I'm pretty sure most Mens Rights groups just want Men to be treated fairly under law, especially when it comes to things like access to children and divorce settlements, which is completely in the favour of women by all accounts. There's no desire for anything more than that.
And feminists would say the same about feminist groups.
They'd both be wrong, for the same reasons. Although they'd both be sort of right too, in that they would both regard anything that benefitted their favoured group as being "fair".
Besides, if someone just wants some inequalities removed for the "right" group they're not after equality anyway, even if they do just want some inequalities removed.
An example:
A has 3 £20 notes, 1 £10 note, 2 £5 notes and £8 in coins.
B has 1 £20 note, 1 £10 notes, 8 £5 notes and £10 in coins.
To an A-ist who "just wants A to be treated fairly" and who actually means "fairly" in that context(*), 3 of the fivers and coins should be taken from B and given to A so A and B have the same amount of fivers and £1 of coins should be taken from B and given to A so A and B have the same value of coins too.
To a B-ist who "just wants B to be treated fairly" and who actually means "fairly" in that context(*), 1 of the £20 notes should be taken from A and given to B so A and B have the same amount of twenties.
Before: A had £88, B had £80.
After successful "really fair" A-ism: A has £104, B has £64.
After successful "really fair" B-ism: A has £68, B has £100.
A-B egalitarianism would consider A and B, not just A or B, and seek equality in all things.
After succesful A-B egalitariansim: A has £88, B has £88.
EDIT: In theory, you could get A-B egalitarianism by combing A-ism and B-ism. In practice, that's about as likely as combining far right and far left activists to get a centralist group. It might possibly be done on a small scale with less ideologically committed people, but it's not going to come to much.
* In practice, most if not all A-ists and B-ists would want a bigger inequality than that and rationalise it by claiming that since their favoured group identity had less in the past it should have more in present and the future to make things "equal". They'd probably use some silly nonsense about a race and laces tied together to pretend that the discrimination they want is equality. That's the most common form of the lie. They might even believe it - since they think in terms of group identities they don't even distinguish much if at all between people who are dead and people who are alive and people who will be born in the future. A is A is A. B is B is B.
