> I hear your reaction here

Non a reaction, just an informed opinion from a man who's been working in tech for the past 27 years and is old enough to understand that the more you age the more you learn how to react to things that you're sensitive to.

For example being interrupted, some people, like me, do not mind at all.

I used to, now I don't care, I know people younger than me (men and women) feel the urge to make themselves noticed in the workplace, but I'm there as a well paid senior consultant, if they do not want to listen or want to engage in endless discussions over minutia or just to show off what they know, it's their problem. I let them do it also because it's a way to teach them that the more we go off rails or talk over each other, the more the meeting is gonna last.
And they will have less time to do the actual job they are paid to do.

Don't like long meetings? (who does?) Don't interrupt and don't go overboard.
It's gonna be over much sooner.

And anyway: speak up, if you don't want to participate or think that you have better things to do or don't particularly like that person's temper, say it, using a bit of diplomacy.

If the people paid to solve these problems won't listen, you know you're in the wrong place.

> - that they too have problems with being talked

That's my point.

People talking over other people are not doing it because they are men, there's no such DNA trait in men, their brain is no different in any way for being men.

What is lacking, in my opinion, in those articles is data.

We don't know who these people are, we don't know if it's higher ranking talking over subordinate, the opposite, or it's random, we don't know if it's always the same people doing it or it's only men when there are women present, otherwise the meeting goes butter smooth.

We simply don't know anything more than a spurious correlation: they are men, it must be a men's thing.

As a man I can testimony that no, not every man talks over other men, in fact it is quite the opposite, some of them do, most of them don't.

It's also kinda obvious that in a male dominated work sector you'll encounter more men interrupting than women, if we go in a female sector (like education), I guess the results would be different.

It could simply be that they are American, for what we know.

I too had issues communicating and working with USA people in startup environments, man or woman it did not make any difference.

> Please consider that the avenues that are open to you as a man in this industry to overcome those difficulties might not be as available to a woman in the same position.

Sorry, but that's a non sequitur.

You can't possibly know what I've been through, nobody really knows what others have been through, it doesn't follow that we shouldn't use common sense because somebody had a bad experience in the past. We all had them (mostly) but in the workplace one has to assume to be surrounded by functioning adults that can handle themselves.

> those constraints are not the same ones you have faced. Your solutions may not work.

Exactly, how do you know that?

Because in my past speaking up has led to negative reactions and still of today for some people my being opinionated is dismissed as being bossy

It isn't traumatizing if you believe in what you say, just frustrating at times.

But there are other ways to prove yourself other than having a fight in a meeting.

Not taking it personally helped me a lot to deal with these situations, it's one person talking only to (of) the worker me that is not the whole me and not even the most important part of me.

Even the Bible says something like (not exact words)

To be offended is a choice we make;
it is not a condition inflicted or imposed upon us by someone or something else

> But this dismissal of a raft of worthwhile sources for a well documented problem

I'm not dismissing the work this person has done, I'm saying it's of no great general value, because the sources are lacking the necessary data to draw a conclusion.