Female billionaires exhibit a distinctly different philanthropic style from their male counterparts. Women like Mackenzie Scott and Melinda French Gates tend to disburse their wealth rapidly, directly, and without the fanfare of naming rights or public ceremonies. This contrasts with male philanthropists who often rely on pledges for future giving and seek public recognition.
Related Insights
The idea that a billionaire can "spend" their net worth is flawed. Their wealth is primarily in company stock; liquidating it would crash the price and signal a lack of confidence. This misunderstanding of wealth versus income fuels unrealistic proposals for solving global problems.
Men often leverage their financial success as a primary tool of attraction in dating. In contrast, successful women frequently downplay their wealth due to a conditioned fear of being pursued for their money rather than their character—a concern their male counterparts rarely share.
The Ares Pathfinder funds embed philanthropy into their structure by pledging 5-10% of the firm's carried interest (promote) to charities. This model aligns financial success with social impact, has generated over $40 million, and inspired a wider "Promote Giving" movement.
The focus of billionaire philanthropy has shifted from building physical public works (like libraries) to funding NGOs and initiatives that aim to fundamentally restructure society, politics, and culture according to their ideological visions.
For the extremely wealthy, true luxury isn't material possessions but anonymity. By intentionally scrubbing their public presence, families can avoid the transactional relationships and emotional stunting that fame brings. This allows them and their children to be treated as normal people, a benefit that is nearly impossible to buy.
![[REPLAY] Morgan Housel – Same as Ever (EP.359) thumbnail](https://static.libsyn.com/p/assets/f/b/7/6/fb76e1c8bfb69e8dd959afa2a1bf1c87/CA_Square_logo_light_background_6.26.24.jpg){kind=logo}
David Rubenstein reframes the act of putting his name on donated buildings. He explains it's not primarily for ego but to serve as a visible symbol for others, showing that someone from a poor background can achieve great success and give back to their community and country in a meaningful way.
A critical flaw in philanthropy is the donor's need for control, which manifests as funding specific, personal projects instead of providing unrestricted capital to build lasting institutions. Lasting impact comes from empowering capable organizations, not from micromanaging project-based grants.
Jacqueline Johnson argues that true wealth is about long-term security and is often "quiet," while status is a loud, active pursuit of recognition. She prioritizes building a reputation for helping others over being seen at high-profile events.
Frame philanthropic efforts not just by direct impact but as a "real-world MBA." Prioritize projects where, even if they fail, you acquire valuable skills and relationships. This heuristic, borrowed from for-profit investing, ensures a personal return on investment and sustained engagement regardless of the outcome.
Data shows that while men reinvest 35% of their wealth, women reinvest 90% back into their families and communities. Empowering women economically is not just about individual success; it's a powerful strategy for circulating capital and creating systemic, positive change in entire communities.
