Skip the primary navigation if you do not want to read it as the next section.
Skip the main content if you do not want to read it as the next section.
An analysis of every published article about philanthropy in UK newspapers in 2006 revealed a distinct difference in the way the media reports the activities of male and female philanthropists.
When the subject is a male philanthropist, journalists tend to focus on the size of their fortune, how they made their money and details of their luxury lifestyle. But when female philanthropists are mentioned, they are often described in trivialising ways, focusing on what they look like, their private life and their family connections.
A typical example of a male giver in the press is, “Irvine Laidlaw [who] founded the world's largest events and conference company…He now has more time – and money – to donate to politics, philanthropy and his passion for fast cars and boats”. Whilst a report on Michael Brown explained that he “made his £100m fortune in property and city trading before moving to the Balearic island where he has two mansions, a fleet of cars and a private jet”.
Media treatment of female donors is typified by references to the cultural philanthropist Louise T McBain, known as the “£260m blonde divorcee” who once dated Prince Andrew, and Ann Gloag, who is encapsulated as a “Perth-born former nurse” who is now a “diminutive, demanding and driven” billionaire. Other women who can claim great philanthropic achievements are described dismissively as “a reformed socialite and former model” (Renu Mehta), “a fabled beauty” (Queen Noor) and “doyenne of the silk-stocking district” (Brooke Astor).
The journalist Natasha Walter, author of The New Feminism, comments, "Of course it's the case that much more attention is laid on the personal lives and the looks and style of women philanthropists – that happens to women in every walk of life.”
There is still some cultural discomfort about the existence of rich women, especially those who created their own wealth in traditional ‘male’ worlds such as finance and manufacturing. Walter adds, “Perhaps it makes it easier for us to feel comfortable with them if we exaggerate their feminine qualities. That means we read an awful lot about women who have made their money in fashion, such as Tamara Mellon, and not so much about women who have made their money in less ‘girly’ businesses.”
Media coverage of philanthropists may also reflect societal perceptions of the ‘proper’ role for men and women. As Walter concludes, “The mainstream media very much like women who spend their money on feminine causes – children, animals, breast cancer, ballet – and if women take up harder causes such as human rights, then they can be seen as a bit threatening. But those women are the inspiring ones – women such as Dame Anita Roddick, or Sigrid Rausing, who is unusual because there is this political, feminist aspect to her philanthropy."
Increased media coverage of philanthropy is, of course, a welcome development. But more even-handed treatment of male and female philanthropists would be even more welcome.
Download Newsletter
Subscribe