Sondra Shaw-Hardy and Martha A. Taylor with Buffy Beaudoin-Schwartz
San Francisco: Jossey Bass, September 2010. 304pp. Hardcover. ISBN 978-0470460665.
£28.99  www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0470460660

Philanthropy is still perceived as a man’s world, according to the authors of this book, who have had distinguished careers advancing women’s philanthropy, including setting up the Women’s Philanthropy Institute within the world-leading Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

Shaw-Hardy and Taylor argue that the widespread under-rating of women’s capacity and desire to be philanthropic is not only another tiresome example of sexism but is also significantly hampering the ability of charities to raise funds from half of the population. However, there is a world of difference between the fairly uncontroversial suggestion that fundraisers under-estimate the potential of female donors at their peril, and the rather more dubious proposition that a certain style and degree of generosity is a result of being in possession of a pair of XX chromosomes.

The authors subscribe to the view that “there are biological, neurological, and behavioural variations in women’s and men’s brains”; they cite research which claims that the two genders think differently, and consequently have different psychological tendencies, different moral outlooks and a different set of values. Thus the premise of their book: “if women thought in ways different from men, and their values were different, then their philanthropy would be different as well.” The success of this book is therefore somewhat reliant on whether the reader is willing to go along with the notion that ‘men give to Mars and women give to Venus’.

The authors clearly do believe that pink and blue approaches to philanthropy exist. They cite scientific research that concludes men and women are fundamentally different, and extrapolate from this to declare that “their motivations for and patterns of giving differ as well”. These alleged inherent gender differences mean that women bring “distinctive traits” to the philanthropic table, including a preference for collaboration, a talent for networking and a bias towards social justice philanthropy. Indeed, male philanthropists might be justified in taking umbrage at the claims made on behalf of fairer donors – such as women being more interested in bringing about change and making a difference, and women being less easily impressed by the status of the person making the ask – which risk painting male donors as dupes and walking egos with cash to spare.

Personally, I am more convinced by the research which argues that, despite popular assumptions, male and female brains are remarkably alike, but the subtle sex differences that exist at birth become exaggerated through processes of socialisation. Whilst there are clear and well-documented differences between adult males and adult females, this school of thought says these are not due to the existence of any innate ‘hard-wiring’ but to the experience of growing up, and being treated, as one gender or the other.

Growing up as a boy or a girl and living as a man or a woman involves being immersed in a male or female culture, which influences our behaviour far more than any tiny intrinsic differences between the genders. Furthermore, our behaviour is also shaped by the actions of other people. Whilst those researching gender differences in giving tend to focus exclusively on intrinsic causal factors, the crucial external factors - most notably being asked to give – are usually over-looked. Shaw-Hardy and Taylor make a passing reference to the fact that, “research shows that few nonprofits reach out to [affluent] women” but the authors fail to run with the idea that gender differences in giving are a consequence of structural factors such as how often, and how well, men and women are asked to give, rather than as a result of ‘natural’ gendered philanthropic behaviour.

The aims of this book are laudable. They include parity, such that women are “at the philanthropic table” alongside men; equality, so that “women are asked for gifts as often as men” and increased visibility for female donors, fundraisers, volunteers, leaders and mentors. Whilst these goals are uncontroversial, the logic set out in this book about why and how they should be achieved is more debatable. However, the book ends with some useful resources, including exercises to undertake with potential female supporters, questions to raise with women to explore their financial and philanthropic goals, ideas for a ‘women and philanthropy’ event and a list of further reading on this topic.

Readers may disagree, as I do, with the suggestion that male and female philanthropists are intrinsically different, but I suspect there will be far more consensus around the proposal that women and men have been treated differently by charities and their fundraisers. Therefore the main action that is required is change amongst the askers, not the givers. It is indeed time for a gender-blind approach to philanthropy, that accords equal respect to both male and female givers, and that raises larger sums for good causes with no regard for the chromosomal make-up of their donors.