Equality already has a definition. A new one isn't required. Just because Egalitarian A and Egalitarian B have different ideas regarding how to achieve equality, doesn't mean the label isn't useful. I think where people have disagreements regarding equality most frequently comes down to people arguing over equality of outcome as opposed to equality of opportunity. Even then, there is often a lot of cross over between the two.

I should clarify here because I'm not strictly talking about definitions but rather applications and the framework that we use to determine things. This gets increasingly more of a problem when we start having to intermingle different factors and use those factors to determine what to do. So a Marxist feminist will gauge equality based on how class affects gender and equality. More specifically they'll analyze how capitalism affects and relates to gender and class equality. A radical feminist, however, will look at equality through the prism of two gender groups, the dominant one being males. Equality for them is in determining how the dominant group affects society, gender, and class to form and perpetuate an inequality between the two sexes and how to best rectify that. Using the framework for one will give you a different answer than the other. And this is all without figuring out equality of outcome, treatment, or opportunity.

One could even look at LPS and abortion as an example. LPS is seen by many as presenting an equal opportunity to men as abortion does to women. But is that really equal? Does the similarity of the result in a vacuum (having a choice to be parent) mean that other things shouldn't be factored in like in one scenario there's a child in existence while in the other there isn't?

The point being that "equality" might have an easy definition, but it's how you figure it out and apply it that's contentious. But the main problem I have with egalitarians isn't that they can disagree with each other, it's that I expect it because we're all egalitarians and assign different values to issues as they pertain to us. With MRAs I know that they will focus on getting equality in areas where men aren't. Likewise for feminists. I'm not one of those people who thinks that feminism should have a monopoly on gender issues. But egalitarians encompass all of those positions. It's kind of like the tautology of labels, that which covers everything tells us nothing.

Yes the labels are fairly specific, but you find just as many people disagree over how to achieve their end goals within these labels as you do among egalitarians. I would also posit that the vast majority of people who identify as feminist are not even aware of any of these labels.

Sure, there are most certainly differences of opinion within those labels themselves, but they do operate from the same basic framework or towards the same goal. I understand that anything I can say about any movement can be used for egalitarians as well, the problem is that I really don't know what egalitarians stand for anymore than a vague concept of equality. The most I've been able to determine is that for the most part many of them think that feminism isn't egalitarian, but I still have no idea why that is. There's not a lot offered in terms of the rationale behind why they consider CHS to be egalitarian while most of the rest of feminism is not. All I can see is that they disagree with it so it's then not. (Which is a clever way of saying that the group you're against is against equality)

Could you summarise for me exactly what this indication of beliefs is. I am not trying to be facetious, I genuinely would like to know, as from my understanding feminism at its most basic could be summarised as "Equality for women." How is this functionally different from "Equality for all"?

Generally speaking, feminism is a movement centered on equal rights for women and dealing with issues that affect them. They analyze society and issues from the position of how women are affected by society, class, and gender. Typically they incorporate women's subjective experiences to better understand how women are affected by specific issues or society-at-large and generally believe that women are oppressed or disadvantaged as a class. That is very general and anything more specific will wind up in a more specific mode of feminist thought.

"Equality for all" is fine it just doesn't tell me anything about what that person believes is important or an issue worth addressing. Functionally and technically it's no different from equality for women either. Equality is equality after all. One person can't be "more equal" than another. Feminism at least tells me where they focus their attention and what they deem to be important. Same thing with the MRM. Equality for all, however, encompasses all those viewpoints as I'm fairly certain that both MRAs and feminists want equality, what they believe is inequality and what's important to address, however, is where they differ. Incidentally, that's why their labels are informative and useful, because they let the viewer know where they focus their attention on.

Can you give specific examples of this. I am not exactly sure what you are talking about.

I know it was in relation to CHS and I've seen it pop up from time to time. I'll look for some examples but it might take me bit as I'm not sure exactly which one it was. It'll probably be tomorrow though because I'm just about to go to bed.