In the UK there is a requirement for public bodies and Government to do Equality Impact Assessments on any significant new policies (covering gender, race and disability).  The Treasury admitted that they did not do a gender impact assessment on the emergency budget (I doubt they did one for race or disability either but nobody is talking about that).  

The aim of an impact assessment is to determine whether there could be a detrimental impact that affects one group more than another, that is, indirect discrimination.  If negative impacts are found through the assessment then steps should be taken to mitigate the potential negative consequences.

The Fawcett Society took action against the Goverment for having not done an equality impact assessment on the emergency budget.

The Fawcett Society takes the cuts to court | Society | The Guardian

The Treasury is reported to have been stunned when the feminist Fawcett Society put in an application for a judicial review of its apparent failure to honour its legal duty under the Equality Act to give "due regard" to the impact on women.

The action followed an emergency budget that proposed an initial deficit reduction strategy of tax and benefit changes. Even before the projected 500,000 public sector job cuts (mainly affecting women) were announced, it was clear that women would be the biggest victims.

Even Tory MP Teresa May could see that some groups would be hit disproportionately.

Budget cuts could break equality laws, Theresa May warned chancellor | Politics | The Guardian

Theresa May, the home secretary and equalities minister, warned the chancellor that cuts in the budget could widen inequality in Britain and ran a "real risk" of breaking the law, a letter leaked to the Guardian shows.

The letter was sent to George Osborne on 9 June, less than a fortnight before his emergency budget, and was copied to David Cameron.

May wrote "there are real risks" that people ranging from ethnic minorities to women, to the disabled and the old, would be "disproportionately affected".

Some key figures are outlined in the Guardian today.

Cuts will hit women twice as hard as men, Commons research shows | Politics | The Guardian

Of the £8.5bn being raised by cutting direct contributions to individuals, £5.7bn - two thirds - is coming from women, while £2.7bn is being raised from men, the Commons library says.

In June's emergency budget £5.8bn was raised from women and £2.2bn from men.

That means that of the total £16bn being brought back into the exchequer by the coalition through direct tax benefit changes, £11bn will come from women.

Cooper shows that 70% of tax credits including childcare, working tax credits and other support is paid to mothers, as is 94% of child benefit. Some 60% of housing benefit, also due to be cut, is paid to women. According to the Daycare Trust, the spending review amounts to a £1,500-a-year cut in help with childcare costs.

Scroll down to the comments section and there you see the backlash loud and clear. For example...

Cuts will hit women twice as hard as men, Commons research shows | Politics | The Guardian

If the government is taking more from women, then it is taking back unearned crap given to women from men. You cannot take money from women, unless you make a special tax on women. What Mr Cameron is doing is stopping unearned payments to women.

Women deserve the cuts then.  Because we didn't deserve to have access to employment in the first place? And because we clearly don't make a productive contribution to the economy?  Various commenters accuse Yvette Cooper's statements of being based on thin air whilst making entirely spurious, speculative comments of their own.  Nothing new, I know.  But it makes me angry.

Never mind that the majority of women in the public sector are in low paid jobs, never mind that single parent households are more likely to be headed by women. Never mind that if affordable childcare and genuine flexible working opportunities aren't available then women are less likely to be able to do paid work. Never mind that women are still discriminated against in the workplace, and still don't have equal pay after 40 years of Equal Pay legislation. Never fucking well mind. The ConDem narrative on 'fairness' has really taken hold.

Not only has gender equality become background noise over the last few years, with progress on equality sliding backwards and experiencing more backlash - but now there is outrage at any suggestion that we should care about gender equality.  How are the Conservative's election claims to create the most family friendly country in the world panning out now?

The so-called 'quad' who make the key decisions on policy and the budget consist only of men - Cameron, Clegg, Osborne and Alexander.  The Government Equalities Office have taken a hit of 30% cuts.  The Equality and Human Rights Commission survived the bonfire of the quangos but has a huge budget cut.  The Women's National Commission was another not to survive:
Fawcett Society - Abolition of Women's National Commission: Fawcett's Response

"The abolition of the WNC will make it that much harder for government to devise informed policy that reflects the unique position of women in the UK. This decision also gives a clear indicator of the priority the new coalition attaches to furthering equality in the UK.

There is a whole separate rant to be had on disability and the demonisation of disabled people.  

Whilst the top 2% whinge that they will have to take the biggest share of the cuts, are they going to lose their homes? Will they not be able to eat? Will they have to give up leisure activities or have their children in schools with ballooning class sizes and shrinking resources, and no prospect of being able to afford a university education?

The Treasury have published an Equality Impact Assessment of the CSP, stating;

The Government is committed to fairness and promoting social mobility. Throughout the Spending Review process the Treasury has looked closely at the impact that decisions may have on different groups in society.

Find it here (pdf) if you can stomach it.  To me, it shows a profound and fundamental lack of understanding of inequality and how it manifests across different groups.

It admits that this isn't a categorical and detailed review of potential outcomes and that individual Departments will need to do their own.  Here are some gems:

Reducing Departmental spending will not necessarily mean increased inequalities if the same services can be provided more efficiently, or if resources are better targeted on the groups that are most in need of them.

...

It is likely that reductions in public spending will also lead to workforce reductions across the public sector. However, the decision of how to achieve the budget reductions necessary rests with individual public sector employers and therefore it is their responsibility to assess, and give due regard to, the impacts on equality of those decisions.

...

It may not always be possible to mitigate the impacts within a single policy while delivering savings. However, savings in one area allow for higher spending elsewhere, potentially on the same groups of people.

...

In order to understand the impact of changes in benefits and tax credits on men and women it is necessary to know how families share their income between themselves and their children (if any). It is not enough to simply know the gender of the claimant. It is therefore difficult to assess the impact on gender equality of changes to Child Benefit, which is paid to an individual claimant on behalf of the child, and not for the personal benefit of the claimant; as well as changes to tax credits which are paid on a household basis.

They've done an EIA, it just isn't a robust or good one, and it is shifting the responsibility over to the authorities who will have to implement the cuts.  

Bravo.  Fairness and equality, only if you can afford it.