem to be either Feminists in title alone and don't know, understand, or care for the doctrines by which they claim (as it's just hip to be for Equality, which is more Egalitarian than Feminist from a functionally political understanding; Bandwagon mentality) or Feminists because it seems like they should be because even though they aren't particularly active or incited one way or the other they simply support it through various channels like Humanism through their own natural presentation of beliefs.
The lack of clarity is stifling towards the progress or recognition of progress to be made for the group, and it would be for any group, but it is hard to say other modern groups face the same critical problems since they have tighter definitions and controls than Modern (3rd) Feminism.