Frankly, it's absurd to call this tax anti-female, and the author knows better.  Her argument is essentially this: cutting out tax shelters exclusive to private corporations is bad for women because they are additionally burdened as primary caregivers? So why can't they use RSPs or TFSAs like the rest of us?  Why do they need exclusive tax shelters? I own a business. I hire sub-contractors. I also share work with other consultants.  While I don't technically hire "employees" my work creates substantial economic opportunity and benefits for others. But I have no access to these same tax shelters, because I am not incorporated. Assuming I'm a woman too, does that mean all tax is anti-female? The author should be ashamed for making such a red herring argument.