Let's Ask Science: Is It Sexist for Sanders to Interrupt Clinton? UPDATED

Well, obviously, interrupting is not inherently sexist, but we've studied it and it can be a manifestation of sexism. Interrupting has been in the news lately, because Clinton interrupted Sanders, which some people say is totally rude because "Sanders never interrupts Clinton." In reality, Sanders tries to interrupt Clinton a ton*; there's a double standard at work. So, do Sanders' interruptions of Clinton exhibit the traits of the sexist manifestation or are they just normal competition between candidates? Let's ask science!

Interrupting is Gendered

There have been multiple studies on gender dynamics in interrupting and conversation (some with unintentional findings), but most of them apply to specific cases, cover only conversation, or for some other reason aren't on-point. They basically say that all of the stereotypes of women in conversation are untrue and/or unfair, because men dominate everything. This study is the most on-point one that I could find in a day, so I will be using it for data points*2. Sadly, I don't have access to the full results, so I have to take New Republic's word on it. That said, the data presented is supported by the abstract and aligns with other studies, so it's reasonable to assume that the presented data is accurate. (Although, it is incomplete.)

• Women are interrupted frequently; men are interrupted infrequently. The ratio is 1.8 : 1, meaning that for every 1 time that a man is interrupted, a woman is interrupted 1.8 times.
• Men are typically interrupted by men. The ratio is 1 : 2 for women interrupt men vs. men interrupt men.
• Women are more frequently interrupted by women than men. The ratio is 1 : 2.8 for men interrupt women vs women interrupt women. 
• No statistics are available for the ratio of men interrupting men vs. men interrupting women, so we have to assume that the non-data assertions are true. (And they align with other studies.)

So what's the takeaway from this science?

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Firstly, interrupting is gendered behavior-- based primarily on the gender of the person being interrupted. It is acceptable to interrupt women regardless of who is interrupting (although in some cases, men aware of the problem may try to avoid interrupting women). But it is also gendered behavior based on the gender of the interrupter. It is unacceptable for women to interrupt men but men can interrupt anyone. (This is the basic result of most studies, although some divide by position of power; people in a position of power or who feel empowered are more likely to interrupt; those not in power and who don't feel empowered don't. But of course, even that would involve a gender skew since men are more likely to be in positions of power or feel empowered. These studies account for the exceptions in the other studies and for interruption by people of the same gender, but not for the gender differences themselves.)

Let's apply this logic to the Clinton/Sanders interruption issue:

• Sanders interrupts Clinton and there are few complaints but there are also complaints that anyone complained. It's acceptable to interrupt a woman.
• Clinton interrupts Sanders and all hell breaks loose. People defend Sanders' stereotypically sexist response as "valid and appropriate," because "Clinton shouldn't have interrupted him;" anyone pointing out the stereotypical sexism got complaints that they complained. It's unacceptable for a woman to interrupt a man.

The interruption issue in this election aligns perfectly with the attitudes exposed by this study.

What About Sanders Specifically?

Don't worry; I listed the stats below.

Also, men underestimate the number of times that men do things that they dislike when women do them and men overestimate the number of times that women do them, in cases of interruption estimates and overall talking time. (That "women talk more than men" idea? It's a myth. Men talk more than women, especially in mixed company.) Sanders, specifically, invoked the underestimation of behavior by men that men complain about when women do them when he said this, in response to uproar about him shushing Clinton:

“Did you check how much time Hillary Clinton spoke during the debate? Did you check out how often Hillary Clinton interrupted me?” Sanders said to reporters. 

“When I was speaking, she interrupted me. I did not interrupt her, despite the fact that she spoke longer,” he continued. “You know, the red lights went on and she kept talking. I didn’t interrupt her. But I think in the middle of a debate if somebody is trying to make a point and somebody else interrupts you, it’s rude.”*3

Oh, well now that you mention it, yes, I did notice that you interrupt her more and statistics bear that out, and "I didn't interrupt her?" Maybe on that one question but otherwise, that is a complete lie.

He asked, so someone counted and printed them in an article called "Who Is The Worst Interruptor At The Democratic Debates? Please, Hillary, the MEN are talking." What were the findings? "In total, Sanders has interrupted Clinton three times more than she has interrupted him. (emphasis mine)" Also, that's rounded; the actual number of times that Sanders interrupted Clinton for 1 time that she interrupted him is 3.1666... (repeating, of course).

Well, poor oppressed Bernie. That bitch interrupted him (almost) a full one third as often as he interrupted her! That poor baby, getting interrupted far less than he interrupts. Based on the behavior in the video that I referenced earlier, this must count only successful interruptions or number of questions on which they interrupted, since that one question involved at least 10 interruption attempts. Even if that question is an outlier, it can't be so much of an outlier that it accounts for over 1/3 of his interruptions to date. Also, "At the debates held on November 14 and January 17... Clinton was actually the only candidate not to butt in on another candidate’s speaking time."

Also "Did you see how long she spoke?... she spoke longer." Well if you didn't use your full allotment of time during your turn, clearly that is because Clinton talks too much and should be faulted for it. Mysteriously (haha) this also aligns with sexist overestimation of women's dominance of conversations.

Raw Data (since it isn't presented clearly):

• Sanders interrupted Clinton 19 times in 9 debates, a rate of 2.111... (repeating) per debate.
• Sanders interrupted O'Malley 4 times in 5 debates, a rate of 0.8 per debate.
• O'Malley interrupted Clinton 4 times in 5 debates, a rate of 0.8 per debate.
• O'Malley interrupted Sanders 6 times in 5 debates, a rate of 1.2 per debate.
• Clinton interrupted Sanders 6 times in 9 debates, a rate of 0.666... (repeating) per debate.
• Clinton interrupted O'Malley 1 time in 5 debates, a rate of 0.2 per debate.
• Clinton interrupted Webb 1 time in 1 debate (not enough data to be valid as a Clinton rate).
• Chafee interrupted Sanders 1 time in 1 debate (not enough data to be valid as a Chafee rate).
• Webb interrupted Clinton 1 time in 1 debate (not enough data to be valid as a Webb rate).
• Sanders interrupted 24 times in 9 debates, a rate of 2.667 per debate.
• Clinton interrupted 8 times in 9 debates, a rate of 0.888... (repeating) per debate.
• Clinton interrupted 8 times in a total of 9 debates but only interrupted in 7 debates, so her mean interruption was 1 per debate. She interrupted more than once in only 2 debates. (No other per debate mean is available from this data).
• Sanders' interruptions of Clinton account for 79% of his interruptions.
• Of Sanders' per debate interruptions, 72.5% were interruptions of Clinton.
• Clinton's interruptions of Sanders account for 75% of her interruptions.
• Of Clinton's per debate interruptions (excluding the interruption of Webb), 77% were interruptions of Sanders. (Including Webb, Clinton's per date interruption rate of Sanders is 36%, which shows an anomaly in the data that contributes to its exclusion. Including Webb with better data would lower the per debate interruption rate against Sanders, so this point isn't reliable.)

Now let's discuss these stats in terms of the science:

• Sanders interrupted 23 times; Clinton interrupted 8 times. Men interrupt more than women.
• Clinton was interrupted 24 times; the next highest (Sanders) was interrupted 13 times. Women are interrupted more often than men.
• The highest rate of interruption is Sanders against Clinton at 2.111... per debate vs. her rate of 0.666.... Women interrupt at a much lower rate than men.
• Sanders interrupted Clinton at a rate of 2.111... per debate and the next highest (O'Malley) at a rate of 0.8 per debate. Men interrupt more often than women. (Method note: by calculating a per debate rate and judging based on that, I am compensating for O'Malley being in fewer debates.)
• In some debates, every man interrupted but Clinton did not. Women interrupt men at a much lower rate than men interrupt.
• O'Malley was interrupted by Sanders 4 times and Clinton 1 time. Women interrupt men at a much lower rate than men interrupt.
• Clinton and O'Malley interrupted Sanders the same number of times despite Clinton being in more debates, making his per debate rate (0.8) higher than hers (0.666...). Men interrupt more than women. 
• 79% of Sanders' interruptions were against Clinton vs. her 75% against him, so not only does Clinton interrupt less in number of interruptions and rate of interruptions; she also spreads the interruptions more.

So, Is It Sexist that Sanders Interrupts Clinton?

Well, the Sanders/Clinton data perfectly aligns with the study that shows gendered behavior in interrupting. Not only did Sanders interrupt Clinton 3 times more often, he also insists that he interrupts less than she does. So yes, according to the data, Sanders' interruptions of Clinton are a manifestation of sexism. 

Yes, That Is What the Math Says.

Sanders' frequency of interruption of Clinton is sexist interruption. Because math. Sanders' insistence that she not interrupt him is a double standard, also potentially sexist. His lies that he never interrupts her is underestimation of men doing something that men complain that women do, also potentially sexist. And then there's Sanders complaining about how much Clinton talked during her turn, which is obviously more than he did in the same amount of time, also most likely sexism. So we have 1 case of proven sexism plus 2 cases of potential sexism plus 1 case of most likely sexism-- even if we ignore all other potential issues with this incident, like the stereotypically sexist shushing itself.

If we can't prove this incident sexist yet, what will it take? I ask because I have several more pages of reasons that this incident was sexist. They were merely too long to put into the same article as this, since so much space is dedicated to the statistics.

For the sake of argument, let's apply this to the GOP debates as well. 

Some of the GOP debates have become infamous because "everyone constantly interrupts everyone." More accurately, one white plus two white or white-passing Hispanic men interrupt everyone, but the black man doesn't. (I refuse to watch the GOP debates because I am prone to spontaneous human combustion*5, so I am assuming that lack of coverage of Kasich interrupting the others denotes that he does not frequently interrupt. I am also assuming that lack of coverage of Carson interrupting plus coverage of Carson pleading for someone to attack him denotes that Carson only interrupted to plea for an attack.*6 I mention these because they are potential flaws in my methods.)

If this assessment is correct, there could also be a racial component. The white(ish) guys interrupted but the black guy didn't. I hope that someone studies this so that we can be aware of any racial differences in this area and try to address it when possible. I do recall from my childhood that the "shut up" training that I started receiving at a young age was also directed at my black friends, even the boys.

That said, the previously mentioned studies that associate interruption with power and empowerment align with this information as well. The 3 guys who do the interrupting are the 3 most powerful men in the race and the men who should feel the most empowered. In comparison to the other candidates, they are successful in politics or entertainment as well as the most popular 3 in the election. While the black man is successful in medicine, people don't actually care much because brain surgery isn't exciting (these people are obviously not me), but as a successful black man, he still has less power than the three successful in exciting areas white(ish) men.

UPDATE: NYC Democratic Debate Coverage (4/15)

CNN featured a guest article today reviewing the debating skills of the candidates based on last night's debate, which the author determined that Clinton "won," partly due to her responses but also due to poor responses by Sanders. This is the first item for which he deducts points:

She still interrupts too much. No improvement there.

She interrupts 1/3 as much as Sanders, which is too much, but Sanders' interruption rate is not mentioned, presumably because it's fine when he does it. The article also lists a time that Sanders tried to interrupt, without mentioning the attempt.

Per Wonkette:

the only time the candidates stopped doing Interrupting Cow to EACH OTHER was when they would lock arms and do it AT THE ANCHORS IN UNISON.

Sanders also falsely accused Clinton of not answering the question on four occasions, while repeatedly refusing to answer the questions.

Interrupting: only bad when the lady does it.

(Unless you're a feminist website, in which case, you don't use a gendered view of interruption.)

(Update also posted as a Part 2.)

* Post incoming, but he tried to interrupt at least 10 times in the video in that article. This post is required background for that one.

*2 And these studies use binary gender, so I will be referring to it using binary gender only. While binary gender is not a concept that I agree is valid, that is outside the scope of this article and this election and is not yet covered by science. If you would like to know more about gender as a spectrum, google it.

*3 And after giving that interview, Sanders supporters used exactly the same language as Sanders to fault Clinton for doing what he does to her more often while pretending that he doesn't interrupt at all? Well, color me completely unshocked.

*4 And I'd cite the article where I read that, but they're hard to find in the deluge of "Sanders is a better feminist than Hillary" articles that magically avoid discussing her record and pretend that voting for something is better than voting for something that you advised on and have actively fought for for 40 years. If you merely omit Clinton's qualifications, pretending that they don't exist is easy! When I run across it again, I'll link. I do grasp that the intent of the google bombing is to eliminate negative narratives of Sanders, even when they are more factual than the promoted articles.

*5 Not actually, but fire-- fire on the sides of my face.

*6 I further assume that he pleaded to be attacked because being attacked got a candidate a time allotment to respond to the attack, leaving no debate opportunities for people who weren't attacked due to frequent attacks, making Carson's plea understandable rather than hilarious. I wish that people would stop making fun of him for this, even though I seriously dislike him and concede that it was whiny.

Now That He'll Probably Lose the Delegate Count, Sanders Supports Superdelegates Voting Against the Voters' Wills

Cartoon by Steve Sack

Remember the superdelegate stink, in which Sanders supporters furiously* yelled into the Internet that superdelegates must be required to adhere to the will of the voters? There was a Moveon petition that ended up in my feed easily two dozen times, although it turned out to not be a particularly popular petition.

The problem was that they believed that Sanders would win the primaries but lose the nomination because Clinton "purchased" the support of superdelegates, which would be against the law but is perfectly reasonable to assume was committed hundreds of times by a woman under harassment levels of "investigation" while leaving no evidence of any misdeeds. The reality is that she "purchased" them by helping the party, helping the downmarket election campaigns, and spending 4 decades of activism working with their rights organizations, unlike Sanders. Such a terrible, terrible woman. I can't imagine why so many people believe that she's a criminal based on the word of obviously lying white dudes who have found no evidence. Oh wait. Ha ha.

For an antonym of work

Now it's fairly sure that Clinton will win the (not super) delegate vote, so much so that the Sanders Cheerleading Team's "Sanders Can Still Do This" articles now cheer for a bit about white voter percentages in the remaining states ("hooray for white people!"), and then do some actual math that they explain makes a win difficult and unlikely. So it was a reasonable for Rachel Maddow to ask Sanders whether his stance on superdelegates had changed since it started to look like he would lose the delegate fight. Thankfully, she did not allow Sanders to deflect the question during his interview, which he tried to do. Why?

Because now, he believes that superdelegates should be able to vote for who they want. People have framed this as allowing him to woo superdelegates and get them to vote for him even if he loses the delegate fight and the popular vote, because he wants to win. At least that's the way that the articles framed the issue. As usual, I have a slightly different, Occam's Razor based stance.

You see, this year, Bernie Sanders became a superdelegate. He has to allow for superdelegates to "vote their hearts" instead of the "will of the voters" if he is losing, or he couldn't vote for himself. In what should be a surprise to no one, he has stated that he will vote for himself. Anyone would. That's a completely reasonable thing for someone to do.

Cartoon by A F Branco

While his stance is hypocritical (if we assume that he personally argued against superdelegates voting against the will of the voters like his campaign and his supporters did*2), he knew that he had already publicly pledged to vote for himself. Had he answered that superdelegates should be required to adhere to the will of the voters, Maddow could have pointed to his pledge to vote for himself and caught him red handed on camera.

I don't think he's going to launch a superdelegate campaign to try to win. That would be work and he's proud of how little work he's done to win while still being successful. I'm not even convinced that he ran to win, although I suspect that he ran thinking that he could take advantage of his gender like he has in the past*3. His wins have been the result of sexism, the long and sexist GOP campaign against Hillary Clinton, and his staunch online supporters who write articles about how terrible Clinton is*4 and how Sanders is so much better, which they do by omitting relevant facts.

Cartoon by Ruben Bolling

So, Sanders fans who support superdelegates voting "the will of the voters," does that mean that if Clinton wins the most delegates that Sanders shouldn't be allowed to vote for himself? Or are you willing to admit that you were just throwing a tantrum*5 because you weren't getting your way?

*And by furiously, I mean, I got attacked by someone that I know as "opposing democracy" for saying that Clinton earned her superdelegates through decades of work and fulfilling her contract with the DNC that Sanders signed but refused to fulfill, and that people don't get to change the agreed upon rules in the middle of an election to void the work of the woman in favor of the man who has proudly refused to do the work. And then I was unfriended because I'm such a terrible person, says the guy who called me a traitor for siding with Sanders on the Iraq War and for questioning a President during wartime, which was fine when he and his friends did it to Obama. (He recently went to college, got some critical thinking skills, and switched parties, but critical thinking is still very new to him.) I'm such a horrific, informed, logical, consistent person who doesn't routinely insult people's patriotism for disagreeing with me. It's a huge loss for me. LOL

*2 I'm not spending the time to look this up right now because I have two longer posts in progress.

*3 One of the posts in progress is on this.

*4 The hilarious thing about this article is that the author refers to things as "racist dogwhistles against Obama" when they are actually social justice platitudes that are generally supported by race rights activists. For instance, "it was as if Hillary implied 'it took a white man to get blacks to the mountaintop'" is aligned with the extremely common idea that racial equality can only happen when white people stand up to racism, and thus it is white people's job to stand up to racism. It's not an insult towards black people's mountain climbing skills. However, the author imagines that someone else said that "it was as if" Clinton said a phrase that the author invented to be a racist dogwhistle to attribute to Clinton, but accidentally invoked social justice speak instead. Womp womp.

*5 Can I get a "holy shit" for Sanders supporters threatening Clinton superdelegates? Oh right, GooberGate.

Things That Clinton and Sanders Are, According to Google Search Suggestions

You may not have noticed that I always refer to Clinton and Sanders by their last names, despite both of them having personability campaigns that refer to them by first name only. In the case of Clinton, referencing her by her first name separates her from Bill Clinton, which is reasonable, but in the case of Sanders, he's going by his first name so people feel like he's their friend. I try to not participate in propaganda. I'm not always successful.

At any rate, I was futzing around on Teh Internets tonight and did an experiment to see how the Internet propaganda fight has affected search results.

Because I'm a nerd, ok?

For simplicity, Clinton is aligned left and Sanders is aligned right, for reasons unrelated to their politics.

First, what they are.

Now, what they are not.

 
 
 
 
 
 

And now the interesting results in alphabetical order.

Clinton == Santa.

Go down the rabbit hole

Um, not dead.

Umbridge? Really?

I'm sensing a theme.

Oh dear.

My homeboy? Sigh.

Sigh. Not republican.

Argh. Not scum.

Is that a bat?

Not vegan.

Is your new bicycle.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

On the issue of gender, one is a woman and one is a man. 

Obviously. The results are not so obvious.

Oh wait. Male is the default. I almost forgot.

Bernie Sanders Says "But Seriously, I Do Have a Friend!"

In an apparently brave (or politically sabotaging) move on Saturday, Bernie Sanders claimed to have a friend in Congress.

"And he is really, really conservative," he said. "But you know what, he is a decent guy, and I like him, and he and I are friends. And you find that -- you find the fact that just because you have very significant political differences, doesn't mean to say that you cannot develop friendships with good people."

Maybe you'll recognize him.

Yep, that guy.

This "good person" is Jim Inhofe, a climate change denier on the Senate's committee that handles environmental legislation, a man opposed to women's rights, who supports racial profiling because "all terrorists are Middle Eastern" (LOL*), and who called Sonia Sotomayor a "racist" because she thinks that Latinas have different life experiences than white men (facts are racist, duh). Also, he's such a deep thinker that he thinks that the existence of a snowball in winter is proof that it's not a warmer winter than the year before, despite actual measurements to the contrary. And he wrote a book on "the fraud that is climate change," because why not?** He's an expert on anything he declares himself an expert on! He's a Certified Climate Gynecologist™!

So, what exactly qualifies someone to be a "good person" despite being a racist, sexist, science denier who uses his power to force his religious beliefs on others?

Is it that he takes so much money from the oil and gas industry and has promoted their views in Congress? Because that would be pretty Establishment of him.

Or is it his support for gifts from "employees of lobbying companies who are not registered lobbyists" (legally loopholed gifts from lobbyists)? Because that would be pretty Establishment of him.

Perhaps it's his dedication to unfettered free enterprise? Because that would be pretty Establishment of him.

His opposition to civil rights for anyone other than straight, white, Christian men, including loosening restrictions for phone tapping? Because that would be... yawn this is getting old already.

His opposition to federal standards for the the social safety net? Because... meh. States' rights! Something something.

His support for removing trade controls with "third world" countries? (But not China, because commie pinkos, presumably.) Seriously, this man is actually everything that Sanders falsely accuses Clinton of, plus some other terrible things, and also the antithesis of Sanders' stated ideals. I'm only using the Sanders definition of Establishment here and still: complete fail. Expand to the actual Establishment and yowza. It's also extremely hypocritical for someone to imply bad (but untrue) things about Clinton to demonize her, but celebrate the "goodness" of someone for whom these things are actually true.

No, everyone, look! It's that he's a decent guy! And so likeable!

"He is a decent guy, and I like him, and he and I are friends.... you find the fact that just because you have very significant political differences, doesn't mean to say that you cannot develop friendships with good people."***

Privilege is saying that someone is a "decent guy" and "a friend" when he opposes rights for everyone who isn't in his straight, white, Judeo-Christian, male ingroup-- because you're in his ingroup and no one is trying to impede your rights. These things that he describes as "political differences" (downplaying their importance) aren't mere political differences to me. The man opposes my rights. This isn't some abstract concept to have a casual debate about over dinner and a nice bottle of wine. It may well be for Sanders because no one is trying to take away his rights. To me, people like Inhofe are a genuine threat. This is my life that we're talking about, my health, my equality, my rights. The man opposes my rights and I'm supposed to accept that he's a "good person?" Seriously?

He is not a "decent guy." He's an egomaniacal "Nice Guy" ™ on a power trip. He's the embodiment of The Establishment that Sanders supposedly preaches against-- plus the actual Establishment that includes Sanders. Totally fine.

But Clinton? She's "The Establishment" despite being extremely ideologically similar to Sanders, to his right (but more informed) on foreign policy, and to his left on race and gender issues-- with a side-order of having built alliances through 40 years of activism. She's an appalling excuse for a human being who must be attacked at any and all costs (lying and sexism encouraged!), even if the result is President Trump. Because she's between Sanders and the job he wants.

The extreme far right who actually are bought and paid for? They're good fellas. Quality folk. Don't hold it against them that they oppose your rights. That's just a "political difference." No biggie. They're such decent guys, for some definition of "decent."

Sanders has a friend, ladies and gentlemen. His friend would never support his legislation and thus would not give him what Clinton's numerous friends can give her, but his friend is totally likeable. And isn't that what really matters in a lawmaker? Not fairness, not a familiarity with reality, not ideological similarity to you, not making good laws.

No no no. It's likeability. You want to have a beer with him. You know, if you're a straight, white, Judeo-Christian male. Those other people don't matter anyway. Why do we even call them people?

It's almost like the reasons that Sanders claims to dislike Clinton aren't what he claims they are, since it's ok to be much, much worse than her if you're a guy who isn't running against him.

* Technically, a terrorist in the USA will likely be in Inhofe's ingroup, not "Middle Eastern." People from that group just like to pretend that it's not terrorism if they agree with it, or if it was done by a single person, pretend that it was done by a "person in need of psychological help," who coincidentally, they totally agree with. Oh right, and guess what the conservative white dude terrorists target: the rights that Inhofe opposes for women and minorities. Sucks to be me, sucks to be a minority, sucks the most to be a minority woman!

** I say "why not?" but the real question is "why?" Having reviewed Inhofe's stances on many issues today, I saw a large correlation with the views of the Koch family founded John Birch Society, for which my grandmother was a conspiracy theorist/"Patriot Bookstore" volunteer. Specifically, Inhofe's rationale for climate change denial is that God would not allow us to change the environment, that if the statistics do show changes, that's not because of man but because God is changing the environment for us. Interventionist God is also the reason that Grandma told me that it is impossible for us to run out of oil and the reason that pollution has no bad effects; if it turns out to be a problem, Interventionist God will just fix it for us because he would never allow us to harm the planet or be inconvenienced by a reliance on fossil fuels resulting from a refusal to invest in green energy. Interventionist God believes that the customer is always right. Noninterventionist God is too stoned to care. Thanks, Grandma, for inadvertently teaching me political skepticism.

*** This is similar to Ruth Bader Ginsberg's friendship with Scalia, a man who rolled his eyes at her in court, mansplained gender issues to her, and opposed equality for women. I don't get it. If someone opposes equality for me, he's not a particularly good friend to me, even if he likes opera.

**** I have no idea what "Anti-establishment Post-Grad Slacks" means. Or why they are plaid. But their power is undeniable.