Gina Rippon writes:  The latest neuroscientific techniques employed to measure and map those brain structures and functions which might distinguish the two sexes are discussed in a recent special issue from the Royal Society. Daphna Joel had previously published a study of structures and connections in over 1,400 brains from men and women aged between 13 and 85, in which no evidence was found of two distinct groups of brains that could be described as either typically male or typically female. Brains were more typically unique “mosaics” of different features – something more correctly characterised as a single heterogeneous population.

Such a mosaic of features cannot be explained in purely biological terms; it is a measure of the effect of external factors. This is true even at the most fundamental level. For example, it can be shown that a “characteristically male” density of dendritic spines or branches of a nerve cell can be changed to the “female” form simply by the application of a mild external stress. Biological sex alone cannot explain brain differences; to do so requires an understanding of how, when and to what extent external events affect the structure of the brain.

The notion that our brains are plastic or malleable and, crucially, remain so throughout our lives is one of the key breakthroughs of the last 40 years in our understanding of the brain. Different short- and long-term experiences will change the brain’s structure. It has also been shown that social attitudes and expectations such as stereotypes can change how your brain processes information. Supposedly brain-based differences in behavioural characteristics and cognitive skills change across time, place and culture due to the different external factors experienced, such as access to education, financial independence, even diet.

The importance of this to the male/female brain debate is that, when comparing brains, it’s necessary to know more than just the sex of their owners.

Understanding how much the brains being examined are entangled with the worlds in which they exist must be part of any attempt to try and answer the question of what, if anything, separates male and female brains.

What is really meant by a “sex difference”? Taken straightforwardly, one would assume a “difference” implies the two groups measured are distinct. That the characteristics true of one are almost always not true of the other, that it’s possible to predict characteristics based on sex or vice versa, or that knowing to which group an individual belonged would allow you to reliably predict their performance, responses, abilities and potential. But we now know that this simply doesn’t reflect reality.

On a wide range of psychological measures, it’s clear that the two sexes are actually more similar than different.

The whole issue of male/female differences in the brain and the implications for male/female differences in any sphere – normal or abnormal behaviour, ability, aptitude or achievement – is really important to clarify. In the US, the National Institutes of Health recently mandated that, where appropriate, sex of the test subjects should be a variable in any research it funds.

U.S. companies spend millions annually on diversity programs and policies. Mission statements and recruitment materials touting companies’ commitment to diversity are ubiquitous. And many managers are tasked with the complex goal of “managing diversity” – which can mean anything from ensuring equal employment opportunity compliance, to instituting cultural sensitivity training programs, to focusing on the recruitment and retention of minorities and women.

Are all of these efforts working? In terms of increasing demographic diversity, the answer appears to be not really. The most commonly used diversity programs do little to increase representation of minorities and women. A longitudinal study of over 700 U.S. companies found that implementing diversity training programs has little positive effect and may even decrease representation of black women.

Most people assume that diversity policies make companies fairer for women and minorities, though the data suggest otherwise. Even when there is clear evidence of discrimination at a company, the presence of a diversity policy leads people to discount claims of unfair treatment. In previous research, we’ve found that this is especially true for members of dominant groups and those who tend to believe that the system is generally fair.

All this has a real effect in court. In a 2011 Supreme Court class action case, Walmart successfully used the mere presence of its anti-discrimination policy to defend itself against allegations of gender discrimination. And Walmart isn’t alone: the “diversity defense” often succeeds, making organizations less accountable for discriminatory practices.

In a recent experiment, we found evidence that it not only makes white men believe that women and minorities are being treated fairly — whether that’s true or not — it also makes them more likely to believe that they themselves are being treated unfairly.

We put young white men through a hiring simulation for an entry-level job at a fictional technology firm. For half of the “applicants,” the firm’s recruitment materials briefly mentioned its pro-diversity values. For the other half, the materials did not mention diversity. In all other ways, the firm was described identically. All of the applicants then underwent a standardized job interview while we videotaped their performance and measured their cardiovascular stress responses.

Compared to white men interviewing at the company that did not mention diversity, white men interviewing for the pro-diversity company expected more unfair treatment and discrimination against whites. They also performed more poorly in the job interview, as judged by independent raters. And their cardiovascular responses during the interview revealed that they were more stressed.

Thus, pro-diversity messages signaled to these white men that they might be undervalued and discriminated against.

In another set of experiments, we found that diversity initiatives also seem to do little to convince minorities that companies will treat them more fairly.

Groups that typically occupy positions of power may feel alienated and vulnerable when their company claims to value diversity. This may be one explanation for the lackluster success of most diversity management attempts.

So what can managers do? First, they must appreciate the potential effect of diversity messages on groups that have traditionally been favored in organizations.

Second, managers should know the limits of diversity initiatives for minorities and women.  They must be more than “colorful window dressing” that unintentionally angers a substantial portion of the workforce. Diversity policies must be researched, assessed for effectiveness, and implemented with care so that everyone in the workplace can feel valued and supported.

Rachael Jacobs writes:  A cursory review of 2015 reveals a world that’s far from inspiring. Bombings, gun violence, executions, domestic violence and a refugee crisis took centre stage. For these reasons we look to those who might bring light to dark places and use their influence to bring others to a places of hope rather than despair.

Here are five women who are are outspoken and controversial, using their intellect, skills, and tenacity to be highly influential on domestic, international and even intergalactic fronts.

Rose Batty  In 2015 Australia woke up the alarming epidemic of domestic violence. The choice of Rosie Batty as Australian of the Year was as brave as the woman herself, ensuring the issue would be kept at the forefront of our consciousness. Batty gave an articulate voice to the victims who would continue to suffer and be killed throughout the year.

Angela Merkel  The German Chancellor found herself at the forefront of several key world events of 2015. In her self-named “Year of Crises” Merkel showed leadership on the Greek financial saga, becoming the defacto leader of the European Union. Her response to the international refugee crisis gave a million refugees hope that they may be able to begin a new life.  Characterised by patience and compassion, Merkel has attracted deep criticism, even from her own party, for her moral leadership and open-door policy to refugees. As a result, her popularity has fallen.

Amy  Schumer made her mark in 2015 with the release of her first feature film, Trainwreck. Like Schumer herself, her character is unapologetically sexual, oozes attitude and is engaging to watch. She’s a refreshing celebrity who talks openly about dating, food, feminism and the media’s obsession with body.  Schumer has stated she’s not trying to be “likeable”, yet she’s the girl we all want on our team.  (Editor’s note:  When gun violence erupted in a theatre showing her film, Schumer immediately took to the airwaves discussing the irrational use of guns in the US)

Mhairi Black’s maiden speech to the British Parliament went viral, cementing herself and the Scottish National Party as forces to be reckoned with. The new 20-year old member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South was also the youngest person elected to parliament in the past 300 years.  Being from a traditionally Labour Socialist family, her words resonated with many as she declared that “it is the Labour party that left me, not the other way round”. Since then she’s been outspoken against the bombing of Syria and an advocate for women’s economic development. Her age, passion and sharp wit ensure that she’ll be heard for many years to come.

A fictional character, yes, but the scale of her influence is beginning to emerge. Played by little-known actor Daisy Ridley, this protagonist of Star Wars: The Force Awakens is undeniably kick-arse. More than that, Rey signals a departure from the previous episodes that portrayed female heroines as princesses.  She’s a leader to those around her, who are mostly men who are as flawed as they are moral.

Any list, by definition, is exclusionary. Aung San Suu Kyi’s victory, Patricia Arquette’s Oscar speech, and Clementine Ford’s activism against gender-based harassment make them all worthy of this list; 2015 was the year that Malala declared she’s a feminist, Nikki Minaj called out racism in the music industry, and the Matildas became the most successful Australian football team. Ever.

These achievements also highlight that there’s a long way to go in all these fields..The coming years will reveal even more influential women whose achievements must be celebrated.

Women’s financial literacy in India.  Reliance Foundation, the corporate social responsibility (CSR) arm of Reliance Industries, has tied up with Crisil Foundation, the CSR arm of ratings major Crisil, to raise financial literacy among women in Mumbai’s slums.

These women, from marginalized sections of the society, are usually kept out of the financial decision making process by men. Even the employed women hand over their salary to their husbands or fathers who manage the money. Psychologically these women do not feel adept at handling finance. While in reality they are much better at managing finances, a majority of them know nothing even about the basics of banking,” the Reliance Foundation release added.