The efficacy of social care, publicly and universally provided, has been contested from two different points of view. First, advocates of targeting social policy criticized the Matthew’s effect of universal provision and; second, theories arguing in favour of heterogeneous rationalities between men and women and, even different preferences among women, predict that universal provision of services is limiting women’s choices more than home allowances. The author tests both hypotheses and concludes that, at least in the case of adult care, women’s choices are significantly affected by women’s social positions and by the availability of public services. Furthermore, targeting through means-test eligibility criteria has no significant effect on inequality but, confirming the redistributive paradox, reduces women’s options.