Women in Philanthropy: Will they change the direction of philanthropy? Is their approach to philanthropy different from that of men?

Please enjoy our second post from the Chair and Executive Director of NYU's George H. Heyman, Jr. Center for Philanthropy and Fundraising!

One of the most talked about aspects of philanthropy today is the increasing importance of women in philanthropy – as fundraisers, foundation executives and as donors.  The latter are of special interest today, as women now own 51% of the country’s wealth and 65% of the stock traded on the stock exchange every day.  They also own 6.2 million businesses; they have high powered jobs and high salaries in corporate America and are expected to inherit billions of dollars in the next five decades.

From the time our country was formed, women have always been involved in philanthropy.  The first scholarship in America was given to Harvard by a woman, Lady Moulson, in 1641.  Throughout our history women have given generously of their time and money to help “the poor and the orphans;” to establish women’s colleges; to support education, the arts, churches, medicine and scores of social programs.  The difference today is that the number of women involved in philanthropy and the extent of their wealth has increased dramatically.  And while the women in the past generally were shy about publicly announcing their gifts (as a concern with money was not ladylike), that is hardly the mantra of today’s woman.

In short, the gender gap in philanthropy in giving money, publicizing such gifts, and in exerting the power that money provides, is closing.  Indeed, in some cases it may have already closed.
Yes, there are still more men sitting on the boards of prestigious non-profits.  Yes, more men are still giving larger gifts than women of comparable wealth.  And yes, many women are still not as knowledgeable as men on the use of tax benefits in the design and formation of large gifts.  But here, too, the scene is changing.  More women now sit on boards; the size of their gifts is increasing; and many have financial acumen – certainly those who are working and earning their own money.

What Would George Washington Do?

When we read about Bill Gates’ new foundation, made possible by his extraordinary gift of $30 billion dollars and the $32 billion added to this Foundation by Warren Buffett – a Foundation to help eradicate poverty, disease, illiteracy, and to advance education and medical research – and then read of an additional 70,000 Foundations in this country, most of which are also involved in trying to make the world a better place – we rejoice in the extraordinary generosity of the American people and the unique role that philanthropy has played in this country.

Oddly enough, I do not think George Washington would be as enthusiastic as we are.  In his farewell address to Congress in 1797, he warned against “associations” formed by small groups of people -- “an enterprising minority… of ambitious men” that “subvert the Power of the People and usurp for themselves the Reigns of Government.”  He and other political philosophers of his day were concerned with reconciling the idea of political equality and egalitarianism with the right of people, usually wealthy and influential people, to come together to promote their ideas and their areas of special interest.  He worried about the dangers that this provoked for the rest of the population who did not have the same access to the government that wealth provides.

In a brilliant essay, Peter Dobkin Hall states:  “Popular intermediary bodies presented a dilemma of which 18th century political theorists were well aware.  Formed around special interests… they not only diminished the sovereignty of the state by representing themselves rather than government as legitimate forums for the expression of the popular will, they also favored propertied minorities with the resources to devote to their establishment and perpetuation…  The founding fathers having overthrown the greatest military power on earth using voluntary associations such as the Sons of Liberty knew all too well the dangers posed by non-governmental popular assemblies and regardless of their other differences united in denouncing them.”