No, I haven't given it any thought. I don't think there would be a differential impact between men and women. I assume men are more likely to be over the maximum insurable earnings.
It is surprising they're freezing the premiums at this time. I guess that means they're planning on going into a deficit in the fund, since the cumulative surplus is gone. Or they think the fund won't need more money in the next couple of years. I'm not sure why you would freeze it. What's the point of freezing it at this point?
I agree with the earlier comment, that basically the fund has drifted so far from unemployment insurance for people who are unemployed to maternity, parental, caregiving, all these other benefits and then training on top of that. In a better world, I think training would be funded out of a progressive tax system rather than out of a regressive payroll tax. I've already said that.