Philanthropy is in a moment of questioning. The field has increasingly embraced calls to shift power, center lived experience, and prioritize relational ways of working. In this context, the visibility of women-led philanthropic efforts and the rise of what’s often called feminist philanthropy might seem like signs of progress.
But what happens when we pause and examine more closely the values being uplifted in these shifts—care, empathy, humility, collaboration, healing? These values are long associated with the feminine and historically assigned to women in ways that have both enabled and constrained their power.
In this article, we invite readers into the paradoxes of the feminine in philanthropic spaces. On the one hand, these qualities offer alternatives to dominant, extractive modes of giving and organizing.
On the other, they can reproduce gendered (and racialized) expectations that cast women — particularly women of color — as natural caregivers, healers, and moral beacons without transforming the deeper logics of patriarchy or coloniality.
We are not here to reject the turn toward care and relationality. Instead, we ask: Who gets to be seen as a giver in philanthropic contexts? What kinds of labor and value are made visible—and what remains invisible?
When we celebrate the rise of women in philanthropy, are we amplifying their agency or reinforcing familiar roles with a new gloss? Gloss changes appearances—it celebrates ‘representation’ without redistributing power and embraces the language of empathy without challenging the architectures of inequality. In a field shaped by centuries of extraction and hierarchy, transformation cannot be decorative.
An expression of identity or a gendered imposition
Philanthropy - understood as the act of nurturing collective well-being through the sharing of resources, time, or energy - has often been seen as an extension of women's social role, positioning care and generosity as “natural” extensions of femininity.
From the ladies of charity of the 19th century to today's transformative donors, women have woven support networks and catalyzed social transformation. Across generations, women's work in philanthropy has often been more than a gesture of generosity—it has been a practice of resistance, a way to reclaim power, and a force for reimagining systems, paving the way for structural changes and promoting socio-environmental justice.
When we pause to ask whether women’s engagement in philanthropy is a genuine expression of solidarity or a historical imposition of gender roles, we enter a field shaped by complex and often contradictory dynamics.
For some, philanthropy becomes a way to consolidate influence within existing systems. For others, it becomes a vehicle to challenge them altogether by directing resources toward transformative, justice-oriented causes. In light of this, women’s philanthropy cannot be reduced to charity or assistance. It often reflects political choices, strategies for change, and a new way of seeing social action - not just as a duty but as an affirmation of agency and protagonism in the public sphere.
There is an intrinsic challenge in attempting to articulate the relationship between philanthropy and the feminine because constructed social and economic systems determine that the feminine belongs to women and has specific characteristics, a constellation of values, sensibilities, and ways of acting (with empathy, collaboration, intuition, care, and receptivity) that have long been associated with the feminine but are not exclusive to any gender. To explore this terrain, it is essential to deconstruct and denaturalize the universal conception of what it means to be a woman or what constitutes the feminine.
An intersectional approach considers various social markers that cut across the experience of being a woman, such as race, class, sexuality, disability, gender identity, and geographical location. Still, this text focuses on the dichotomous polarization present in a broad social imaginary, where the masculine is aligned with culture, rationality, metrics, and science. At the same time, the feminine is, as mentioned, tethered to nature, emotions, affection, and care - very often positioned as of lesser importance or in need of being managed.
Within the spectrum of what has been historically associated with the feminine - especially under the influence of the Enlightenment ideals - social action and rights-based struggles began to take root and gain visibility in the philanthropic field. Figures such as Jane Addams and Madam C.J. Walker, in the United States, and Bertha Lutz in Brazil, became early references in the 19th century. In the 20th century, Ruth Cardoso stood out in Brazil. The 21st century has offered us Melinda Gates, Oprah Winfrey, and Mackenzie Scott in the US, and Sueli Carneiro, Célia Xakriabá, and Neca Setúbal in Brazil. These women have stood at the intersection of rights advocacy and political influence, shaping social landscapes through their activism, militancy, and philanthropic initiatives.
Still, philanthropy is a participant in the context of narratives that have long naturalized a secondary role for women. In societies where jokes about “a woman's place” are still laughed at and where gender-based violence must be criminalized just to ensure basic rights, these undercurrents persist. Philanthropic practices are also shaped by the logic of sexism - where traits historically coded as masculine characteristics, like rationality and detachment, are valued over care, empathy, and relational insight.
As philanthropy shifted to a strategy approach, care has come to be seen as unprofessional, carrying the implicit belief that relationships and emotions are liabilities rather than resources in decision-making. In this shift, the mutuality embedded in the feminine - the recognition that giving and receiving are entwined relational acts - has been eroded. What emerges instead are more commercialized and verticalized dynamics, often shaped by the interests and knowledge frameworks of wealth-holders - frequently white men - positioned as the central architects of change.
Even within a sector where their presence is strong, women must continually organize to assert their rights and influence. The struggle for equity, in this sense, is not just external but internal to the very spaces that claim to advance social good. This is echoed in findings that show that we are far from gender parity in leadership. Boards, where key decisions are made, are predominantly male, controlling over 88% of the sector's financial resources. The gaps in racial representation are even more stark, underscoring an urgent need to move beyond symbolic inclusion toward real, systemic change.
Feminist Lens and Practices
Feminist philanthropy, still in its early formations in Brazil, does not simply invite more women into existing systems of giving; it calls for the unmaking of the historical architectures of inequality that shape who gives, who decides, and who receives. This approach names the patriarchal and extractive foundations of the current capitalist system and works to reorient philanthropy towards redistribution, participation, and justice.
International organizations and networks, such as Frida Fund, Mama Cash, and AWID, have been cultivating philanthropic practices that support not only donations but the transformation of power relations by influencing public policies and funding social movements and activists to guarantee women's rights. In Brazil, initiatives such as the ELAS+ Fund, the Marielle Franco Institute, and the Agbara Fund stand out by directing resources to actions led by Black, Indigenous, and LGBTQIA+ women. These efforts are not only expanding access—they are reshaping the terrain of what philanthropy can be.
And yet, no organization is free from the residues of the very systems it seeks to challenge. A feminist lens does not guarantee feminist practices. Just as an anti-racist commitment may still echo colonial patterns, so too can well-intentioned philanthropy replicate patriarchal logic if deeper reflexivity is missing.
The transformation of philanthropic practices requires an internal change, an attunement to the threads of modern thought that have shaped both giving and governance. Looking ahead, we know that approximately 30 trillion US dollars are projected to pass into the hands of women in the coming years. This transition carries profound potential. But to truly change the story, we need a philanthropic field that honors complexity, integrating love and strategy, intuition and effectiveness—not as opposites but as necessary companions. A space where generosity is not reduced to charity and where women's value is not conditional on their conformity to masculine norms of leadership, logic, or legitimacy. From this ground, giving can become not just an act of redistribution but a collective reimagining of how we live, relate, and co-flourish.
.gif)
