Funding isn't evenly distributed across the philanthropy sector, claim philanthropy spokespeople. Of course not -- it isn't even a single sector. To fund any one organization within it is to anti-fund another, for they have conflicting aims. Aims change depending on which way the attitudinal winds are blowing: whether funding is taxpayer-based or private donation-based, it all depends on the dominant and competing social prejudices of the moment.
Whatever the "philanthropy sector" is doing, it has a twin, a hidden opposite doing the opposite. Look at the word "philanthropy": love of mankind. Some people don't love mankind; they prefer other species. The bumper-sticker is not joking which says, "the more time I spend with people the more I prefer my cat". Or someone might secretly agree with the satirical tongue-in-cheek observation of a certain poet: "We are here to help others -- but why are the others here?"
There is, then, a philanthropy sector and a misanthropy sector (a loving-mankind ideal and a hating-mankind honesty). And this is not even mentioning the powerful misogyny sector. Many groups' aims are objectionable to other groups. Humanity itself is objectionable, most of the time. How so, you ask?
Humans are
-- argumentatively unpleasantly combative
-- they take up too much space (eight billion on this one planet?)
-- they create huge paved conurbations, destroy landscape, cut down trees, fill the ocean with evil inventions like plastic
-- they bury other creatures' habitat under toxic cast-off wastes
-- they are noisy (who else would invent helicopters, chainsaws and leaf blowers?)
-- they are nosey, prone to spying on and stalking each other, and inventing mindless entertainment shows inviting others to watch them doing it
-- although noisy, they tell people with other opinions to shut up; many like censorship (and really love de-platforming)
-- they're okay with torture too, being cruel to other animals -- eating, trapping, hunting and performing savage laboratory experiments on them
-- their population doubled since 1970, while wild animal numbers declined by 68%
-- they're always asking others for money through charities and foundations
Clearly then, the "philanthropy sector" is a sector at war with itself, some parts being for free speech, others against it, some for hyper-urban growth, others for nature conservation, some for animal rights, others for animal-harming ethnic traditions, some for equality, others discriminating against "colonials".
Many people, even when feeling they should donate to a charity, are actually closet misanthropists. And that's quite apart from those misogynists …
