The guardian has one of those usual rants about how, really and candidly I tell you, we have to destroy capitalism in order to reach true gender parity. OK, well, just add that to he list of reasons why we've got to destroy capitalism we suppose. However, there's one line in there which has an odd implication:
Rather, women are more likely to be reliant on social security and insecure work, and thus end up hit hardest by austerity measures.
If a reduction in government redistribution disproportionately hits women then doesn't that mean that the current structure of government redistribution is skewed in favour of women?
We can't actually see how that cannot be true. Sure, the social security system doesn't actually work upon gender lines. We don't say "you're a man have less money". We do say that if you're taking care of dependants then you can have more money. And it does generally turn out that women do more of the taking care of dependants than men do.
At which point we can say that the society seems to have some sort of bias in it. But if we look specifically at the social security, of the redistribution, system, then that initial statement cannot be taken as evidence of bias against women but in favour of them.
If reducing government spending disproportionately hits women then the current system, before reduction, must disproportionately benefit women. Given that first statement how could it be otherwise?