4 ms·
The research on the subject goes back 50 years to the 1970s and is essentially considered open and shut. As a rule of thumb, men will interrupt women 3x as muc
by freddie_mercury 7y ago
The research on the subject goes back 50 years to the 1970s and is essentially considered open and shut.
As a rule of thumb, men will interrupt women 3x as much as women will interrupt men.
You can Google and read dozens of studies over decades all repeatedly confirming it in various cultures, countries, and jobs. It applies to women Supreme Court justices and to women janitors.
FWIW, instead of the confrontational "is there any reason to think", I feel like a more humble phrasing would come across better, especially since you didn't seem to know about the research on the subject. And knowledge of it is pretty widely known, as it comes up and is discussed frequently. A recent example were the Democratic debates where, once again, the same dynamic played out and was discussed in the popular media.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/592732/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article...
- kranner 7y agoI'm well aware of the phenomenon but it is not the kind of interruption I'm talking about. To be clear, I'm talking about men-interrupting-men-and-women-because-they-are-interrupters vs women-interrupting-men-and-women-because-they-are-interrupters, and not men-interrupting-women-because-they-are-sexist. The context of the article is the former, clearly. Also, I don't consider "is there any reason to think" to be confrontational.
- freddie_mercury 7y agoI think you are misunderstanding the research. It shows exactly what you are talking about; the link discusses just one recent subset of the phenomenon. Men interrupt men more than women do. Men interrupt women more than women do. Men interrupt more than women.