Shakira - who is profiled in this Sunday's NY Times Magazine - her boyfriend, and friends have started a group called ALAS, (Spanish for "wings") a group of Ibero-American singers who work to gain political support for early childhood education, nutrition, and healthcare throughout Latin America. Scott Malcomson of the New York Times Magazine says their goal

is on a scale beyond the reach of private charity. It requires the steady effort of the state. It cannot be addressed by rich countries' check-writing. So the trick is to take pop celebrity, marry it to big business and permanently alter the way Latin American governments help care for the young and the poor.

Shakira says "it has been scientifically proven that a kid that receives proper stimulation and nutrition during these early years will develop all their potential in life: intellectual skills, learning abilities, social and emotional abilities." She also says that, "for each dollar invested in the early education of a child, this child will eventually return to the state $17." Malcolmson argues that her project is different from the kind of celebrity activism so in vogue these days because of its scale — Shakira needs to get governments to change their policies, something mere benefit concerts won't do — and because it is homegrown.

Luis Alberto Moreno, president of the Inter-American Development Bank, explains:

When you compare everything that everybody has done - Bono and others - toward Africa, it has been largely G8-type artists, or from G8 countries rather, looking to Africa," Moreno explained. In the case of ALAS: "Latino artists are looking to Latin America, and I think that is unique. And I think that is extremely powerful, because their relationship is deeper as a consequence.

It remains to be seen whether Shakira's crusade will really change the world. Her meeting with heads of state at the 2008 Ibero-American Summit went well, but by 2009 skeptics were already wondering what it had accomplished. One Colombian columnist questioned whether Shakira really cared about the affairs of her native country, Colombia: she called Shakira "more Canadian than Colombian." Whatever happens, Shakira is creating a new brand of celebrity philanthropy, one that may be more in touch with local needs than that of Bono or Angelina Jolie. It will be interesting to see how it evolves.

Shakira's Children [NY Times Magazine]

The shift, explains US News & World Report, is due to women's "growing earning power, wealth, and financial control," but then the magazine goes on to take it in kind of a weird direction. Says Pamela Fiori, editor-in-chief of Town & Country magazine,"As women become more sophisticated and get involved in the workplace and world, we start to realize, there's a lot more [out there] than baking cookies and making pies—all of which is well and good, but there's also a world out there that we can serve and make changes to."

This may come as a revelation to Fiori's well-heeled readers, but the thing is, most of us aren't not doing charity work because we're just sitting around baking. If charity's just an alternative pastime for non-working people, it doesn't really explain why the numbers are up so much. After all, haven't rich women always seen charity work as an essential part of their lives? As Fiori goes on to say, women "feel it's their obligation and responsibility" to give to charity, expressing a sense of "noblesse oblige" that sounds anything but new. She even goes on to liken women's interest in direct, collaborative giving to that of Eleanor Roosevelt and Brooke Astor.

While I'm sure it's true that more high-earning women are giving generously and unselfishly — the article then gives a list of suggested guidelines for women wishing to make the leap into philanthropy — the piece doesn't go on to address whether some of the increase in numbers comes at the expense of hands-on volunteer work. Especially given the cookie-bakers Fiori discusses; are these dames just giving away the big bucks instead of putting in time at the local soup kitchen? Cause if so, that's not an unmixed blessing. Certainly plenty of us volunteer in part because it's all we can afford; I'm sure plenty of the newly high-earning women donating so much have no time for volunteering; but what about this leisured demographic? Granted, this is purely speculative, but it does seem like an increase in giving could certainly precipitate a move away from actual engagement with people, animals or the environment, which would be a shame.

The guidelines for giving include "Seek Inspiration" - i.e., give to something that has a connection to your life; "Recognize the nonmonetary possibilities" — volunteering — "Do your research" so scams don't take advantage of you, and "Get Help" from groups in your community and tax advisers who can help you maximize your deductions. Altogether, this list feels like it could have been written sixty years ago; ironically, it seems like the paradigm shift is encouraging a distanced approach to "philanthropy" — itself a far loftier and more weighted term than the humble "charity" — and away from volunteering. None of this is to diminish the gains of the powerful women who are giving generously, but only to examine these findings critically. Cause money's great, but it's always just a beginning.

Women and Philanthropy: 4 Ways to Get Started [US News]

Related: Women Making A Difference [Today]

Earlier: Putting Our Money Where Our Mouths Are

Perhaps, as Schrager points out, people are more willing to give money to animal organizations because they perceive animals as blameless. Battered women? Not so much. "Perhaps we prefer helping animals because we believe they have a greater need. People often think a battered woman is free to leave her situation, while animals are physically prevented from leaving," Schrager writes. "Humans are easier to blame for their circumstances. Because we do not grant animals the same freedoms, we also do not assign them the same level of responsibility for their situation."

So is it wrong to give money to animals when you don't give money to human causes? Is there a charity hierarchy that should be widely acknowledged?

Does One Abused Woman = 100 Abused Puppies? [More Intelligent Life via Newser]

Or maybe because she is not that intellectually curious and therefore lacks opinions that might lead her into something more meaningful!

Portman seemed to know enough about her subject — but no more than enough. I asked if she had the time to read books on economic development. Portman giggled and said, "I have time; I just don't want to."

That's not hard to fathom; Portman is a 26-year-old movie star. Still, she thinks of her discovery of poverty, and of this particular solution to it, as a pivot point in her life. She has stopped doing commercials. "I want to be comfortable and proud of everything I do," Portman says. She has designed a line of vegan shoes. She doesn't want to be controversial, but she does want to be taken seriously.

The Celebrity Solution [NYT Magazine]