It would benefit women if you took away their benefits.Let's actually quote a portion of it:
Also, government benefits tend to make people dependent, which is too bad considering how long women have fought for their independence. The example I use is the one of Social Security: Women depend on Social Security more than men. Based on Social Security data, almost 29 percent of women over age 65 rely on Social Security for at least 90 percent of their retirement income. That number increases to 46 percent for unmarried elderly women. These women are particularly vulnerable to changes in government policies. At any time, Congress can reduce benefits even for people who have paid into the system their entire lives. In a sense, it did that earlier this month by saying that Social Security recipients won’t get a cost-of-living increase this year.What a baseless accusation to make of someone who wants to make 90-year-old women more independent by not giving them money.
The reality is that the benefits these women are receiving from Social Security and are counting on receiving in the future are not a sure thing. If fact, we should all prepare for the likelihood that they will be reduced. Starting in 2014, the system will run a deficit, and the trust fund will run dry in 2037. Benefit cuts seem inevitable. Women stand to lose the most.
I have been getting a lot of very negative e-mails just for suggesting that women would be better off breaking their dependence on government payouts. As expected, I have been accused of wanting to put older women on a cat-food diet.