Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    There's a note somewhere in V1 or V2 of this conference about
    male/female language.  The linguistical research I'm familiar with
    suggests strongly that males and females have, in general, different
    speech patterns.  Males tend to interrupt the conversation more,
    preventing the woman from making her point.  Males also tend to kill
    conversations more by one word responses or, worse still, no response
    at all.
    
    There's a book out called, I think, "Language, Sex, and Power" which
    has a lot of information about this particular phenomenon and which
    societies it tends to be prevalent in.

    I partially agree with this.  I do think that more men than women
    interrupt, but I also realize that there are men who don't do this
    and who are good listeners and interesting conversationalists. 
    I do think that, in general, women are brought up to feel that they
    have to please other people more than men are.  And, I think that
    men are brought up to believe they should be able to control situations
    more than women are.  This can result in men appearing to be much
    ruder than women in many situations.
    
    Something related to this, that is a situation that seems to follow
    me through life, and that often disgusts me, is that many men seem
    to feel that women *have* to sit and listen to them while they go
    on and on talking about some of the most boring topics imaginable.
     However, I have noticed that some of these same men, who may have
    kept me cornered for hours listening to something I have absolutely
    no interest in, will think nothing of jumping up and walking away
    from me the minute *I* start talking about something that they find
    boring.  Not *all* men do this.  Some men I know I think are better
    converstionalists than most women, but *too many* men have done
    this to me *too many* times.  (and it's starting to p**s me off!)
    :-)  If they can just jump up and walk off the second they're bored,
    why can't I do the same thing to them?  Because I was brought to
    believe it wouldn't be *nice*, that's why!
    
   Another common, and very rude, tactic I have seen men employ in heated
    conversations is to suddenly announce loudly, "This conversation
    is over!"  My reaction is, "What do you mean it's over?  Not as
    far as I'm concerned it isn't.  I still have more to say!  Don't
    tell me it's over when I still have more to say!"
    
    I have to stop thinking about this stuff before I have a fit! :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    In my personal experience, it certainly is accurate.  If you can,
    sit back and watch the dynamics of who speaks and who is heard at
    your next meeting - it can be really eye-opening.
    
    I have reached a point in my life where I face this problem directly
    when I am confronted with it in my personal conversations.  When
    I am interrupted, I state (reasonably calmly) "I hadn't finished
    making my point...." and continue from the point of interruption.
     Generally this means that I ignore whatever he had said, which
    can be instructive for him.  If it gets really bad, I will say "You
    have interrupted.  Please do me the courtesy of *listening* to what
    I have to say.  Otherwise, we can't have a conversation."  I haven't
    yet had to add the line, "If you are the only one who can talk,
    it is a lecture, and I won't be here for it."
    
    Yes, I am generally the facilitator of discussions/conversation.
     Usually, the male gets to make his points first.  (Actually, other
    women do also, with me.)  In fact, I perceive this in one-on-one
    conversation as putting me in the more powerful position - I know
    what the other person's position is before they know mine.  In meetings
    this doesn't work the same way *at all*.
    
    Alison 

    
    When Dr. Deborah Tannen (I think that's her name), author of
    *That's Not What I Meant!*, a book on human communication gave a
    talk a couple years back, she related this fine anecdote:
    
    This was in a group situation where they were discussing human
    communication, and a couple (male and female) was present.
    He said, "Oh, in our family *she* does all the talking!" and
    everyone laughed because all evening *she* had been as quiet as
    a church mouse, and *he* had done *more* than his fair share of
    the talking.  He was hurt by the laughter, because to him his
    statement was obviously true.  Dr. Tannen showed him that although
    it was probably true that his wife did more talking when the two
    of them were alone, in group situations, *he* was the talker!
    

    The topic previously mentioned from womannotes-V1 is
    
    654 - men's and women's speaking styles
    
    Also kind of pertinent is (in this notesfile)
    
    47 - women and self confidence
    
    -Jody
    

    Dale Spender wrote a book called MAN MADE LANGUAGE.  It explores this
    issue and others, including lots of supporting studies.  I recommend it
    highly.
    
    One study compared men's and women's ways of conversing.  They gave
    single sex groups a problem to solve, and 15 minutes to do it in.  When
    they emerged, the men had one or two solutions thought out in detail;
    the women had five or six creative solutions.  To arrive at their
    decisions, the men created a verbal "pecking order".  Interruptions
    were common, part of jockeying for position as top guy.  The women, in
    contrast, listened to and solicited contributions from everyone. 
    Interruptions were few.  The men were "competitive," women were
    "cooperative."  Of course, when they got the two groups together, men
    "won" speaking time, because they were applying competitive rules
    instead of cooperative rules.
    
    What I learned from this is that interruptions by men are not
    *necessarily* a sign that I am less valued because I am a woman.  They
    may be part of a general speaking style that men are socialized to use
    on everyone (that conflicts with the general speaking style that women
    are socialized to use).
    
    I tend to face this problem directly also.  I either REFUSE TO BE
    INTERRUPTED BY CONTINUING TO TALK (competitive approach) or raise my
    hand out sharply and say intensely "I haven't finished my point yet. 
    May I continue?" (cooperative-ish approach).  Also, I confess that I
    am guilty of interrupting people, too, sometimes ... 
    
    Pam

    re .6-
    
    > I tend to face this problem directly also.  I either REFUSE TO BE
    > INTERRUPTED BY CONTINUING TO TALK (competitive approach)...
    
    I *saw* Pam do this in November, it was great.
    
    Maggie also gave great communication lessons. ;-)
    
    DougO

    Was that a shot?

    Geez, I don't remember who I did it to in November!  Who was I talking
    to?!
    
    Pam

    Maggie!  No, that was not a shot.  Remember in the hotel lobby,
    you demonstrated 'symbolic speech' with what you *didn't* say?
    A well-remembered lesson. ;-)     
    
    DougO

    Pam, you were talking to me.  I wasn't listening very well.
    Suddenly, I started to!
    
    Methinks I've interrupted this topic, now, my apologies to all.
    
    DougO

    
    		I don't know how many of you have bumped
    		into this one but, quite some time ago
    		before I learned that I was 'entitled' to
    		use 'countermoves' in meetings, etc. a
    		male could quite effectively interrupt
    		and TERMINATE my attempt to make any point
    		by breaking in with "Listen Honey (etc. etc.
    		whatever)..." and continue in the nice
    		'big daddy' way to make his point.  I personally
    		haven't run into one of those for awhile now
    		but (dejavu) a colleague of mine who was in
    		a meeting just last week (state politics and
    		not company stuff) ran dead on into the same
    		thing. She was dumfounded! She wasn't ready for
    		this and hence got caught without an appropriate
    		return. It WON'T happen again.
    						
    			kim_who_is_getting_better_at_this_stuff_now
    

	The statistic I've read is that men are 4 times as likely
	to interrupt women as vice-versa, and my experience
	indicates this is absolutely true.  I look upon this as part 
	of the bigger problem of women just not being listened to...
	Of some men (and women) giving more credence to what the man
	is saying.  

	Is so easy to observe once you're aware that it happens.

	Sometimes I think =wn= is the only place I know where women
	are *really* listened to.  

	I was in a meeting once where I was being interrupted by 
	someone about 20 years older and 3 levels above me.  Finally,
	as he started to interrupt me for the 4'th or 5'th time when
	I was in the middle of an important explanation in response
	to a question asked, I made the Career Inhibiting Move of saying
	slightly loudly and firmly while letting a bit of annoyance show : 

			*Don't* interrupt me.

	(ah well, so much for filing down my "hard edge" that I've been
	 criticized for) 

							nancy b.

    
    	And what happened?  Did he stop interrupting you?
    
    	Carla
    

re: .14  (Carla Blazek)

>   And what happened?  

Dead silence for a very uncomfortable 3 seconds, he appeared
annoyed with me,  someone cleared their throat,   and  I 
continued with an abbreviated explanation, finished without
interruption, and felt guilty afterwards for embarassing
him.  

>  Did he stop interrupting you?
    
Yes, but he also quit addressing me at all and seemed to 
ignore anything else I said.   Which is worse?

						nancy b.
    

    In .6, Pam Smith described a study suggesting that men in general tend
    to interrupt others _whatever their gender_ more than women do;
    "competitive" vs. "cooperative" rules of verbal interaction. That is,
    interruption is a frequent masculine style, rather than a tactic
    directed specifically at women to "keep them in their place" (though it
    could have that effect, depending on the women).
    
    This is accord with my experience (though there are plenty of
    individual exceptions on both sides). But whether or not it's right, it
    seems odd that no-one has responded; people still seem to be assuming
    that it's a special trick men use on women. Of course, I can imagine
    that an interruption _feels_ different to (and has a different effect on)
    an individual who is uncomfortable responding in kind; and such
    individuals may be disproportionately women, who thus conclude it is a
    sexist trick. Is this making any sense?

    I used to interrupt people too often. Perhaps I still do. 
    
    It seemed to me that I interrupted females more than males, but I'm not
    sure that this is true - it may be that women are more inclined to stop
    talking, rather than talk through it, when interrupted.
    
    I hope I'll never find out, since I'm trying not to interrupt people
    these days. (Also, I'm glad to say I'm not the sort of person who would
    resume interrupting just to gather data on how people react to it.)
    
    	Andrew.

    
    	re: .16
    
    	Your point is well taken. I think that we all have our
    	own 'style' of communicating when in a group. Any
    	interruption, or to ignore another should (in my opinion)
    	be considered rude but both happen and will continue
    	to happen as long as we (male or female) continue to
    	permit it. The fact remains that more and more we are
    	interacting in mixed groups to accomplish tasks and we
    	are all going to need to try very hard to achieve a
    	balance so the goals can be met. Unfortunately there
    	are still males who firmly believe that we females have
    	a place and it is definitely NOT where they find us.
    	We do need to understand that and address it properly.
    	I also think that an interruption from any quarter must be
    	handled by the speaker in a firm, professional manner so
    	the original message is delivered and the interrupt is
    	not repeated.
    						kim

    
    re:.16
    it does not appear to me that anyone is saying that interrupting is
    a tool consciously used to oppress women. rather, that interrupting
    is a thing that men tend to do, and tend not to be censured for, that
    often has the effect of oppressing women, besides being simply rude.
    why quibble? why not just try to teach men to not interrupt?
    

	re: .6 (Pam Smith)

	I found the research you quoted interesting and have thought
	some on situations I can remember where men are interrupting
	other men.  From what I've observed in business settings,
	that has happened most frequently when the man doing the
	interrupting is talking to someone who is of lesser position
	than he.


	re: .18 (Kim Kinney)
     
    	> I think that we all have our own 'style' of communicating when 
	> in a group. Any interruption, or to ignore another should 
	> (in my opinion) be considered rude 

	I don't consider *all* interruptions to be rude... Sometimes,
	(mostly this has been in 1 on 1 situations, though) going
	back and forth with someone is fun and productive and a lot
	of interrupting appears to be going on.  I have a 
	mental stack, and can push and pop concepts on and off the
	stack as the conversation dictates.  But the difference between
	this situation and the one I described in the meeting was that
	in the former case, active listening was taking place with
	both parties involved.  

							nancy b.

        So what should the interrupted person, or a third party,
        say to the interrupter?
        
        Dan

    In a presentation, something like "Let me finish this point and I'll
    get back to you."  In a conversation, "Just a minute, I'm not finished
    yet."  This promises the interrupter a turn later; it can also imply
    that the interrupter was not rude, but simply mistaken.
    
    I tend to interrupt people for the purpose of completing the thought. 
    I don't dive into three-or-more-way conversations in my personal life,
    but I'll happily dive into them in most team-related exercises, whether
    within my group or in a class.  Fortunately, my job consists of being
    an expert, so in most business situations people tend to listen to
    me....  I'm actually pretty good at getting to be the speaker in class
    groups, which generally include men.  These teams tend to work together
    on a number of activities, so there's usually opportunity for multiple
    people to have the various roles.

  I'm amazed that some noters seem to be arguing that all interruptions
  are rude!  Send those persons back to "Famous Programmer's School".

  Like almost anything, there are shades of gray here.  Clearly, some
  interruptions are strictly to establish status, pecking order, etc.
  Others are more "flow control", where by the interrupter completing
  the interruptee's thought, the interrupter has shown that "they get
  it" and the explanation can be terminated.  Others indicate new
  events along the ongoing path of the conversation, e.g., brainstorms.
  Others may indicate that the interrupter believes they have detected
  an error in the interruptee's chain of reasoning.  Others may indicate
  an event out of the ordinary, like: "Fire!  Run!"

  And I certainly agree with what I believe Nancy B. said:  Just
  because males and females employ different levels of interruption
  doesn't mean that it's necessarily a weapon intentionally or un-
  intentionally employed.  It just requires appropriate, modified
  "protocol" when males and females are interconversing.

                                   Atlant

    It just struck me that for all of the limitations NOTES places
    on effective communication, it some remarkable strengths.  In
    this particular medium, a speaker cannot be interrupted, at least
    in the traditional sense.  A particular reply (like this one, 
    for example) may be an interruption in the overall flow of a 
    discussion, but at least every writer here always gets to complete 
    her/his entire spiel without even a risk� of interruption.
    
    re: female/male patterns of interruptions:
    
    Speaking personally, I find the male-as-interrupter model to be valid.
    And in this instance, I am speaking entirely personally - interruption
    is one of my more obnoxious habits and one that I've only recently
    started to try to modify.  Those who've tried (sometimes desparately)
    to hold a two-way conversation with me know just how far I still have
    to to with this modification.
    
    I think that it springs from my tendency to control most events in 
    this sector of the galaxy (Control issues?  Me?. . .Nah!) and 
    although it's been pretty much an equal opportunity defect in me, 
    I strongly suspect that it's been "a little more equally" applied 
    to women than men.
    
    Steve
    
    � At least not people interruptions; hardware/software is a 
      different story.

    This discussion has been a "men" vs "women" thing and perhaps the
    generalizations are sufficient but I for one found quite a while ago
    that I often suffered in meetings because I was taught not to interrupt
    and still try not to.  Similarly I lost out because I was being
    interrupted and did not know how to handle it.  I now handle it by
    responding, "I did not interrupt you when you were talking."
    
    I also make sure that it is worth interrupting when I now do.  Someone
    must stop the endless digressions into ratholes.
    
    ed

    Digression regarding communications styles... I read an article
    publishing the reports of some study which had set out to look at
    the "traditional belief" that women are more easily swayed/convinced
    to change our minds than men are.  What it found was that people in
    general tend to use different "influencing" tactics on women than 
    they do on men.  
    
    When trying to convince women, subjects of both genders used logic,
    and a greater degree of active listening, compromise, and tactful
    persuasion.  When trying to convince men, they also used logic, but
    tended to take an agressive, confrontational approach and create a
    adversarial situation.  The study noted that the tactics commonly used
    on women are more effective at convincing both men and women (no
    surprise), and concluded that this could account for what has been
    perceived as the gender difference in "ability to hold strong
    convictions."
    
    

 I have a horrible problem with interrupting (I bet you all are surprised.)
I'm working on it. My wife first advised me of the problem. She now handles it 
by shutting up when I interrupt. It's pretty effective.

 The Doctah

    Karen asked me to enter this in =wn= the same material is also in
    Blacknotes. Although it is not specifically on interuptions it is on
    the subject of differences in communication styles, in this case,
    specifically between whites and blacks.
    
    Bonnie

______________________________________________________________

From:	PACKER::WHARTON "Karen Wharton, HLO2-1/l08, dtn 225-5016  21-Feb-1990 1643" 21-FEB-1990 16:52:53.47
To:	WMOIS::B_REINKE
CC:	
Subj:	

Would you post the following in womannotes under "men and women 
interact differently"?\


Taken from "Black and White: Styles in Conflict" by Thomas Kochman.


Wilson: 	If this organization is ever to have another hearing 
		before me it must have another spokesman.  Your manner 
		offends me.
Trotter:	In what way?
Wilson:		Your tone, with its background of passion.
Trotter;	But I have no passion in me, Mr. President, you are
		entirely mistaken; you misinterpret my earnestness for
		passion. ["Mr. Trotter and Mr. Wilson" 1915. pp. 119-20] 

		
			.
			.
			.


Modes of Behavior
=================
The modes of behavior that blacks and whites consider appropriate for 
engaging in public debate on an issue differ in their stance and level 
of spiritual intensity.  The black mode - that of black community 
people - is high-keyed; animated, interpersonal, and confrontational.  
The white mode - that of the middle class - is relatively low-keyed: 
dispassionate, impersonal, and non-challenging.  The first is 
characteristic of involvement; it is heated, loud, and generates 
effect.  The second is characteristic of detachment and is cool, 
quiet, and without effect.

Argument and Discussion
=======================
Blacks and whites  both classify the black mode as argument.  But this 
agreement on classification is misleading, concealing as it does 
deeper formal functional differences.

For example, blacks distinguish between argument used to debate a 
difference of opinion and argument used to ventilate anger and 
hostility.  Formally both modes consist of affect and dynamic 
opposition; however, this resemblance is only superficial. In the first 
form of argument - for persuasion - the affect shown is expressive of 
debaters' relation to their material.  Its presence indicates that 
people are sincere and serious about what they are saying.  On the 
other hand, the affect present in the form of argument that is a 
ventilation of anger and hostility is more intense; it is more 
passionate than earnest.  It also emphasizes less a positive attitude 
toward one's material than a negative attitude toward one's opponent.

This same formal and functional distinction applies to dynamic 
opposition.  In argument for persuasion, blacks assume a challenging 
stance with respect to their opponents.  But blacks are not 
antagonists here.  Rather, they re contenders cooperatively engaged 
in a process that hopes to test through challenge the validity of 
opposing ideas. Dynamic opposition within the framework of argument 
that is a ventilation of anger and hostility is again more intense than 
in persuasive argument.  Opponents are views as antagonists, givers 
and receivers of abuse, not simply contenders engaged in a struggle to 
produce a more valid thought or idea.

Because the two kinds of argument function differently in black culture, 
blacks are also alert to those formal elements that distinguish them: 
not simply the presence of affect and dynamic opposition but the degree 
of their intensity and the direction of their focus.

Whites, on the other hand, fail to make these distinctions because 
argument for them functions only to ventilate anger and hostility.  
It does not function as a process of persuasion. For persuasion 
whites use discussion that is devoid of affect and dynamic opposition. 
Consequently whites feel that people are not engaging in persuasion 
when affect and dynamic opposition are present.  The mere presence of 
affect and dynamic opposition, regardless of focus or intensity, is 
seen as en as the preliminary to a mode whose function is to 
ventilate anger and hostility.  In their failure to make the same 
distinction as blacks, whites misinterpret black intentions, not 
believing that blacks are acting in good faith when they say they 
wish to resolve disagreement.

The negative attitude of whites toward argument as a process of 
persuasion is only partly influenced by the function of argument in 
their own culture. For even were they to be convinced that the black 
mode was intended to persuade and not to ventilate anger and hostility 
(and this conviction can come about after black and whit students have 
interacted for a while) whites still regard the blacks argumentative 
mode as dysfunctional because of their view that reason and emotion 
work against each other; the presence of the latter militates against 
the operation of the former.  This explains why discussion, the white 
mode for testing and validating ideas, is devoid of affect and why its 
presence, to whites, automatically renders any presentation less 
persuasive to the extent that affect is also present. 

In discussion whites also hope to avoid dynamic opposition.  This is 
because they see confrontation as leading to intransigence, a 
hardening of opposing viewpoints, with the result that neither 
opponent will listen to the other's viewpoint, regardless of its 
merit, let alone concede the possibility of its validity.  Thus 
whites equate confrontation with conflict.  Their goal is 
"openmindedness", flexibility in approach and the recognition that no 
one person has all the answers.  To realize these aims, whites place 
their faith in a mode of intellectual engagement  that weakens or 
eliminates those aspects of character or posture that they believe 
keep people's minds closed and make them otherwise unyielding.

Blacks do not believe that the presence of affect and dynamic 
opposition leads to intransigence.  Quite the opposite: they often use 
formal argument as a means of testing their own views.  Thus they 
speak their minds with the expectation that either their views or 
those of the opposition will be modified as a result of a successful 
challenge, a point against which one or the other opponent has no 
effective reply.

In reference to 919.18:

   Thanks, Bonnie.

   As always, you have the ability to help generate light rather than heat -- 
a valuable ability which unfortunately I see to be in shorter and shorter 
supply here.

   As a Black person who tends to use the "Black" mode of disagreement-- yet 
is often capable of switching modes, I have discovered that there are virtues
in both modes. At the risk of seeming foolish or ignorant, I shall state here
(also from experience) that there may even be virtues in "male", "female"
 or any other modes of communication.

   When communicating with anyone, my tendency is to ask: "what works"? If I 
have to interrupt in order to communicate, I do so. If communication can be
facilitated by my being silent and listening, then I am silent. I tend to
adjust to the circumstances and the situation, and do whatever I can to 
ensure that what I wish to say gets said and that what the other person (or
persons) want to say also gets said.

   For me, the issues discussed here are more about tolerance for differences
than anything else. By all that I have studied and learned, men and women 
simply have different means of relating to each other and communicating.

   Why can't members of both sexes simply acknowledge and accept communications
differences and... well... communicate?

                                                     -Robert Brown III

    Robert,
    
    I don't know. I went to a filming of 'Killing us Softly' here
    in WMO a week ago. One thing that really upset me was that the
    one man there not only dominated the discussion afterwards, but
    he continually interupted the women when they spoke to give
    his own opinions. I am sure he regards himself as an enlightened
    man who supports women and he is a person I personally like. But
    I was very upset by what was going on and was far more agressive
    and interuptive myself than I ever am because of that upset.
    
    Maybe it is social conditioning.
    
    Bonnie

    re .30
    
    I interrupt people a lot.  Bad habit?  Probably, but I look at it as
    normal habit.  If I let people go on and on about whatever in a verbal
    discussion, then by the time they are through I can't remember what I
    had to say about point one of their speech.  So whomever decides that I
    can't interrupt by default 1) puts me to sleep since I lose interest,
    2) dominates the discussion.  
    
    I tend to view people who don't allow me to interrupt as "hogging" the
    discussion.  They probably view me as impolite, overly aggressive, etc. 
    
    That's what makes the world go 'round, I suppose.

Bonnie:

   Social conditioning could be the problem, or it could also be that 
the "enlightened" man you spoke of is one of those egocentric types who
talks a good game of equality but unconsciously considers himself "better"
than those who he is "helping".

   I don't know, having not been there.

   I can say, however, that your reaction to the situation you describe 
is a perfect example of the principles I was trying to convey. In your case,
however, you adapted to another mode of communication because (a) it was the
only means open to you to get your points across, and (b) the man in question
was insensitive to other communication modes and so was very upsetting. But the
question I ask is this: were you able to get your points across? If not, then
there simply was no communication, since by its nature communication is a
two- way process.

    What is sad about the situation is that you had to "adapt" to this man's
agressiveness in order to facilitate communication, and that it probably 
never occurred to him that he was imposing his mode of communication on an
entire group. He never demonstrated the acceptance of different communication
modes that I indicated was necessary to facilitate good communication.
Hopefully, this individual will someday learn that he must learn to respect
the way others communicate if he is ever to truley communicate with anyone.
Unfortunately, it will probably take some traumatic incident (like someone
getting across to him how rude he behaves) to do this.

                                                         -Robert Brown III

Oh, by the way:

   919.29 has a typo in the first line. It should read:

   "In reference to 919.28"

                                                     -Robert Brown III

    From "In Health" magazine, May/June 1990, p. 11:

    "Boy Meets Girl, Boy Interrupts Girl"

    Ann Arbor, Mich. - If allowed to finish her sentence, any woman
    can tell you that men interrupt women far more often than women
    interrupt men.  The pattern has been documented in adults; now it
    looks like the bad manners begin in childhood.

    	Sociologist Julia L. Evans videotaped ten four-year-olds and
    20 eight-year-olds talking and playing with men and women
    interviewers at the University of Michigan.

    	Evans found no difference in the interruption rates of the
    four-year-old boys and girls.  And when the eight-year-olds talked
    with the male interviewer, the boys interrupted as often as the
    girls did.  But when the eight-year-olds talked to the female
    interviewer, the boys butted in 20 percent more frequently than
    the girls.  And it wasn't just a few loudmouths who accounted for
    the difference; every one of the boys interrupted more often than
    any of the girls.

    	"I suspect the boys would have interrupted even more if they
    were talking to a female peer," Evans says.  "It's surprising how
    young they learn it."

    I volunteered to drive my youngest daughter's kindergarten class to a
    local museum.  During the tour, the guide would stop and ask
    the kids what they knew about the various Indian artifacts being
    displayed.  Two little boys constantly hogged this floor time,
    interrupting anyone else who tried to answer and even interrupting
    the guide by beginning to answer before the questions were completed.
    I thought their behavior was rude and if I had been their teacher
    (or their mother) I would have taken them aside and spoken to them
    about it.  But instead, on the ride home, their teacher said
    how bright these two boys were that they could answer all the
    guide's questions!  I knew that my daughter and her friends knew
    just as much about Native Americans as these two boys did because
    the girls had been talking about the subject for weeks.  I wonder
    if part of the reason that men interrupt more than women is that
    from an early age they learn that can not only get away
    with interrupting, but also be rewarded for it?
    
    Sue
    
       

    Re .35, yes, I definitely think that (many/most?) little boys learn
    at an early age that not only will they be allowed to interrupt,
    they may be rewarded for it.  (Those two little boys sound so
    obnoxious.  I can just imagine it!)
    
    The other day I was sitting down talking with a male acquaintance
    (age 39 yrs.) and he interrupted me several times.  We were only
    chit-chatting so I didn't really mind, but at one point I must have
    made a face or something, because he jovially said, "Oh, that's
    another thing you'll find out about me!  I interrupt other people
    all the time!"  He then cheerfully laughed, as though he had divulged
    some particularly endearing quality about himself... (I, of course,
    immediately thought of this topic in =wn=)
    
    Lorna