Common Misconceptions About Height

Taller is healthier.
Failing to reach one's maximum height is linked to undernourishment, but short stature itself is not unhealthy when genetic. For example, short people live longer on average[1][2]. Being taller has also been linked to cancer and collapsed lungs. More research on this here.

Height is mostly dietary.
"...about 60 to 80 percent of the difference in height between individuals is determined by genetic factors, whereas 20 to 40 percent can be attributed to environmental effects, mainly nutrition.". One can see this in how certain families, like those of Manute Bol or Steven Adams, are all extremely tall. In Manute's case, he reached a height of 7'7 despite being malnourished (although he may have gotten even taller had he not been). Point is, just because someone is very tall doesn't mean they were fed correctly.

Every younger generation gets taller.
The average American has not gotten taller in the last 50 years. In fact, average height in the medieval ages was only slightly shorter than it is now. If you've been noticing how youth are tall for their age nowadays, it's because kids today hit puberty sooner.

Short men are angrier on average.
This study found that tall men fly off the handle more quickly. Every other study I've seen on this topic either didn't test for aggression, or tested women rather than men, tested wild animals, etc. Examples of these more questionable studies: http://archive.is/cYusN

Every human being innately prefers tall people.
They've done height studies on various tribal cultures, and these people don't care about height the same way modern society does.

Height is viewed no differently than baldness, big noses, etc.
None of these other groups are labeled with a complex or syndrome the moment they display aggression or ambition. Sperm banks ban all men below average height, but they do not ban men based on the Norwood Scale. Height affects the ability to defend oneself during physical altercations, most other superficial traits do not. The differences go on.

Height is a good indicator of IQ.
Most sources say the correlation coefficient between height and IQ is 0.1 or 0.2. This is considered a weak correlation, which makes using height to gauge IQ virtually pointless. Some of these studies are also conducted on children. If a bunch of youth are the same age, but some receive growth spurts sooner, these taller kids will have more developed brains. Yet these researchers ignore that in order to claim tall adults make more money due to higher IQ (even though simply controlling for IQ shows that it's not the reason for the height premium: [1][2]). These IQ/height studies are also intra-racial, which means they fail to address why Asians for example are typically shorter than Westerners, yet they consistently score higher on IQ tests.

Men and women are equally strict about height.

• The average man's ideal height difference is for the woman to be 1 inch shorter. On the other hand, women desire men to be 8 inches taller on average.
• "Nearly half of men in the study indicated that their tallest acceptable date could be taller than them or their height (24 and 23 percent, respectively), while 53 percent required their date to be shorter than them. But a whopping 89 percent of women said the shortest person they would date would still have to be taller than them. Only seven percent would accept someone who was their height, and just four percent would allow for a shorter guy."
• For online dating, it's been found that "women care quite a bit more about the height of their partners than vice-versa."
• Study: "Women want taller men more than men want shorter women."
• According to this study on the top 10 words to include on your dating app bio, "the top word for female users was "love" and the most-swiped right male users had "6'" in their bio". Height is nowhere to be found on men's wish list.
• Google "sperm bank requirements" then "egg donor requirements." Both short and tall women are not excluded from participating, but any male below average height is.

Height has never played an important role in being targeted.

• "At the start of the 20^th century, most of the Rwandan population belonged to the Hutu ethnic group, who were traditionally crop-growers. Over many centuries, Rwanda attracted another group, traditional herdsmen, the Tutsis, from northern Africa... It wasn’t until European colonists arrived during the 1950s, that a divide developed between the two groups. The Europeans saw the Tutsis, who were taller with European ‘aristocratic’ appearances and, as was the practice of the time, selected this group to be both privileged and educated." - Source..."When RTLM (Radio Télévison des Milles Collines) began broadcasting on July 8, 1993... The RTLM called for the Tutsi to "cut down the tall trees," a code phrase which meant for the Hutu to start killing the Tutsi." - Source
• According to one of Kim Jong Il's former tutors, the leader used pamphlets advertising wonder-growth drugs to lure small people into traps, from where they would be deported to "uninhabited islands" to remove their "substandard" stock from the genepool. - Source
• "The one noticeable similarity with almost all serial killer victims is their short height and low weight. "Five Foot Two, Eyes of Blue" should be the serial killer theme song. These small lightweight victims are easy to attack, easy to beat up, easy to carry or drag, easy to put in the trunk of a car, and easy to dispose of. Big victims are far too much work. Smallish men, smallish women, and children are easy for the killer too handle. This is one reason why the top choices for women serial killers are invalids and babies." - Killing for Sport: Inside the Minds of Serial Killers
• More on this topic here.

Common Fallacies When Discussing Height Prejudice

• Relative Privation: "Height discrimination is not that bad because someone else has it worse."
• Just-World: The belief that bad things happen to bad people. "It's not about height, it's your bad personality."
• Survivorship Bias: "Whether it be movie stars, or athletes, or musicians, or CEOs of multibillion-dollar corporations who dropped out of school, popular media often tells the story of the determined individual who pursues their dreams and beats the odds. There is much less focus on the many people that may be similarly skilled and determined but fail to ever find success because of factors beyond their control or other (seemingly) random events. This creates a false public perception that anyone can achieve great things if they have the ability and make the effort. The overwhelming majority of failures are not visible to the public eye, and only those who survive the selective pressures of their competitive environment are seen regularly."
  
• Kafkatrapping: People accuse short men of having short man syndrome or being insecure, then when any short man argues against this, it's used as further confirmation for these claims. However, putting up no resistance results in these claims going unchallenged, and therefore accepted as fact.
• Appeal to Nature/Naturalistic/Biological Determinism: "Height prejudice, and the inequity that stems from it, is just the natural way of things." Plenty of things are natural and instinctive, such as the urge to assault somebody in a fit of rage, indulging in unhealthy but satisfying cravings, or taking a male more seriously than a female because the latter is physically weaker on average. Yet all of those things are discouraged, because something being natural doesn't inherently make it excusable. Unless someone has mental illness, a person's words and actions are their own responsibility.
• Burden of Proof: The burden of proof lies with the person who is making a claim. Society claims many nasty things about short men, yet expects short men to "disprove" these stereotypes - the accused is guilty until proven innocent (I've written a series of posts specifically about this).
• Composition/Division: Inferring that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. "I have never experienced heightism, therefore nobody experiences heightism.
• False Dilemma: When something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation. "You can either think about heightism, or live a fulfilling life."
• Appeal to the People: Believing something is true because many or most people believe it. "If so many talk about angry short men, it must be a real issue." Could also be done in reverse, "Society as a whole doesn't acknowledge heightism, therefore it doesn't exist."
• Argument by Laziness: A person makes a statement or gives an opinion on an issue without having studied the topic being discussed. Everyone seems to be an expert on height related issues, but how many have done their research?
• Strawman: Substituting a person’s actual position or argument, then attacking that new, false narrative. One person could be talking about height discrimination, but the other will act like the first is mad about dating issues.

There is of course also the fallacy fallacy, which people use to excuse committing any of the above fallacies, but this only works when you still have a point despite being fallacious. Most of the time, a person has no argument aside from their initial fallacy itself.

Laughs About Heightism, Then Runs Off Without Another Word When Hit By The Truth Bomb

https://www.reddit.com/r/short/comments/76m8g7/im_personally_offended/dofu1g1/

 😂😂

Again:  https://www.reddit.com/r/short/comments/8osx9z/im_confused_about_the_definition_of_systemic_do/e05ubxz/

Explaining Why It's Hypocritical for Modern Day "Empowered" Women to Use Evo Psych When It Comes to Height

Click image to enlarge.

If you're curious about what article they're talking about, it's here. It's just some dating shit written by a feminist.

I wanted to focus on the evo psych aspect. Everyone loves this stuff until it's used on a politically protected group (like women). For example, people tend to take men more seriously than women, because men are biologically bigger and more powerful on average. Of course, we must question if a mainstream website would publish an article containing this idea when talking about gender issues. If a person tries to argue against women being in the police force due to biology, it's again considered discrimination by many. This stuff is taboo until it comes to male height, then everybody wants to talk caveman style. These same people would probably consider a mainstream article about how older women are biologically inferior to be offensive.

Related reading: Studies show more primitive tribal cultures do not care about height the way we do.

Can People Stop Making Claims About Height and Evolution Without Linking Sources?

Like here? Thanks.

I won't be a hypocrite, so here are my two posts about this complete with many studies:

http://heightismandothershit.blogspot.ca/2015/01/studies-on-height-and-attractiveness-in.html

http://heightismandothershit.blogspot.ca/2015/12/numerous-studies-on-height-preferences.html

Notice How There's Always a Reason Why Short Men Deserve Mistreatment

Somehow, someway, blame always seems to shift back onto short men during talks of height discrimination. Heightism doesn't exist due to the prejudice of others, but rather because short men deserve it. At least, that's what people tell themselves:

• "Napoleon Complex/Short Man Syndrome" wasn't coined due to confirmation bias, or the belief that short men aren't allowed to be powerful/assertive. No, clearly it's because short men are innately nasty human beings.
• When short men are rejected due to height in dating, people try to claim it's because short guys have poor personalities.
• "Biology/nature" is constantly used as an excuse for height prejudice.
• Apparently, the whole "manlet" thing came about because short men "overcompensate" by lifting weights. Never mind how "hit the gym" is the only advice short men ever get aside from "be confident." Of course, tall guys can lift as much as they want.
• People will often say "I'm only hitting you where it hurts." Too bad that excuse doesn't fly when body shaming women, even though it's hitting women where it hurts. Basically, if a short man reacts to disrespect, then people will make it seem like him reacting in the first place is the problem. But if he doesn't react at all, then this goes unabashed.
• Whenever anyone short calls out height discrimination, it's always met with something along the lines of, "you're just insecure/mad about being short" or "you're only mad because you can't reach the top shelf." People would rather attack those who discuss heightism, instead of confronting actual intolerance.

People will outright admit what I'm talking about as well. For example, in the movie Shrek, the message is about how it's okay to be considered unattractive. However, the films constantly mock a short character. The main excuse I've seen for this is "it's okay because the short character was villainous." Once again, discrimination is fine when the target brings it upon themselves. Here's the catch: this excuse works against anyone we don't like. Aside from straight-up eating babies or something, what makes someone an asshole in the eyes of society is subjective. A short officer could be doing their job, but if someone doesn't like it, they'll label the cop with a syndrome/complex. It's clearly okay, because all the cop had to do was not be an "asshole." Throw in things like the halo effect and one can see how this works more often than not against short men.

We also all know this great moral message wouldn't work using flat women or something. I can't start a hatefest against small breasted girls because one was an asshole. WWE used to make fat jokes towards a villainous female character, yet people got mad anyway. I actually don't blame anyone who has a problem with this, only because products marketed towards children (like Shrek or WWE) are extremely influential on young minds. If somebody wants to be offensive in an adult product then I don't care, I simply dislike the double standards of this society. This culture is more careful nowadays about making young girls self-conscious about their bodies, but ignore the negative effects on males.

Here's another example of "let's use one person we don't like to unleash our bigotry," this time from what I believe to be people who consider themselves tolerant liberals. They even have "against hate" in the side of the page which is extra funny. Here's a quote:

"Pro tip: those racial supremacist ideas are what makes someone a "manlet". You can be 6'3" (you're not though) but if you are a neonazi like that Nathan guy you are a small man."

If they dislike a tall guy, he's a short man on the inside. A tall guy could beat someone up, and still society would use shortness/smallness as the insult. All the negativity will always get linked back to the idea of being short. This further stigmatizes the trait itself, causing people to subconsciously hate short men even more. The real “protip” here is that the “manlet asshole” doesn’t even need to exist for society to hate against short men. Take Napoleon who was average height for example. For a more modern example, look here.

Also note how this mentality does not work with most other traits. I don't see those who are against "fat shaming" insulting others by claiming they're "landwhales on the inside." You don't mock a redheaded person, then have them respond back by saying your ideas make you ginger. Imagine mocking someone with a full head of hair by claiming they're bald. Only two traits have this "logic" applied to them: height and beauty. Just like how someone can be ugly or beautiful on the inside, you can be tall but a "mental midget," or a little person but with a "towering intellect." My theory is that society cares so much about stature and attractiveness, that when they see a tall or beautiful person they abhor, subconsciously people must convince themselves that it's all a shell and underneath are the traits they dislike.

Either way, this all reminds of when I came across this message from South Park about using homophobic slurs. It was essentially, "using faggot as an insult isn't about homophobia, it's an insult towards assholes." Sure, South Park itself is just some dumb show, but it's pretty obvious many people subscribe to this mentality. I think it's some attempt to rebrand the slur as a general insult. What people always leave out is how nobody insults a person by using "straight" instead of "faggot." Relative Privation aside, it's much the same with height. These days, I've seen tall men insulted by claiming they have "Short Man Syndrome" because they're short on the inside. Need I say more? Associating these phrases with more negative connotations is not good. When people think of an asshole, it'll be linked with physical size more than it already is ("be the bigger man, you nasty little man, etc". Who thinks that's a good idea?

It doesn't take a genius to see how bigots always have a reason why their targets deserve hatred. It's either "the natural way of things," or the group being discriminated against is clearly misbehaving and therefore worthy of reprimanding. Part of this is due to just-world thinking, the other half is because people don't want to consider themselves as intolerant (even though they partake in height discrimination). This is apparent in those who mock short men but get mad about things like body shaming. No, it's the short ones who are wrong.

Here's a thread with a comment straight up saying, "The reason many people discriminate against short people is because most of them have shitty attitudes and dwelll on others' pity."

So if the average 5'0 guy has the same attitude as the average 7'0 guy, they'd be viewed the same way? What about other groups, are they discriminated against due to their own fault?

If people spent half as much time chastising actual height discrimination, we'd be getting somewhere. Everyone's a real tough guy when lecturing short men, yet nobody wants to make a peep against actual bigots.

Like It Or Not, ALL Forms of Prejudice Can Be Attributed to Instinct, Not Just Heightism

If there's one thing I hate, it's a person who picks and chooses when their evo-pysch viewpoint applies, mostly only due to political correctness. Time and time again I've seen people claim racism/sexism/homophobia have no biological roots (because that's the narrative they were raised with), but of course heightism is innate so it's unavoidable/excusable (because again, that's the narrative they were raised with).

I'll put it very simply: would people talk so much about sexism against women if females were the physically stronger gender? When women complain about not being taken as seriously as men, it's clearly because men are biologically stronger on average, yet how often would people accept that as an excuse? Would any politically correct person even try to bring this up as a valid argument?

Fact of the matter is that there are racists, sexists, etc. all over the planet. This is because prejudice in general is a human trait.

As you'll see here, involving biology in talks of discrimination isn't a new idea:

Racism is innate.

Sexism is innate.

Homophobia is innate.

Bonus: Ableism is innate.

The only difference is that society is offended by this notion, so they blame it all on things like religion and cultural upbringing. They'll start a thousand counter-studies and countless debates to prove how it's 100% society's fault. On the other hand, most debates and studies about stature only serve to defend and excuse height discrimination.

Despite the derogatory stereotypes about short men (Napoleon Complex/Short Man Syndrome), negative media portrayals, and the language itself ("head and shoulders above, stand tall, man of his stature," etc.), rarely will you see anyone entertain the idea that heightism has cultural links. Here's the catch: go to a random third world place without western influence, and see if they know what Short Man Syndrome is. Meanwhile, in our society, if you stand against heightism, then you're the spoilsport, you're the bad guy for upsetting the status quo.

Hypothetically, if I said it sucks being in a racist society, people these days have been trained to wag their fingers at the racists. Replace race with height, and suddenly the problem is being short, not being heightist. Most people these days recognize society's impact on prejudice, not because they figured that out on their own, but because they've been taught as much. If they were actually clever enough to figure all this out, they would realize height is not so different. Relative Privation also comes into play here, but that's a whole different topic.

Point is, society and what it teaches has changed, not human nature. I guarantee if most of these "prejudice is learned" people had been born ages ago, they would be the bigots they despise. Rather than refraining from discriminating out of the goodness of their hearts, they clearly only do so when society tells them to. Why else would so many people (who don't consider themselves bigots) tear into short men without empathy? Why else would topics like fat shaming or big tits in video games have more people outraged than heightism? Society tells the populace what to be offended about, plain and simple.

At the end of the day, it doesn't even matter where bigotry comes from, as it should have no place in society. If a study came out showing how people view a certain race as uglier on average, it wouldn't excuse discrimination against that race. The urge to start a brawl is instinctive yet we're told to control it. Teenage pregnancy is natural but is it not a problem? Of course, it's "just different" with height.


Further reading:

The few studies about height and societal influence.

Height Is More Genetic Than Enviromental

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-of-human-height/

Basically, unless you're a starving child, your height is most likely genetic. I'm always amazed when I see first world adults thinking they're short because they ate too much junk food.

I also don't think anyone who's meant to be 7 feet tall is suddenly 5 feet tall because they didn't get fed well. Take 7'7 Manute Bol for example: very underweight and weak, but since his family was tall, so was he.

Why Height Prejudice Is Not Simply About Attractiveness

I've seen a popular trend where people try to justify height bias by claiming it's just a part of attractiveness. I disagree. Right off the bat, other physical traits do not have their own version of "Napoleon complex/short man syndrome." If you're an ugly balding guy but at least average height, you can lift weights or make money and be left alone. When a short man does the exact same thing, he's viewed as compensating. Imagine seeing a flat chested woman displaying ambition or aggression, and immediately linking it to her breast size. Because that's exactly what happens with height, the only difference being it's somehow not viewed as a dick move. Can you find a thread about big noses similar to this one, which is about beating up "Napoleon Complex short men?"

Some people actually try to explain this by claiming these stereotypes only exist because short men have worse personalities than everyone else. This is ironic. How can people claim height is viewed the same way as all these other traits, while at the same time admitting they view short men as more evil? The only ones who come close to dealing with something similar are men with small penises, but at least that's not noticeable in public. Perhaps ginger men come closest to what short men experience, I wouldn't know.

Height also plays a different role in employment and leadership. Who would most men rather be seen dating, a 5'4 or 6'4 woman? Most would probably find the former more appealing, but the latter would actually have the advantage when it comes to exerting authority. You don't intimidate somebody using a beautiful face, but you can do that using tall height. In this way, height is in a unique position. It doesn't have the same cultural significance as something like racism, but at the same time it matters more in everyday life than other superficial traits. There's a reason why sperm banks ban all men below average height, yet they do not need to know where a man is on the Norwood Scale, nor do they measure his penis size or nose. In fact, this is probably the reason why it's easier to bully based on stature than something like ugliness or baldness. It doesn't matter that Dwayne Johnson has a smooth shaved head, he is still physically imposing.

Looks are often also subjective, but height is not. A person's height is what the measurement says it is. On the other hand, there have been times when my friends found someone attractive, but I thought they were not. Same the other way around. A cafe can't put up a sign saying "not hiring anyone less than 6 out of 10 on the attractiveness scale." What would that objectively entail? Meanwhile, this practice actually can and does exist when it comes to height. Here's an article from China: "A female kitchen hand had to measure at least four feet nine inches; a waitress had to be a minimum of five feet; and the pretty hosts who greeted guests at the door needed to be a lofty five feet five". In the United States, men under 5'3 and women under 4'11 are outright labeled with "idiopathic short stature." I don't see how society could agree on a uniform "idiopathic ugliness." Why is it "tall, dark, and handsome" if tallness is supposed to be part of attractiveness? We don't say "chiseled, dark, and handsome" because people are supposed to know a handsome man has a chiseled jawline/body. I've seen women saying they find short men attractive, but they "can't" go out with these guys because people would mock them. Tallness is more like a status symbol, such as having a lot of money or being famous.

All in all, this is just another attempt by society to justify its bigotry. If it's not this, it's something else. Same old evo-pysch crap, or short men have bad personalities, or whatever else. Hypothetically, let's say a study came out proving a certain ethnicity was universally deemed uglier by society. Would that justify discrimination against that one group? Hopefully that's a rhetorical question. Point is, even if you don't find overweight women attractive for example, you'll probably still get a lecture about body shaming and eating disorders if you discriminate against them. This is because there's a difference between an explanation and an excuse. You can explain that someone is being treated worse due to their looks, I'd agree with that, but if you use this to justify the shitty behavior then it becomes a different story.

Short Men Being Embarrassed Around Women/Children

Many believe short men should be embarrassed around women and kids, since men are "supposed" to be taller. Even most short men feel this way.

To me, this is like an Asian or white person feeling ashamed because their skin is darker than some African's. Black people are "supposed" to be darker, right? Whole thing is ridiculous. You can go elsewhere with this. Many men and women feel embarrassed when their date is taller/shorter than they are, respectively.

Never mind how all this is outside our control, yet it's viewed like short men are the only ones who arrived late for work or something. Example: "you're just mad that this kid is taller than you already." I'm sure it takes a special human being to be taller than someone.

It's sad how humans care so much about how things are "supposed to be." There was a time when interracial couples weren't meant to be. If only people had more perspective and open minds.

Why I Don't Believe Height Preferences Are Purely Instinctive

Let me preface this with a disclaimer: even if nobody on Earth preferred short men, that’s technically allowed and within anyone’s choice (this is just hypothetical – a few women actually do prefer short men). However, the many reasons people use to explain why short men are so disliked are questionable to me, so I’m going to break this down.

Evolutionary psychology is usually the main reason people use to explain height preferences, so first I must question whether or not most women pick a 7 feet tall guy over a 6 feet tall one. I know some girls would, but if I had to bet on it, I believe most would pick the 6 foot one. If taller is simply better, why does the ideal height for men seem to cut off at a certain point? One could claim there simply aren’t enough 7 feet tall men around, but even when women could date these tall guys online, men around 7’0 tall statistically do worse than guys around 6’0. Even in fantasies where a woman could dream of anyone, I doubt these dream guys are usually 7 feet tall. It’d be interesting to know if most romance novels, even ones set in magical settings, have a giant male lead. Somehow I doubt it, but again, (biologically) what’s the problem with a super tall guy over a regular tall guy? How can one be “too tall” in a caveman setting?

Also, I don’t believe most lesbian or bisexual women require a fellow woman to be tall, so I also find this interesting. It’s not the height itself that’s attractive, it’s when it’s tied to a male. It’s not purely about sexual dimorphism either, because body hair, a big nose, baldness, etc. are typically male traits, yet they are not preferred. If human nature actually wanted to seek out “superior DNA,” both women and men would prefer tall people, thus eventually eliminating shortness from the gene pool. Instead, they used to inject tall girls with estrogen to prevent them from growing any further: [1][2]. This one study claims: "Results from the online survey indicate that women wanted tall men for a variety of reasons, but most of the explanations of our respondents were connected to societal expectations or gender stereotypes."

One of the reasons short men even exist in abundance is because of short women. Short men would also not live longer on average if the short gene was so terrible. Excerpt from the study: “The folks that were 5-2 and shorter lived the longest. The range was seen all the way across from being 5-foot tall to 6-foot tall. The taller you got, the shorter you lived.” Why would supposedly superior DNA literally die off sooner?

I’ve seen research done on tribal cultures, and none of them care about height as much as modern society. When confronted with this, most people pass it off with something like, “these tribes are just so weird/few that they don’t count.” At least by admitting this, people acknowledge that culture can influence these preferences. See, our society labels assertive/ambitious short men as having “short man syndrome” or a “Napoleon Complex.” When it comes to some random tribe, they would have no idea what those labels even are. Simply from something like that, the social status of short men is improved. For another example, natives had no hierarchy for their totem poles, yet English speakers say “bottom of the totem pole” in a derogatory way, showing how differently cultures can view the same thing.

All in all, this whole evo psych thing is ironic since these tribes actually have to hunt, yet they care less about height than modern day Darwinists who sit around all day. Also keep in mind how just because many people do something, doesn’t mean it’s natural, like how humans are the only ones who regularly milk a different species then drink it. There's also this page I found about differing height preferences by country:

“In general, a small man is twice as likely to be preferred by a women outside the United States as within. There are two possibilities. First, people in the Unites States are more superficial than in other countries. Second, women in the United States are taller and so prefer taller men... Except for the Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand, there does not appear to be a significant correlation between women's height in a country and their preference for a tall man.”

Country	5' 4" man % in Preference	Median Woman's Height
Caribbean	8%	65
United States	11%	65
Hong Kong	13%	63
Canada	13%	65
England	14%	65
Japan	15%	64
Germany	17%	66
Brazil	17%	65
China	19%	64
Russia	22%	65
Australia	22%	66
France	23%	66
Philippines	25%	62
Indonesia	29%	64
Thailand	40%	63

Biologically, why would women in Russia or France care less about height? One can even see this in how those places have recently had short leaders, but America has not. At this juncture, I would love to make some point about the Anglosphere, and how we can trace this back to the days of spreading propaganda about Napoleon’s height. I would even point out the English language’s views on short people (vertically challenged, head and shoulders above, man of his stature, etc.), or talk about colonization/westernization, but Australian women also apparently care less about height, so who the hell knows what's going on here. I would still firmly reiterate the point I made earlier about other cultures: no matter how biased they are about height, they do not label short men with syndromes and complexes.

On a different note, social status is also important: “a 2010 study found that men pictured with a Silver Bentley Continental GT were perceived as way more attractive than those pictures with a Red Ford Fiesta ST, and a 2014 study found that men pictured in a luxury apartment were rated more attractive than those in a control group. - Source

Here's a video from some neuroscientists about how women value popularity. Quote:

"And women respond to other women's opinion of a guy. The more women that are attracted to a man increases the attraction of that man. So the phrase, "The best men are always taken," is doubly true. If a man is taken by definition he's more attractive and appealing; if a man's alone and isolated and solitary and nobody's interested in him that will reduce his appeal just by virtue of not being taken."

In fact, one sizable study found 90 percent of single women were interested in a man who they believed was taken, while a mere 59 percent wanted him when told he was single.

There’s a reason why famous short men suddenly seem more attractive. Sure, many of them are conventionally attractive in terms of face or physique, but if these famous guys were random short men on the street, would their own fangirls still love them? Maybe. Personally, I believe famous short men are attractive in the same way an expensive brand is, and of course tall men start off with more positive social status. It’s the same reason why many women “just happen” to prefer Caucasian men (at least that’s what both OK Cupid and Facebook stats found). If there was some alternate reality where black guys or whatever had the same social status, all of a sudden many women would be born with a “natural” preference for black men. I found some interesting talk about this here.

I've seen people actually get offended by the idea that social status can make a man seem more attractive to women, so think of it this way: if two guys were the same in looks, but one was a prince while the other a commoner, who would seem more enticing? If height is such a strong biological rule like everyone believes, a popular short actor or musician should still lose to a random tall guy at the bar or club, but I think we know who would have the upper hand there. Of course, a tall famous star has status upon status: money/fame along with height.

This is also why we sometimes see women who are okay with sleeping with a short man, but will not be seen dating him publicly, like here. Countless times I’ve seen girls talking about being embarrassed to date a short guy they like (emphasis on how they already like this short guy). It reminds me of videos I’ve seen where non-Asian women talked about dating Asian men. They said people would mockingly ask them things like, “so you like small dicks, huh?” All of this negative attention would annoy these girls so much that they started to question dating these guys. This is literally women admitting how peer pressure influences who they date. They would sooner risk getting impregnated by a short guy than be seen holding hands with him in public.

When it comes to how Asian men and black women are rated more poorly in dating, people have been conditioned to be politically correct about it. Instead of claiming “that’s just the way it is” or “we like what we like,” people blame media portrayals, stereotypes, etc. Considering how often short men are portrayed as losers, sidekicks, villains, and buffoons in the media, while tall men are the badasses and heroes, it’d be preposterous if that didn’t affect how attractive short men seem. In this video at the 9:09 mark, a woman literally says “You want to look up into his eyes. You want it to be like a movie." To this day, people underestimate how much fiction warps expectations. In fact, this study claims the media is directly linked to how we view women's bodies. What about men?

I’ve already written too much on this, so I’ll end by saying that if society’s height preference started off naturally, society has egged it on to unnatural levels. If height preferences/requirements operated even on an 80/20 ratio, I’d be less suspicious about it. Once it becomes more one-sided, especially varying by country, is that not a clear sign culture has something to do with it?

Only One of These Evo-Psych Viewpoints Is Politically Correct

• Men will always be preferred as leaders over women, because men are the stronger gender. Nothing we can do about it. Humans are hardwired to respect and fear the strongest. There are also studies showing how men are usually very smart or very dumb, while most women are merely average. This accounts for the greater number of male overachievers. A mediocre woman cannot compete with an above average male, and there just aren't enough above average women.
• Homophobia should not only be tolerated, but encouraged. Humans are biologically designed to be repulsed by homosexual acts, as it isn't natural. If we were all gay, humans would fail to breed properly. Thus, homophobia is a natural defense mechanic to deter us from these acts.
• Ableism is natural. A physically/mentally handicapped person would be left for the wolves during the caveman days. Resources were too scarce, and it's survival of the fittest. Trying to defend the handicapped the weak is to go against our instincts.
• Racism is our brains telling us to fear outsiders and prefer our own. There is safety in the familiar. To stigmatize racism and promote diversity is to go against human nature. There have also been studies proving how blacks are less intelligent, so that explains why they may experience more struggles. Don't cry wolf about discrimination, blame science.
• Anyone who complains about mistreatment of men is fighting a futile battle against nature. Since you would only need one male to impregnate over a dozen women, men are inherently disposable. Even if men have higher suicide rates, it doesn't matter because we are biologically designed to care for women over men, as they are more valuable for reproduction. This is why female problems will always take precedence over male problems, no matter how big or small. Deal with it.
• Slut shaming results from the uncertainty of whether or not a child belongs to a man. Before DNA testing was invented, a woman with many lovers brought into question the chances of a male spreading his genes, his one biological purpose. How do you know you're the father, rather than her dozens of other mates? Perhaps none of these children are yours. Only a virgin is foolproof, which is why we're meant to revere virgin girls and shame sluts.
• Fat shaming is the hardwired disgust humans have for unhealthy bodies. Since obesity is linked to numerous health problems, fat people should be openly and publicly ridiculed, so our children know what not to end up as.
• Heightism is ingrained in biology. "Looking up" instinctively instills fear and respect, and tall men are heavier on average, so they're often stronger. Humans have always respected strength. There are also correlations between lower intelligence and shorter height. Taller people have been shown to receive better wages and jobs, further proving their superiority. Nothing can be done, nor should anything be done. Life isn't fair, and to fight heightism is to fight human nature.

Yes, only that last one is met with applause and nods of approval from the majority. Only that last one goes unchallenged even by those being targeted. Only that last one can be parroted on mainstream media or public settings without backlash.

All other views are met with disdain from the general populace. Studies about intelligence and race or gender are "debated," even though there are greater correlations between those than height. On the other hand, when it comes to studies about how short people are inferior, everyone simply says "of course!"

I also found a thread about sexism and biology. The objective was to challenge and change the evo-pysch viewpoint, and I thought the responses were very good. Take a look, but replace gender with height and you'll see what I'm talking about. Still makes sense, doesn't it?

P.S. Inb4 some relative privation bullshitter misses the point.

Chimpanzees Care Less About Size Than Humans

"Like human leaders, some alpha male chimpanzees lead by brute force, while others play politics, forming valuable alliances with other strong males."

"In chimpanzee society, the 'dominant male' sometimes is not the largest or strongest male but rather the most manipulative and political male that can influence the goings on within a group."

Can you imagine a 4'11 man becoming President or Prime Minister? Maybe in some other country, but in the US or Canada, I wouldn't count on it even if he were the best man for the job.

Social skills aside, most humans also only care about height rather than overall size, so long as a tall guy isn't anorexic. Even if a 6'0 tall guy has thinner wrists, narrow shoulders, a smaller skull, etc. he'd still be eligible for sperm banks, while some short man built like a tank is automatically disqualified. This would be like if rhinos, hippos, and elephants feared giraffes because the giraffes are taller.

When it comes to height preferences, in or outside of mating, leave it to humans to break the 80/20 rule and turn it into something like 99/01.

Intimidation Is Only Positive When It Fits the Narrative

Intimidation is often used as a reason (and excuse) for heightism. Aside from how most people would fear a small tall man over a bigger short one, aren't Africans perceived as more imposing? Yet I don't see that helping out black people much statistically/socially.

For example, my mother is racist against blacks, saying she's afraid just being around them. When it comes to height, she fawns over tall stature like everyone else, yet is also afraid of tall men. So why doesn't she prefer black men over Asians or whites? She's not the only one I've noticed with these blind double standards.

I just find it funny how scariness is only good when some people want it to be. For example, muscular tall men are "alpha" and attractive, but muscular short men are ugly and compensating. Strong is strong. Scary is scary. What difference does height make?

Related: Why Are Stocky Men Mocked, If Humans Supposely Bow Down to Size/Strength?

"Short Men and Heavier Women Earn Less, Can Blame DNA"

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/08/health/short-men-heavy-women-genes/index.html

It's disturbing how this is framed like some eugenics issue ("can blame DNA"). Not only do these articles often take a flippant tone, with lame height puns like "Short men do tend to get the, well, short end of the stick," but they always conveniently leave out the following:

"We show that height has a significant effect for the occupational sorting of employed workers but not for the self-employed. We interpret this result as evidence of employer discrimination in favor of taller workers." - Source

I just find it funny how most sites post the studies that don't look into the discrimination angle. As more mainstream sites like CNN and The Guardian post these articles (without focusing on the root cause), they will only make matters worse. It will further perpetuate this cycle, because people will think tall men are inherently superior.

Also notice how the CNN article ends it:

"Could the earnings differences be because of depression or a lack of confidence among shorter or heavier people, as some earlier studies have theorized?"

Call it like it is. This is due to discrimination, because again, self-employed short men do as well as tall ones. Replace this topic with race or something, and they wouldn't dare question whether the victim's "confidence" is to blame.

We all know a confident short man has a Napoleon Complex anyway. If these studies instead found out short men earn more on average, people would attribute it to some chip on short men's shoulders, a need to "compensate" or prove something.

I always imagine these assholes rubbing one out as they giddily type these articles, like it confirms their preconceived notions that taller men are better. Too bad this one line pretty much proves the results are due to prejudice:

"Short women are in luck. There was no real household income difference between short and tall women."

The author tries to portray this as a good thing, but unless she wants to claim the average 5'0 woman is intrinsically more capable than a 5'5 man, there's no reason why this should be about short men rather than short people in general. There's a reason why Dunkin' Donuts in the Philippines requires at least 5'4 men but only 5'2 women. Women are shorter on average, but what's the technical difference? If anything, a 5'2 man is still more physically able on average than a 5'2 woman, not that this should even matter in most mundane jobs.

There's no need to spin this into some convoluted shit about "depression" or "confidence." There's a reason why those traits would even be there in the first place, and personally, I can't "blame DNA."

Update: These "studies" made it to the front page of reddit. They never fail to avoid addressing heightism, instead always opting to go for the "evolushun" narrative, in a way they wouldn't dare do for racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, or even fat women. I expect nothing less from reddit, a majority user base which is proudly and openly heightist. Just like everywhere else, really, online or offline.

"TV Exposure Linked to Female Body Ideal"

Here's the study: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press/news/2016/02/femalebodyimageideals/

Wonder what would happen if we flipped the genders and made this about height.

Excerpts:

"For the first time experts have been able to eliminate external factors and specifically pinpoint television as having a direct link with female body ideals."

"Research involved assessing groups with different levels of access to Western media. This included people from an urban area, a village with television access, and a village with little television access."

"It was found that the highest Body Mass Index (BMI) preferences were found in the village with least media access, while those living in urban areas preferred thinner female bodies."

"He said: “Our study shows that television is having a significant impact on what people think is the ideal woman’s body."

This reminds me of all the studies where tribal people don't prefer tall men en-masse: http://heightismandothershit.blogspot.ca/2015/12/numerous-studies-on-height-preferences.html

The more studies pop up, the more I'm convinced our preferences are culturally induced for the most part. I think a good example of this, would be our view on penis size compared to ancient Greeks and Romans. Can you believe the big dicked guys used to be the ones mocked? These ideals may start from either instinct or society, but it's the latter than strengthens and spreads it.

People Are Afraid of 6'6 Men Even When They're Only 160 Lbs

Recently, I made a throwaway account on reddit to ask a 6'6 160 lb guy if people are intimidated by him. Apparently so, or at least he thinks they are (it's near the bottom of the page). I knew the answer going in, but I asked anyway.

I've noticed this for ages now. It's like people judge size and power by height alone, then claim it's "instinct." Just thought it's bizarre. I've seen 220 lb 6'5 guys seem kind of skinny, let alone 6'6 and 160. Still, I'd bet that people would choose to fight a shorter 200+ lb powerlifter/grappler, over a random 160 lb tall guy, because they'd think the latter is "bigger."

I first took note of this due to living in a large Asian community, where many women love tall skinny South Korean actors. That's fine in itself, but they often talk about how these guys look strong and make them feel protected. Always baffled me. Lots of anime also portray tall skinny men as powerhouses. One could claim this is instinctive, but elephants/rhinos/hippos don't fear giraffes, do they? In the jungle, you actually need weight/power as well. While taller men are heavier on average, seeing the narrow-shouldered ones with skinny wrists still get treated like mastodons is bizarre.

Weakest guy I've ever known was 6'0 and 125 lbs, so perhaps that's why I never associated strength with stature alone. Of course, with the way society links power to tallness, I'm not surprised by people thinking height wins fights. Sad how so many consider themselves to be "educated," yet seem blind and ignorant when it comes to height. Hell, this isn't even something one needs to scrutinize. Shouldn't people just see it in the bone structure and muscle mass? Apparently not.

More on frame size and height here.

Should I Avoid Having Asian Kids to Avoid Racism?

Recently, there was a lunatic screaming outside my apartment window, "FUCKING GOOOOOK," "YELLOW MOTHERFUCKER," and my favorite, "YOU'LL STARVE IN WORLD WAR 3."

That last one was pretty funny, but this isn't really the main topic. My main point is: would people tell me it's a good idea to breed out Asians, so the kids wouldn't have to experience racism?

I hope not. Yet that's what short men are told. Even fellow short men think it's a good idea to exclude short males from the gene pool, lest they be discriminated against. That's like making everyone the same race to avoid racism. You've lost.

To sum everything up, here's an oldie but a goodie:

"It's giving in to that toxic mentality... Think about if it was interracial marriage in the 1960s, and a white woman told her black husband they should just get a white sperm donor so that the children wouldn't have to deal with racism. It's giving into that toxic mentality and basically saying "who you are is less important than appeasing the assholes who think this shit matters."

Biological Determinism

"Biological determinism is a term used in some literature to describe the belief that human behavior is controlled solely by an individual's genes or some component of physiology."

While I don't believe heightism (especially in regards to attractiveness) is purely biological, due to these studies, I've seen many people use biological determinism to explain/excuse heightism, so click this link to read how "genetics" have been used for ages to put people in their place.


Excerpts:

Nina Jablonski, a professor of anthropology at Pennsylvania State University, notes that while some people assert that race is a social construct, racist beliefs that one's skin color is somehow associated with one's moral, social, and intellectual characteristics persist. Although there is "no scientific evidence to support substantial differences between groups",^[9] the belief that one's race makes one innately superior over another endures as an unavoidable influence in today's world.^[10] Racism that stems from the belief of biological determinism appears to be detrimental to both parties, according to Jablonski. For the person with the racist ideals, it often plants the idea into their head that their own race is inarguably superior in every aspect and for the race being targeted, it puts into their mind the idea that they are somehow inferior, weaker, or less intelligent. This categorization “becomes determinative of personality and individual experience, and is itself a destination.^[10]

In "Nineteenth-century craniology: the study of the female skull", Elizabeth Fee, a historian of health and medicine discusses what many anthropologists of the 1860s viewed as a "social problem". In a time where the women's rights movement was viewed as a legitimate hazard, anthropologists of the Anthropological Society set out to undermine gender equality in the educational and scientific realm. They believed that women were assigned a specific role in nature and should never stray from that role. This role was motherhood, to which all women were "biologically destined."^[13] The Anthropological Society emphasized that women were to wholly accept and embrace this role because motherhood was supposedly completely "incompatible with intellectual pretension, economic competition, or the vote."^[13]

Bullies Have Higher Self-Esteem, Social Success Study Finds

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bullies-have-higher-self-esteem-social-success-study-finds-1.3173387

I don't know about this trend of evo pysch explanations, but I'm only posting this because short men are stereotyped as bullies. Evil short boss, cop, villain, etc. Most short men I see are meek and cowardly, because they've been beaten down by society.

You need to have some sense of power to pick on someone, even those weaker than yourself. I've seen many short men who are afraid kids and women can beat them up, let alone other men. Short men literally think they have no power, except perhaps over babies and the disabled.

Obviously there are outliers for every group, but it's strange how short men get "short man syndrome" while tall men get "gentle giant." Do short men have more self-esteem on average? Rhetorical question.