Philanthropy and Charity
Philanthropy is distinguished from simple charity by its focus, characterized by:
Motivation – love of humanity rooted in altruism and a desire to promote the welfare of others
Resources – going well beyond monetary to the generous giving of one’s time, talent, expertise, and resources
Scope – not necessarily identified by the wealthy, but just about anyone who consistently contributes to social causes in a thoughtful, purposeful way
Intent – the overarching objective of creating meaningful, lasting positive change, often by addressing underlying conditions of inequality or injustice.
Philanthropy is more than heart; it is heart and head, combining compassion with a strategic approach to solve large-scale, pertinent social issues. The aspiration of this narrative is to understand the role of women in philanthropy and appreciate the uniqueness she brings to the art of giving.
The Fact and the Myth
Women are natural philanthropists and are often seen as natural caregivers due to a mix of evolutionary factors (hormones like oxytocin promoting bonding), societal expectations (traditional gender roles), and cultural norms (women expected to nurture), but this is a stereotype; men are equally capable, with caregiving being a universal human trait influenced by environment and opportunity, not just biology. While biology and socialization create stronger tendencies in women, men also possess nurturing systems, though they might express them differently due to upbringing and lack of emotional outlets.
- Hormonal Influences: Pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding release hormones like the "love hormone" that foster attachment and caregiving behaviors, giving women a biological edge in early infant bonding
- Natural selection favored nurturing traits in women as it increased infant survival, solidifying caregiving as a primary female role in our evolutionary past, research suggests evolutionary pressures shaped female neurobiology for nurturing behavior.
- Societies often implicitly expect women to be primary caregivers for children, the sick, and the elderly, shaping behavior and identity.
- Historically, women are more likely to stay home, increasing their involvement in caregiving roles, and the sociological expectations for women as caregivers.
- In many cultures, caregiving is seen as a moral or religious duty, especially for women, leading to feelings of obligation, expounding the morality and obligation of female caregivers.
- While biological and societal factors play a role, these are not destiny; human caregiving is flexible and influenced by environment and culture.
- Gender roles are shifting, with research showing men are capable caregivers, though societal barriers and different emotional expression can hinder their involvement, furthermore, challenging the ‘natural caregiver’ idea.
Key Findings on Women in Philanthropy
Higher Participation: Women are more likely to donate to charity than men, even when incomes are similar, with some studies showing 91% of high-net-worth women giving compared to 87% of men.
More Frequent Donors: Women are more likely to be active donors, with some research indicating 73% of global charitable donors are women, and single women are significantly more likely to give than single men.
Increased Giving with Income: A $10,000 increase in a woman's income boosts household giving by 5%, versus 3% for a man's income.
Focus on Women and Girls: Women donors are more likely to support causes related to women and girls, a historically underfunded area.
Key Findings on Men in Philanthropy:
Larger Individual Gifts: Men often contribute higher dollar amounts in single donations, a trend seen in some studies of alumni giving where male alumni give more per gift.
Traditional Wealth Control: Historically, men controlled more wealth, but this is rapidly changing with the upcoming multi-trillion dollar wealth transfer to women.
The Shifting Landscape
As women gain wealth and control more assets (projected to control 70% of assets by 2030), their philanthropic influence is growing, challenging traditional notions.
High-profile women like Melinda Gates and MacKenzie Scott are giving billions, leading the way in large-scale philanthropy.
Key differences in giving between men and women are primarily driven by motivation, approach, and cause preference, with women generally being more likely to donate giving more frequently across various income levels and making up a larger percentage of charitable donors overall and men historically giving larger individual sums and average amounts in sheer dollar amounts due to wealth disparity, however as we have seen, this amount gap is now narrowing, a beacon of hope for the world at large.
In a 2018 survey, 91 percent of high-net worth women reported giving to charity, compared to 87 percent of high-net worth men. Similarly, 56 percent of the women surveyed said that they spent time volunteering—compared to 41 percent of men. The motivations for giving that men and women report also vary, with women tending to have an approach to philanthropy that is motivated by empathy as compared with men. Two-thirds of women mention a specific cause they would like to support, compared to only one-third of men. In contrast, 44 percent of men say that they want to leave a legacy or make an impact, compared to only a quarter of women. This variation reflects trends typical of men and women, generally. Women, who tend to create more emotional connections to and engagement with the causes they support, differ from men, who are more likely to give from a more strategic mindset and be focused on impact and the personal benefits of giving. Seventy-nine percent of male entrepreneurs said they are aware that they can donate private equity directly to charity—compared to only 60 percent of female entrepreneurs.
In culmination, enlisted are a few key differences in the philanthropy of women and men.
Women are more prone to charity, whereas men are less likely to donate overall. Women’s motivation is driven by empathy, personal connection to the cause, and philosophical beliefs, and that of men is more by self-interest, tax incentives, impact, and a desire for legacy. The approach adopted by women is that they tend to give to a larger number of organizations and often engage in collective giving (e.g., giving circles) whereas men tend to concentrate their giving on fewer organizations. The causes supported by women are largely found to be social services, health/hospitals, animal welfare, and education (especially scholarships/students), and those of men religious organizations, youth/sports, and public-society benefit organizations. Women's giving has been more resilient during economic downturns. Women desire engagement and are more likely to volunteer their time and leverage social networks for causes they support whereas men are more likely to be motivated by potential reputation boosts from volunteering. Women are more likely to consider the visible impact and financial condition of a charity before donating, whereas men are found to respond more strongly to the "price" of giving (such as tax benefits).
History has seen the role of women evolve from the birthing, nurturing and caregiving confines of their homes to that of leaders and queens of corporations and kingdoms. The very word ‘giving’ takes an entirely different nuance for a woman – it is caregiving, sacrifice, prioritizing and placing the interests of others over self for the greater good.
The big WHY: Why Women Give Differently, in a nutshell and in the author’s words. “It almost gladly hurts when the woman gives”. Like the happily accepted discomfort of pregnancy and the pain of labor connected with childbirth. A woman’s giving is a step of faith in what is not seen but sure of attaining fruition. Women thus experience an intrinsic satisfaction and fulfilment in giving. It makes perfect sense that they give so much more than money. They foresee an investment – tangible and intangible, in selfless giving. They feel stronger, more rooted in purpose and intentional in giving, not just as architects of their homes, but of society.
