I think it’s viewed exactly the same way. Strength is not very important in many areas of life but it’s highly respected. Men want to be strong and women want to be with strong men. The difference is a person can gain strength, whereas height can’t be gained.
@thatoneguy Will you stop grouping people all in one group. Please use qualifiers, such as “most”, “many” and stop saying things like “Men want to be strong and women want to be with strong men”. I think most everyone wants to be strong in some way and most of us don’t want to be with a weakling, but in the end maybe not everyone uses that as a characteristic in a man or woman. It’s not just thread that you generalize in size manners, but in others too. You can’t group people into one category and just assume everyone in that group wants the same thing, has the same characteristics, etc. You can assume cases such as some or many, but you can group everyone in one group thinking they are all alike or all want the same thing. That’s called stereotyping.
1 Like
I dislike stereotypes in principle (people are not monolithic). However, I think some characteristics are so commonly experienced by so many people that it seems uncontroversial to acknowledge them.
I once played with band where the girls seemed to take an obvious likeness too. Yet, when I got off stage to directly meet these girls, my height alone turned them off instantly. [Note that this was my first ‘band’ in junior highschool when I was also very young and small for my age.]
So I agree with the fact that shortness for women is trivial. That is, it doesn’t affect their capacity to ‘succeed’ in many areas where height for males BY both sexes is highly discriminated against. As for whoever mentioned agressiveness of short MEN, this is truer of WHITE males given most Western women literally hate short men,…and more interestingly, the shorter than average girl tends to date the complete opposite.
Also, height is not the technical desire but the proportional physical strength desired by Western women most specifically. It is ‘cultural’ in the West as it corresponds with capitalism’s ideals.
Women, by the way, are the arbitors of the significant bias on this given they have the veto power. If not, then we’d all be most likely products of rape, which is highly unlikelly. Note also that given this factor alone, the major dating sites were forcefully pressured to NOT link short men with women by default. This was due to women complaining about the short men they were disappointed to be linked to and it is almost universal that the ‘rationalization’ is to blame the short men for BEING unusually more agressive and NOT their own sexist-type of bias. A short male cannot do anything physical to improve this; By contrast, the qualities desired of women most, their external makeup and clothes, IS able to be changed.
You know, I wanted a short guy, because I’m short, but all the guys I met were almost 6’, causing me to stand on my tiptoes and them to bend down a bit. I wish my husband were shorter, but he’s not. I didn’t fall for my second husband because of his looks. Both my ex and my current are almost 6’. I did not go for them because they were tall. I still wish they were shorter, but love has a way of removing wishes. Then again, I guess I’m unusual. Height can’t be changed, but if you care about the person, such external details go by the wayside.
I will admit, being short did give me an advantage meeting guys when I was single. If I couldn’t reach something on the top or near the top shelf at the store, there was always a guy taller than I am who’d help get it.
Such dating sites really need to stop that, because looks do not necessarily equal a good and quality relationship. Short guys are just as good as tall guys, IMO. If I were dating during the time of dating apps, I’d probably reject the all the tall guys, because they’re too tall… especially if I was going by looks alone. Short guys want to meet women too. It’s also why I’d stay clear of stupid dating apps. I can do bad on my own. I don’t need a stupid app to get me into trouble.
I don’t know why we define ourselves by what we ‘prefer’ on those sites because it seems like it might be more logical to state what you do not want. But THAT would clearly spell out our biases and so ‘positing’ the classes of those you prefer are likely going to stay. The same goes with other preferences. Why say that you are “homosexual”, for instance, as though you ‘favor’ each and every person of your same sex over every other of the opposite.?!! I think that having the options to check off what you do not want would both be more honest AND psychologically self-reflecting of your own biases.
But then again, if you had met your spouse through a site with negating options, would you have selected “No tall men”? Certainly you would have missed out had you done that but may have also opted NOT to literally select such an option in the first place, correct?
Yes, checking off what one does not want would be easier.
I actually met my second husband through the now defunct magazine called The Star Trek Communicator. I answered his ad for a Star Trek pinpal and that developed into, “Why don’t we meet at a convention.” We did. The Vulcan was stoic with the Betazoid. Big flop, but not because he’s almost 6 ft tall. He begged to get together again and after 25 years of writing, chatting over YM, video, phone calls, etc we got married. I didn’t have any options to check off- except the mental ones of “what interests do we have in common?”. He sounded interesting, I went for it, and the rest is history. See that’s the difference between yesterday’s and today’s dating. You or your friends check commonalities off, you met the person, and things either developed from there or they did not.
1 Like
Women don’t hate short men but they are less interested in them.
Women all over the world find tallness to be an attractive trait in men. It’s definitely not a cultural thing.
Many atheists seem to be on the shorter side as well. That is probably the real source of their anger. 
An ‘absence of love’ CAN be indifferent to ‘hating’. The concept of neglect as a form of abuse is what lies behind this fact. An example I often give is how even a large family can ‘abuse’ their pet by NOT FEEDING it without anyone in particular being directly responsible. If each member perceives that ‘someone will feed the dog’, they may choose independently to ignore the dog or interpret the dog’s apparent behavior in trying to ‘bully’ attention as though the dog were becoming unnecessarily violent. It’s actual reflexive behavior to appear ‘hateful’ towards others should it begin to bite others then falsely sets the family against the dog in a counter ‘hate’ that ISN’T justified.
Thus, women do not have to directly initiate the problem as individuals but do so in what is termed, “systematic” abuse by society in general.
In NATURE apart from our unnatural human tendency to overcome it is influenced environmentally, a fact of evolution. The ‘fitness’ to which today many women still favor tall men relates to the culture because we no longer need men to protect women if we are to be considered ‘equal’. Nature’s emotional drives do not alter when the culture progresses beyond its need. It is now no longer ‘fit’ for a man to be agressive while women to be submissive, contrary to the chemistry that promotes males to still act more agressively and women to retain their submission to their male counterparts.
Favoring men who are tall comes with baggage given it only conserves those genes that keep the physiological factors that make them more agressive. Ask yourself this: why do we (men) also NOT favor women who are taller just as the women favor men if NOT for some mere physiological components that are being KEPT in spite of society demanding more equality among the sexes?
You are also wrong when considering how height is NOT as big an issue in other cultures. I know many short East Indian men who are on par with their women’s height.
Yes, this is likely a factor too. Intelligence itself is NOT an essential factor of evolution. Those who tend to be isolated will also be forced to question why they cannot ‘succeed’ in some real way which leads them to THINK DEEPER in order to try to overcome their defeats. Those who tend to succeed more easily tend to be less intellectual because they don’t NEED it AND such intellectual investment might only make it more difficult for them to assert their worth in light of all those who require struggling hard to succeed.
Wow!
Such words of wisdom from a few that know all
I haven’t met a short male atheist, but then again, I’m barely taller than the tallest dwarf. I found out something interesting yesterday though… Estelle Getty and I were/are the same height. I thought that was cool. I’ve always liked Danny DeVito too. Even so, from what I can tell, your statement has little truth to it.
Where are all the short men? I haven’t met them in my lifetime, except for my father who was 5’ 3".
This is BS. Short men are not necessarily more aGGressive.
They got little hands
And little eyes
And they walk around
Tellin’ great big lies
They got little noses
And tiny little teeth
They wear platform shoes
On their nasty little feet
Right away, I can think of several atheist advocates who look rather short – Sam Harris, Lawrence Krauss, Matt Dillahunty, Ed Drayton, PZ Myers, Richard Carrier, Robert Price. Photos of people at atheist gatherings also seem to show a higher-than-average number of short people.
Richard is average, but Matt and Robert, definitely above
I see where you’re coming from, but the notion of neglect as a form of abuse doesn’t really work except in a legal sense. It definitely doesn’t work with dating.
Yes, South Asians tend to be short but that doesn’t mean the women would not date taller men if they have the chance.
Just an anecdote, but I’ve seen a lot of Indian women living in America that seem to like dating White and Black guys., who are taller on average (of course some are just rebelling against their strict parents and height might not be much of a factor. They will eventually settle down with the Indian guy their family chooses for them).
Male tallness is attractive to women everywhere – even in places were people aren’t very tall. It’s not the only trait women look for in men, but it always helps.
You misinterpreted me. Since women tend to pick ‘taller’ men…which implies ‘physical strength’, not merely height…the women have the direct POWER of whose genes get passed on (outside of rape, of course.) Since the ONLY reason the majority of males ARE violent at all relates to the favor BY women FOR such men. Thus, if one truly wants a society of ‘equals’ I think women SHOULD pick guys their own height! Then we would reduce whatever genetic differences exist that make one more physically able to abuse where they abuse in the gene pool.
The Federal investigators who have access to stats likely have a ‘profile’ too that would not be overtly public for its tendency to stereotype and worsen social issues of these people, but I bet being a male who is short is likely one kind of ‘profile’ factor relating some particular kinds of behaviors.
We could flip this on it’s head and say all men want shorter women so they can dominate and be more aggressive, which lead to the natural selection of stronger men and weaker women.
… Not that I think that anything like that is so simple … as previous remarks seem to have implied.
1 Like
i am 1, 86 m tall ( 6,1 feet). My daughter is roughly 5, 60 feet.
She had 3 Boy friends, each of them not taller than her or not by much.