It even have several health benefits. Except that in dating, women overwhelmingly prefer men over 6', and very small differences like 5'7 vs 5'9 double or triple the matches in online dating sites. If we are talking about 5'6 vs 6'0 the difference is ridiculous, like over 200X more matches. Women even divorce short men at double the rate of tall men. Those sites have years of very precise statistics that support this fact.

Basically this means that in modern dating, if you are short, you are very likely to die alone and this trend will only get worse in the future.

I'm 5'6, and after almost 15 years of dating sites to modern dating apps, I have indeed accepted that yes, I will very likely die alone. My therapist has even half-seriously suggested I try lying about my height, and qualms aside, from the studies I've read, any plausible-in-person exaggeration would gain me a couple of percentile points at most.

Social taboos get established to keep the winners winning. Go find yourself a gold digger. It is fine. Maybe go date women in cultures where 5.6 is not too short. Hell, I'd say that a mail order bride (more likely an economic refugee who appreciates your wealth) is still better than dying alone. It is a brutally objectifying system and you have to play to your strengths.

Sure, there are social taboos around this. But when the system fails you, you have to look at alternatives outside. If you are too insecure about being THAT guy, then lie about till you start believing the lie.

Every non-abusive individual deserves an honest chance at pursuing a relationship. If the thought of dying alone is painful, then cheat the system.

All is fair in love and war. Haters be damned.

P.S: get out of the bay area / seattle. These places are dating deserts.

P.P.S: it is obviously advice for the the edge case. Only refer use it within the context of traditional options having died out.

Also, gold diggers are shitty people. You can't have a real relationship with one.

I can't blame the desperate people that volunteer to become mail order brides for thinking that screwing over some poor sap from a 1st world country is a lesser evil than them having to remain in poverty, but you'd have to be insane to marry one.

There's no way to cheat the system, if a person isn't genuinely attracted to you, whether its physically or otherwise, you have no chance of building a life with them that's going to make the two of you happy.

95% of women are not American. And only a very small percentage of those are gold diggers or mail order brides. The vast majority are just normal people with normal dreams of having a modest family.

If someone is 5’6 and having trouble meeting someone, they should consider if their own criteria are irrational.

I wasn't saying that all women are gold diggers or mail order brides. I was responding to a person saying that a short man struggling to find a long term relationship should look into those two options.

>It’s not beating the odds though.

I was mostly joking by this, although I have beaten the odds in other ways by being married to the same person for almost 20 years (at least by US standards).

>If someone is 5’6 and having trouble meeting someone, they should consider if their own criteria are irrational.

I agree.

There are billions of women out there and they can't all marry the 6'6" quarterback because there are only so many of them in the universe. I find that people who claim that the mating game is irretrievably broken often have the idea that they are of a certain caliber and wont consider anyone beneath them.

This attitude is usually combined with a complete failure to understand their actual grade in the opposite sex' eyes, a negative attitude, and or inability to function in this arena.

Basically usually 5s and 6s who are convinced they are 8s and 9s who disdain women who are also 5s and 6s while projecting a negative dejected attitude. This might not be you but its like 90% of the people who project the same attitude.

Most of those are in other countries though, so you'd have to be willing to date internationally ("mail order brides"?) to meet them. And if you're American, a large number of foreigners may pretend to love you only to divorce you the moment they get a green card out of you.

There are in your own locality as a young person just as many eligible females as their are males. Odds for the woman actually get progressively worse every year as the population of eligible males decreases faster because young men die more frequently and exit the effective marriage pool from her perspective in other ways whether it is because they have non intention of looking for permanent attachment or because they prefer young women regardless of their age.

the "system" isn't failing you, because there is no such thing as a system, and even if there is, this system isn't there to benefit you or ensure you don't remain maidenless.

> Every non-abusive individual deserves an honest chance at pursuing a relationship.

Yes, but it's only the chance is given to you, not the result. It's not like there are regulations preventing you from seeking a fruitful relationship.

Darwinian evolutionary theory dont's say 'Survival of non-abusive individuals', it says 'Survival of the fittest'. Not having a relationship is evolution's way to kill your genes because they are not fit for reproduction, and that's why its so painful, because you instinctively know you are dying. That's why people do crazy painful dangerous things as enlarging their legs bones.

Meeting any partner who isn't currently a US Citizen if you are is abusive? Meeting any partner who was born of lower economic status than you is abusive?

I'm an American man engaged to a foreign woman and am familiar with all of this - including negative stereotypes of cross-border relationships that in any other area (race, gender, orientation) would long since be considered deeply bigoted and unacceptable.

It's not a stretch for me to imagine that widespread lying by men about their hight has actually collectively made the problem worse for men, e.g. women insisting on 6 feet because they've dating 5'10" guys claiming to be 6" and decided that was the minimum.

And you know what, he was a bit weird looking. He had bad posture. But he was a good guy. A smart, hard working guy with a big heart.

This height thing is annoying. Id gladly trade inches of height in exchange for other inner character traits (courage, perseverance, conscientiousness). Intelligence I have to spare, but what good is it without character?

When I consider all the cheaters in online video games who do it solely to "subtly" pad their stats, it's not really that astonishing that widespread height cheating would be a thing too.

This is distinct from the practice teaching me a more upright posture, which it also did, this isn't subjective height, it's the kind you can measure at some gyms on the weight station in bare feet.

Edit: occurs to me this raises... certain questions! Nothing more biochemically interesting than creatine.

Even if someone asks me my height I probably just say 6'4' and leave it at that.

So…you are 6’1”?

Im a quarter inch shy of 6’2’’. So, indeed, 6’1’’.

My old man is 6’4’’ and when I was young he’d rib on me that I never got past 190 (we’re metric background). Now I don’t care much about height. At 70, he’s shrunk to my eye level and of all his traits height is the one Id rather not have inherited and gotten his monastic character instead.

You’ve discovered a new unit of measurement - the “dating inch”. Applicable not just to height.

...should stick to dating insects, surely.

Being at the age where you shrink is also the age where many of the women you meet were formerly married. It is amazing how many of them have said that their former spouses were shorter to just taller than them and it bothered them the entire marriage. They say they will never make that compromise again.

Not surprising to see this sentiment from a group whose marriages all failed. I expect the biggest prediction of long term marriage success is the willingness to compromise on much bigger things than this.

That said it doesn't come up that often in my circle.

Just stop using apps like Tinder, they attract the worst of the worst, by what I see, especially in the US. Even if you were above 6', you wouldn't want to date a woman obsessed with height.

In my group of friends, the shorter ones (around 1,73m) are the most successful ones.

Ahem, that's almost exactly the average height for a male in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_human_height_by_countr...

My point is, it doesn't matter that much. It matters, sadly, but not to the point where you can't find women that are attracted to you.

It shouldn't need to be said, but Tinder is not representative of all human relationships.

Mode maybe, but not the mean.

Yes, and plenty of men likes obese women over 50 year old. But its a relatively low percentage.

Scott's problem is he's on social media (particularly Tik Tok) and apparently works or worked in a toxic environment.

He's the shorter one and he had the most success of all of us.

Naturally.

Yay. I'm 5'8

But if you're still looking for things to try, I would recommend you get some activities (sports, hobbies) and meet people outside of a purely dating context. People's guards will be down and they'll be evaluating you on your other qualities rather than height in these contexts, and the extra time you spend with them is exactly what you need for them to overcome their prejudices.

But when I was in the dating market I wouldn't have been willing to date a racist anyway, so the question is moot.

How did that go for Rachel Dolezal?

I don't really have any advice, but I really don't think your height is limiting you. Don't get me wrong, it's definitely harder than if you were six inches taller, but it's not that bad.

It's one factor of many that affects your overall attractiveness and many people don't care about it at all.

This is by no means "fine" seeing (1) finding a romantic partner is one of the most important determiners of mental health (2) youth today is going through a huge social isolation crisis. If you're short you're seen (not explicitly, but through statistical regression to the mean) as a lesser person.

I think it's absolutely crucial to understand this is not "fine" and compansate accordingly. This seems like the responsible truth to me.

Hang out with people IRL.

There's a lot to say about how the structure and dynamics. of a tool guide how we use it, and that's very much at play here.

These same people acted FAR different in the outside world. I think the notion of a complete lack of scarcity leads our brains in this unachievable quest for perfection (based on nothing but a picture).

I'd say get off the platform, but you also have to go where the people are! I'm just glad I'm not dating anymore.

My additional accecdata: it's really, really not. Even for an individual, stated preferences are often not that true in practice.

Also, I'll observe that the median Hispanic man in America is a hair under 5' 7" (66.7"), yet Hispanic couples account for almost a quarter of births in America. Just a data point!

When lacking height, you need to compensate by boosting other markers, that women latch on. Things like managerial position, luxurious housing, car, dressing etc.

Stop thinking about it and grow a pair. It pays off. I had a lot of anxiety too when I started dating. Just act like its not a issue and the right girl will too.

I would say be patient. I think as you grow older it becomes less important. And even if 80% of women have fairly strong height preferences I think a solid 20% have close to no preference or would care but are very short themselves.

[1] Of course the opposite is true--but liberally minded people who can't wait to leave Iowa is a well-known trope. We don't talk so much about the folks who went to the big city for education or career opportunities, but would actually be happier in Iowa.

My wife also happens to be shorter than me and she has never been on any dating site.

I heard that in NYC in US it’s similar.

I'm average height and was married to a 5' 11" woman for a while. It always felt weird. It's much more comfortable for me to be with a woman who is a similar height, or a touch smaller, just for ergonomic reasons like how it feels when you hold hands or put your arms around each other.

I don't understand hot short women demanding tall guys as a kind of trophy. I know they can get them, because they are hot, but they'd be more comfortable with someone closer to their height.

I haven't asked if the concept of needing an even taller guy has ever occurred to her, but the even stranger one of either of us caring if she's wearing heels sure hasn't come up.

Ps I am from south East Asian country

You might have some luck over there :)

But that means the local western women would get increased competition, so that will of course needs to be shamed and frowned upon, I don't understand how it's any less romantic than the shallow greedy american women and their 6 foot 6 figures standard.

My wife's cousin’s 5’6’’ but Ive seen women go up to him and strike a conversation by the way he walks. Ive been in parties where he’s nailed every girl (including sisters and wives) in the room. Me? Nothing much, and Im 6’2’’

    200X more matches

Jokes aside, percieved attractiveness privilege is by far the most prominent form of discrimination in society today. (After wealth) Watching good.looking people coast through hard things purely because doors mysteriously open for them, is one of those things that you'd never believe it unless you see it.

Height is obviously the most prominent of those features among men. Sadly, it is tied to the most fundamental of social phenomenon (mating), and no amount of moralizing around it is going to change anything unless women change change their dating preferences. (Goes both ways, but women are generally the ones with hangups over height)

You're being overly dramatic and don't have any to support your claim. It is not really necessary to date dozens of women before getting married.

Dating many women in the first place is only the norm in a few western countries.

Also, I believe the dating apps are mostly used for casual sex, so the statistics there are not really relevant in the end.

It's as if we all go into it like ordering at a Burger King, except Have it your way (tm) comes out tasting like crap because we realize we aren't chefs. Online dating is how a bureaucrat decides to choose their life partner. The boxes you tick in online dating aren't important and are there just to pander to users.

I've experienced the "filter" issue with online dating, but my conclusions are entirely different.

I really don't mind it, in fact I appreciate it.

Anyone who would filter me out over something as shallow as height would undoubtedly be an extraordinarily poor match for me.

I prefer quality over quantity.

As to the "die alone" thing - that seems a bit grim.

I'm 46, since age 14 when I actively started dating the longest I've been single was for about 3 months after a bad break-up, and that was by choice.

Sure, when you don't have a height advantage you have to make it up in other ways - personality, fitness level, professional success, etc...

In general, I think my relatively modest stature has been a benefit to me. It forced me to be a better person, and to focus on qualities that matter, rather than superficial things.

I acknowledge that there's a difference and that it needs to be made up for in other ways.

Everyone has challenges. Tall people, minorities, gay people, short people, poor people, rich people... the list is endless.

We all have challenges.

We shouldn't measure ourselves by our challenges. We should measure ourselves by the effort we put in to overcome.

When I see a handicapped person climb a mountain, the thing I find extraordinary isn't the handicap, it's the phenomenal effort to transcend.

I don't have anything close to those problems. I'm just a bit vertically challenged.

I'll be double damned if I'm going to let that hold me back, or bemoan how unlucky I am because of it.

For an individual short guy, the quantitative info out there is only detrimental. At best, it's useless. They need a qualitative focus.

I'm punishing women who are rejecting me?

I honestly don't even know how to parse or think about that.

Are they entitled to date me, even though they've communicated a clear preference not to, and I'm somehow punishing them by not convincing them that, no I'm a really great guy, really...?

Or is it that I'm such a valuable gem that these helpless women who, through no fault of their own are deeply attracted to tall, dark and handsome, must be rescued from that to date me, short, old and bald - because ... ?

Honestly, I really don't get it.

Everything isn't a societal problem. Some people value certain physical characteristics. Those people tend to be a terrible match for me.

I'm happier with people who value my humor, personality and the way I treat them.

It's not any more complicated than that.

* what you want and what women want out of a relationship are in many ways very different

* On a related note, what women find attractive is very different from what men find attractive.

* Do not project your ideas of what you are attracted to onto women's likes, especially when it comes to physical characteristics

* Confidence, presence, and humor will get you past 90% of the crowd

* Spend some effort on style and clothing. If you don't want to be stylish, then at least be unique.

* Recognize that women are also horny and want sex as much as men. The difference is the approach and the ritual around getting there. You'll need to understand what turns a women off during this "dance", e.g. being too explicit about it at the wrong time.

* Do not get so easily dejected by rejection. Build up a thick skin and laugh it off.

* Regularly inject yourself into conversations with women, and when you find a common interest, don't hesitate to take advantage of that and deepen the conversation and eventually schedule something with them.

* Understand what the signs are of someone who is attracted to you, e.g. playing with hair, teasing, other body language. Once these are noticable you can go in for a kiss or an invitation back home.

* Recognize that there are effectively infinite women out there, and each one is going to have different history that shaped their preferences, either an earlier boyfriend or crush or favored celebrity or whatever, and some percentage of them will have preferences that overlap with you and give you an advantage. Even if it's something you think is unattractive, not everyone agrees. So don't give up.

I am naturally a bit shy and reserved with women. I am also not very witty and humorous (except when drunk) and I have a historical record of nerdiness and introversion. Coupled with a short stature, it makes me lack in confidence (I got some rejections due to height in the past, but in no way I think height is a limiting factor. I believe being fit and confident can make wonders). I am in mid-twenties and I realised that I need to change this and I need to seriously work on it to live a normal life and find a partner.

Men start off mostly worthless by default from a dating perspective, and gain attractiveness as they gain money and status. So, make money and gain prestige. Pretty-boys who peak in high school are the exception.

Women peak in physical attractiveness to men as soon as they mature. Emotional maturity plays a role in attractiveness, and that generally improves over time, so peak overall attractiveness for your average woman is probably in her 20s. So, ignore women in your 20s and make lots of money, and then, when you're 30 and rich, marry a 20-year old.

Lastly, fitness is a red queen's race, kind of like aging; time works against you, and the worse your body gets the harder it is to get fit (fitness protects against a lot of chronic problems that make exercise harder) so there's never a better time to get/stay fit than now.

TL:DR; I agree that everything you mentioned is inherently valuable and will also help you get women, so long as we don't forget money and competence!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/link-between-mens-height-divo...

The part about 200x the matches is both obviously pulled out of the air and grossly exaggerated. It looks like on average women tend to prefer men who are taller but not hugely different in height from themselves.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

If you are 5'6" you are most apt to be most attractive to women who are 5'4" or shorter which is helpfully 43% of women in the US.

You say you are very likely to die alone based entirely on a malarkey stat you pulled from thin air. You don't need hundreds of matches in a dating app to find one person you want to spend your life with. You need to instead cultivate qualities that would inspire ONE of many potentially worthwhile mates out there to make time with you and then work on enriching your life and relationship.

The problem with this fatalistic attitude is twofold. Firstly it spoils all hope of success to believe in yourself not one whit and second it holds that somehow MEN or at least yourself are rational whole mental and emotional creatures while somehow women are irrational animals who somehow cannot even see you. It's degrading to you and to hypothetical mates.

In which fantasy world that study was done? lets see.

mmm 2012, the year Tinder was created, so it was basically in a different era, but let's continue.

I see 'questionnaire based data' so it's self reported data! Of course you are going to report that you love 5'6' men. But you really don't. People say politically correct things, and then do a different thing, and this is specially true in dating. Look for studies based on Tinder or other recent online dating sites to have more accurate and real data.

This study is based on data about actual pairings (parents of recently born children in the UK). Nothing to do with "reported preferences".

I know multiple tall, classically good looking men who, while they can can get dates, can not maintain them because they have zero relationship skills, and I know just as many short men who have a relationship whenever they want.

While height might be an early filter, it is by no means the only source of attraction. Men would do well to build the rest of their personalities to stand themselves out rather than complain about something they have no control over.

This social disqualification is the reason the truth remains hidden. I'm only 5'9 and have a family, but this was way before social networks and online dating. The world is different now.

>I know

Yes I know many data points that fall outside the curve too. But I'm talking about the curve.

> Yes I know many data points that fall outside the curve too. But I'm talking about the curve.

you respond with a data sample of 1.

I have no idea who is right - assuming country=US in any case, since most of the data and experiences are from there - but come on.

This is his claim. I call bullshit.

Each inch of height corresponds to about $25k of yearly income on the attractiveness scale. Do the math, are you still below average? Note that income isn't just what you earn, but what you can be expected to earn in the future, so even if you met a woman as a bright computer science student you would still expect to earn a lot of money.

http://home.uchicago.edu/~hortacsu/onlinedating.pdf

Once you get serious, it’s the bigger filters you need to worry about IME.

My then new girlfriend’s friend asked me out of nowhere: “what’s a derivative?” And my answer was “investing or calculus?” Apparently that was a filter for my wife when she dated. She wanted smart men who weren’t just faking it, wouldn’t just start talking about things because they knew something about it, etc. Her and her friend had that simple question. I was basically the first guy to pass it. Hell, I even had some basic filters, like going on a road trip together. Eventually, got married, made babies, and travel around the world. I got lucky — met her semi-randomly on the beach through mutual friends. Neither one of us were looking for a relationship at the time.

</anecdata>

What a keeper! My wife randomly invoked Coase theorem the other day while we were chatting on our commute home. Coming up on ten years now. :)

Are you saying that he's missing out on lots of opportunities for self-improvement in the two minutes or less it took to write that comment? It's not wrong for people to complain about things that negatively affect them, and it's not mutually exclusive with trying to fix the problem. There is really no justification for the insistence that short men must not complain at all.

This is a remarkably unhealthy attitude, and callous to boot.

Obviously it’s better to be taller because that opens up more options. But the preference women have is for you to be taller than she is not that you have to hit some absolute value of 6’.

This is why you shouldn't put height in your dating profile, so you filter out a bunch of superficial people.

[1] https://home.uchicago.edu/~hortacsu/onlinedating.pdf table 5.5

Women filter on height the same way that men filter on weight & age. If you don't pass that first filter, it doesn't matter what your advantages are.

I always was the one that got the phone numbers, always.

These things matter across the board, not just in the top tier management positions. Each inch of height adds $789 of average yearly salary, which makes a huge difference between a 5ft5 in person compared to someone who is 6ft tall. https://www.premiumtimesng.com/entertainment/naija-fashion/2...

IDK, whenever men write stuff like that I always think to myself "you need to hang around better people". Like you can absolutely 100% find women that cold and calculating and dishonest. But acting like all women are that impulsive is really strange to me. That's like saying all men will beat you up and rob you because it makes sense in evolutionary terms.

> Women usually marry the millionaire, but have sex with the pool boy. This dual-mating strategy is instinctive.

Yea and the man has concubines, and the prenup? Pretty sure the woman usually doesn't have the pool boy's children in these stories.

EDIT: See here for a study showing after 1980 people have actually been getting shorter (at least in Japan, which can be considered almost a post-modern society when compared to the US) [1].

[1] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/02/12/national/scienc...

If your point is that we should eliminate any and all discrimination... sure. Although it's a far too lofty goal to happen as long as we're biological beings. But saying that "there's really no difference" between color and height discrimination is something you could and should really walk back from rather than attempt repeatedly to defend.

Every single decision you make is based on some criteria that you may not even be able to clearly define. But just because you can't verbalize why you like this person and not the next doesn't make it less of a discrimination process. Do you think that makes you the KKK?

Unfortunately you conceded nothing and chose to maintain a position which you not only failed to support no matter how many times you tried, it's also either insulting, dismissive, or absurdly ignorant. If you have to wonder which discrimination is of higher magnitude, against black people or short people you clearly don't grasp the full extent of what discrimination can be. You fail to understand how magnitude makes these 2 cases far more different than the fact that they are "discrimination" makes them similar.

Quoting MLK after wondering which discrimination is bigger (against black people or against people who are 5'9") just adds insult to injury.

You seem convinced that having a hairy mole on your face is exactly like being black or jew as far as discrimination goes. That being rejected by a woman for the mole is the same as being rejected and punished by society for your skin color. Who's to know who suffered more? It's "arguable" because they are "the same class" after all, right? So I concede that you're far more willing to dig yourself in the deepest hole trying to defend an indefensible argument than to actually concede anything.

I'll tell you one thing, no matter how you look like, if people hate your character they might use whatever insult cuts you deeper rather than something they have a personal issue with. So if you do go around telling people being short is like being black and they pick on your height it could be that they have a problem with what you chose to be rather than what you are by nature.

You'd be surprised.

Men's preferences only matter in a monogamous society, where less attractive women are expected to settle down with less attractive men who will financially support their kids.

But in modern welfare states, less attractive women can still sleep with very attractive men (whom they could never marry), have their children, and rely on the state to financially support their kids.

Which means the rich but unattractive men are, through taxes, paying for the children of the attractive men.

I con't understand how so few people realize this. The modern 'incel crisis' is fueled by online dating and government subsidies. It's the perfect combination to ensure reproduction of only the top few percent of men.

It’s really not. It’s fueled by echo chambers and it’s self-reinforcing.

I dont know if you would consider this self-reinforcing though. Saying that this group is self-reinforcing would imply that homosexuals gathering online to talk and confide are similarly self-reinforcing.

It doesn’t imply that at all. Sexual attraction isn’t reinforced by being around a given orientation.

Go hang out with gay people exclusively for a few weeks and let me know if you find yourself attracted to the same sex.

exactly - and i'm saying that incels aren't self-reinforcing either.

What I’ve heard from incels makes it easy to understand why women would be uninterested. That worldview and subsequent outcome would seem to be reinforced by spending lots of time with people who reinforce the negativity.

Men don't select, because we don't get pregnant, our instinct is to mate with whoever we can. Women are nature's selector, not men.

[1] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/02/12/national/scienc...

"taller soldiers are more likely to survive battle and that taller parents are more likely to have sons". This was based on his research of British Army records from the First World War, which showed that "surviving soldiers were on average more than one inch (3.33 cm) taller than fallen soldiers"

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Returning_soldier_effect

Just because you’re getting Tinder matches doesn’t mean you’re finding the type of relationship you want. I see a lot of men on /pol/ unable to see that things can be equally difficult in different ways on the female side.

Please, share it with us then

Jesus christ this place gets weird sometimes...

Why would it only get worse? How do you know this? I'm puzzled by the certainty.

Maybe in America. Plenty of countries where the average height is lower than what the article mentions. Not to mention that most European countries are "ahead" regarding respect than America.

Is this actually true?

> if you are short, you are very likely to die alone

This also seems like nonsense.

It isn't obvious. I've personally never considered height as a qualifier. I've known folks that prefer someone taller than themselves but they wouldn't turn down a shorter man. The preference isn't going to make someone pass, but more akin to preferring dark hair over light hair. You see, preferences don't always add up to action and most folks I've known wouldn't pass on someone because of height.

But if you are only using information from dating apps, your information is going to be seriously skewed for everyone. I might not always care about height, but if you are giving me a list of attributes and I'm looking for casual sex - I'm probably going to choose depending on my whims at the time. Height can make some positions better or worse, after all.

It is also possible that men think height is more important because they think height is important, much like overly muscled comic characters are overly muscled to appeal to men.

And remember the point I think is nonsense is specifically, “women overwhelmingly prefer men over 6’”, not that height is the biggest determining factor for attractiveness in men.

It’s not so much that being bigger helps you get stuff, it’s that it’s unfakable proof that you’ve been getting stuff long term.

The reason I think societal trends move faster than we think is that I think it was only in the middle of the last century that we still preferred fatter bodies.

So try to play the long game. You might meet your special someone later in life, who knows. Meanwhile in the short term, whoever doesn't appreciate you for what you are, look at it kind of like "well fuck 'em anyway," like they just self-selected out of your filter. Regardless, I'm 100% certain you won't be helping anything by trying to trick people into liking you. And I'm about 80% sure you won't even get anywhere by trying earnestly to be whatever stupid thing they want or think they want, or that some cost-free process of entering profile info on an app encourages them to blithely and carelessly say they want (because why not?). This goes not just for being short but for any human trait you do or don't possess. (And the only reason I allow 20% of hope there is because there's a possibility that through concerted effort you might actually manage to improve yourself in some way. But it should be something that came from you, something you yourself want to strive for, not something to please some fickle asshole and make them like and approve of you.)

It's not about what they want. It's about who you are, and whoever is the "audience" for that, is who you should be focusing on. What does Slayer care about Ariana Grande fans? Maybe on some level they wish they had as many fans as she does, but I'm pretty sure they aren't out there trying to impress them or win them over by being more Ariana-Grande-like. (I don't even know if Slayer is still a band; I might be dating myself.)

Editing to further bloviate: Who is going to mate with all the short women of the world? Tall guys? No, they're mostly looking for tall girlfriends. But short women need love too, and the ones who aren't so shallow and lacking in logistical foresight as to demand someone two full feet taller than themselves, are out there. Just a thought.

One detail stuck out to me in this piece: The fact that this guy continues to read anti-short-people hate online, and still reflexively feels slighted, but then "remembers" that he got this surgery, kind of speaks to the fact that a big part of this is in his own head. Hear me out. I'm not suggesting people aren't being total douches about those of diminutive stature, because I've witnessed it and I'm quite sure they are. If someone is saying a sentence where if you put "black" let's say, in place of "short," there would be hell to pay, well then... there should be hell to pay. It's not right. At the same time, there is always evil shit out there being hurled at someone. Even tall white rich males. (Maybe especially them, lately.) Do you let that inside your head and make it your own thought that follows you around, day and night, far outside the reach of the douche who said it? It's difficult to practice the level of mental & emotional discipline it takes to cast such thoughts out, but it is an area where you have some degree of control over the situation.

What? Tall guys date short girls all the time.

That thick skin is, IMHO, a trait that I think has become vastly underappreciated in our society.

Being made fun of and the source of jokes is never going to be solved by having “thick skin”. Shorter men will still be seen as lesser even if they don’t let it effect them mentally. End of the day - your material being will be markedly different than those with greater height regardless of how you respond to it. For some - this will be so severe that they will likely die alone due to it even though they themselves are not troubled by their height or the jokes people make about them. And honestly - letting it get to you might actually help.

Sometimes I wish I had been more insecure growing up because then I would’ve treated my acne and not had all the facial scarring. I almost didn’t get braces because I didn’t see the issue with my extremely British teeth. I wasn’t concerned about my attire (but I should have been!) because I didn’t think it mattered and I wasn’t concerned. Again - thick skin can actually be quite detrimental to your outcomes!

I don't recall any red-lining against short men, separate water fountains or schools for short men, short-men not being allowed to get married, etc. Also, remind me the next time the NYPD sets up some extremely questionable surveillance of short-men at northeastern universities or a presidential candidate adopts banning foreign short-men from the country as part of his campaign platform.

That said, women being callous and cruel in groups about height, fitness, etc is more congruent to locker room talk. You probably won't hear it because it's behind your back and usually not by people you know. I say that as having been witness to this kind of private talk before.

I've seen hypocrisy and cruelty from people of all backgrounds. But anecdotally, among the "socially conscious women" I've spent time around, this, which is one of three top comments on the article, is a common sentiment:

> This is a reminder that the patriarchy hurts everyone and men should be just as invested in destroying it as women.

Thinking about this more, I think the far simpler explanation is "being a mean piece of shit hurts everyone" and it applies to pretty much any belief system and doesn't require a complete restructuring of society on the hopes that it'll prevent people from being mean.

Just as women benefit when society learns to accept and appreciate a wider variety of body types, so do men.

Brilliant. We're all in this together struggling to be generous to each other. There will always be tension between men and women and divergent gender roles will always exist, but things can be better than they are today.

There can be less of people of one gender or another demeaning others for physical characteristics, and more celebration of variety. I hope that more people can find it in themselves to accept when an olive branch is held out to them. This huge thread with hundreds of comments is a catalog of anguish showing how much potential there is for us to do better and be better — in daenz's formulation, being less of a "mean piece of shit" — for each other.

Calling it patriarchy is just another in the long stream insults to maleness that has become common, in the worst sense of the word common.

Let me get this straight, so women abusing and being hostile to short men, is the men's fault? lol you logic is incredible sometimes.

I get where you're coming from -- criticizing people for what they are, rather than for what they do, is exceedingly unfair -- but I can think of at least three important differences, chief among which are:

1. The shortness of men (barring outright dwarfism) has never been the object of widespread theories about their fundamental inferiority, nor have such theories been enshrined into widespread law.

2. Social institutions have never explicitly conspired to marginalize short men.

3. Redlining, lynching, the selling of persons into slavery, ghettos, etc. have no equivalent in the realm of height.

And to be frank, it's rather shocking that you would suggest otherwise. I don't doubt that you've been treated unfairly, and you are perfectly entitled to complain about it, but that doesn't require you to twist reality.

I understand your objection to drawing an equivalence between racial discrimination, but even if it isn’t as “bad” can’t it still recognized as a lesser form of bigotry?

https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~apostlew/paper/pdf/short.pdf

Yes. In fact, that's exactly what I said.

It's also worth calling out the sheer madness of equating height discrimination to racism, and pretending not to see the problem.

Again, this is exactly what I am saying.

I am also saying that you go further, and engage in an intellectual slight-of-hand. This happens precisely when you say "there's really no difference [...]".

Yes there is. There are several, important differences that render irrelevant their belonging to the same category. Abraham Lincoln and Pol Pot both belong to the category of "heads of state", but it is laughably incorrect to claim that there are no differences between them. So too with your example.

That's the difference between anti-short and anti-Black, not the anti-ness itself.

I'd ask in what way the point you're trying to make is useful, either analytically or rhetorically. I don't see how it is offhand.

See Japan: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/02/12/national/scienc...

There's an increase in low birth rate babies (not due to malnutrition), probably due to increased survivability of smaller more frail babies. The fact that they grow up and lead healthy lives means that their society is indeed selecting for the survivability of smaller people.

Also, ruling out that kind of confounding -is- hard… as mostly practiced any measurement error in confounders reduces our ability to ‘control for’ them… but most epidemiology and all nutrition research just glosses over this.

you are forcing additional context where there is none.

You are arguing in bad faith, just like the OP.

In exactly the same way: Abraham Lincoln and Pol Pot are both heads of state, but it is incorrect to say there are no differences between them.

And on a related question, what is the essence of sexiness, and is attraction to the sexy wrong?

Can we keep discussion civil? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html - "Assume good faith."

> There are several important differences,

Historically. But if the historical context of slavery did not exist, it would still be just as unacceptable to treat Black individuals differently.

In essence, historical context is largely irrelevant to whether an action is right or wrong. An action is right or wrong in itself (with respect to the contemporary common moral framework, (which may itself be influenced by history) etc.)

As such, treating Black individuals differently is not more or less wrong than treating short individuals differently.

>As such, treating Black individuals differently is not more or less wrong than treating short individuals differently.

Again, as I have mentioned repeatedly, we agree on this point. Where we disagree is in the assertion that there is "no difference" in effect, precisely because of the historical context.

It's amazing how circular the responses in this comment thread are getting. There appears to be disagreement on the surface, but in reality almost everyone is presenting a view which is at least compatible with each other's -- if not in direct agreement.

This is in essence why MLK said that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, because injustice is all the same.

We don’t fight racism just because we owe black people. We fight it because it’s fundamentally wrong, and not because black people just happened to have suffered a lot.

The point at which I disagree is when you imply that this is somehow comparable to institutionalized slavery and Jim Crow laws.

They didn’t equate racism and discrimination based on height, they said that there’s no difference in someone discriminating based on that - meaning discriminating based on something that wasn’t a choice and cannot reasonably be changed.

It doesn't hold because:

1. I pointed out this distinction in my initial comment, and the OP has not conceded the point that "x and y are members of set S" is different from "there are no differences beetween x and y".

2. This in turn negates the "best meaning" you seem to be assuming.

And the first point bears repeating. Even if height discrimination and racism are both instances of prejudice based on immutable characteristics, there are very important differences between them.

Your waiving of the rulebook in response to this is puzzling.

> Even if height discrimination and racism are both instances of prejudice based on immutable characteristics, there are very important differences between them.

I meant what I said. You claimed that one of the differences between heightism and racism is that "The shortness of men (barring outright dwarfism) has never been the object of widespread theories about their fundamental inferiority". That claim is blatantly false. Why did you make it?

To put it differently: I object to your sense of proportion.

In many countries, some jobs are de facto unavailable to short men. Next time you visit a schoolyard. See who the bullied kids are. They might have something in common. It might not be their skin color. It's not talked about a lot because it is taboo. It may be your sense of proportion (haha) that is incorrect.

The mental gymnastics is astounding

I don't even know how to respond to this post but I don't think it's worth having no one respond to it. I'm going with direct.

Being a slave is worse. What in the actual fuck.

Is it immoral (akin to racism) for women to have any preferences at all, or just regarding height?

It's crazy to me to see 5'7" being listed as basically undateable. I'm 5'7" and I'd say a quarter of my male coworkers are shorter than me. Some of them are hispanic or asian, most of them aren't. They don't seem to have any more trouble with relationships than the coworkers that are taller than me. Then again, the happily married man under 35 is not strongly represented in any height range here.

There are a reasonable number of women on dating sites that like saying pretty horrible things about shorter guys in there profiles.

I don't know that it does much but I've always treated it as a bit of a red flag and swiped left.

I don't think there's anything wrong with say, being attracted to someone taller than yourself, but I don't understand feeling the need to public ridicule someone about a physical trait you aren't attracted to.

People can like whoever they want to like. Some people may only like those of a certain height, weight, race, class, and any other attribute you may want to think of, but it is not necessarily wrong. It is up to each individual to have the freedom to date whoever they wish.

You might be conflating this with the societal denigration of certain races or classes, which is surely bad because there really is no reason to denigrate them, but that is not the same as saying everyone must be attracted to those of any combination of the above such factors.

That's not racists at all, that's just a person's personal preference for what they find attractive, and it often can't be helped.

We develop our models of what we find attractive early in our development by what we are exposed to.

It scares me a little that you don't know this, yet feel confident enough in your knowledge to type out these words.

Is it racist if I only like blonds? No, but that does rule out more than a few races of people that can't naturally grow blond hair. You're allowed to have physical preferences for certain traits. What you shouldn't do though is treat people differently because they don't have those traits that you value.

What would be racist is if I said I only hire [insert race], or I only let [insert race] people rent my condo.

so back to your example - if you only liked blonds, and exclusively date them, then are you not treating other potential dates "differently" (in the sense that you do not date them or even give them as chance)?

Mate selection is not and should not be institutionalized which means that you are within your rights to discriminate on...anything. Your criteria may be based on "taste", past experiences or downright prejudice. It is inevitable that as you pick a mate, you discriminate.

You can't stop that nor should you. We can however openly discuss criteria that are unhealthy, perverted, make no sense...in an attempt to open people's minds. Not to control whom they can date, rather to open up possibilities. People may be missing out a lot by being needlessly restrictive.

As old man I might provide a shortcut. Cliche as it is, character stands the test of time. What is somebody like? Select for that, the rest is a bonus.

Not being attracted to short men and not wanting to reproduce with them is a personal thing. But going on record ridiculing them, saying bad things about them, mocking their height, that's not okay, and it's true that if it was done about their race it would be frowned upon, but seems to be acceptable for height.

I think that's a fair issue to bring up.

It also seems there might be real measurable pay-gaps, and that might need addressing as well.

I fully agree, and you can extend that to men being bald, and many other bodily aspects. I think in particular contexts it's fine to make the occasional joke but that's entirely different from making it a widespread thing.

For example, it's ridiculous to ask for an exact height. Height is a spectrum. By demanding 6" or taller, you can't seriously justify how somebody that is 5"9 is an absolute deal breaker.

Similarly, if you're not attracted to fat people, you could still consider somebody a little overweight. Weight is not a static quality.

You may be attracted to brunettes, but I would opt to see that as a preference, not a hard requirement.

My point is that "attractive enough" is a better strategy as all of these things are ultimately unimportant if the personality doesn't match.

I'm about 5"8, and am actually really happy with my height - it's perfect for the types of sports I do, I fit quite nicely on an airplane, and have no problem if I were to drive a smaller car.

I imagine for taller people those things could be a hassle, that flying would be a real pain, that they might look silly on a motorbike / skateboard, and coule develop back problems from bending down.

When it comes to dating, online dating apps suck in general, but honestly I've never felt like I've missed out. People don't even seem to truly know what they find attractive until they have someone placed in front of them. I've even had this experience myself where I've found a super tall girl attractive when I'd typically go for the shorties.

It's sad that people feel the need to do these operations. Honestly, I feel they could achieve a better outcome (feeling confident / adequate) by doing some martial arts and hitting the gym.

As others have mentioned it also depends where you live. The only time I truly felt short was in Amsterdam where it felt like the local bars were packed full of giants lol. I Thailand and India I've had the opposite experience.

This is true for lots of things. Being fast is better than being slow. Being smart is better than people simple. Being attractive is better than being ugly. Being fit is better than being fat. This isn't a happy realization but it's true and it's healthy to accept it.

The dimension along which all people are equal is a metaphysical or religious dimension, not an empirical one.

EDIT: Also I should add that people are reading my comments automatically into the context of sexual preference, but I was talking more specifically about the general attitude that it's ok to deride people based on their genetic shortness. That being said, even if OK Cupid (Which is just a proxy for dating preference due to the specific nature of how it operates) showed that black woman were the least likely to get matched on OK Cupid doesn't mean it's ok to now make fun of them based on their skin color / cultural / racial background. Our perceptions about short people, black women, etc, are the results of social conditioning. Conditioned behavior will always lag the current reality. It is my belief that short stature does not hold the negative associations it once had, just as whatever was the reason for our preferences against black woman probably do not hold anymore.

We don't go around forcing people to start liking short people or black woman if they have not conditioned themselves to do so yet, but we also shouldn't be accepting adding fuel to the prejudicial fire.

Muscularity is the strongest predictor of mating success for men.

A study on males aged 18 to 59 found that muscularity is significantly positively associated with the number of total sexual partners and partners in the last year.

Handgrip strength is correlated with self-assessed happiness, health, social confidence, overall physical attractiveness, and overall number of sexual partners.

Researchers recorded short videos of 157 different men. Next, they had a group of male viewers watch videos of the men and asked, “How likely is it that this man would win a physical fight with another man?” Then the researchers had a group of female viewers watch the same videos and asked, “How sexually attractive is this man?” Eighteen months later, the men in the videos completed a questionnaire asking about their sexual history of the previous 18 months. How tough a guy looked to men was a much stronger predictor of mating success than how attractive he looked to women.

In this study, researchers asked two different groups of women to look at photos of different men and rate how strong the men looked. Results showed that the rated strength of a male body accounts for 70 percent of the variance in attractiveness (this is a massive effect size). From the paper: “None of the women produced a preference for weaker men…in both samples, the strongest men were the most attractive, the weakest men were the least attractive.”

See https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10905...

See also https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10905...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10905...

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.2017...

Like you said though, that's less necessary in this day and age.

Thor could be 8ft tall and able to lift to a house. It won't save him from a drone swarm designed by a nerd at Lockheed.

I find women of a certain size and shape attractive. That doesn't mean I can't find other kinds of women attractive, but you're doing the argument a disservice if you don't think at least some of our preferences are innate.

See this article about an isolated tribe that has developed an ability to see shades of green other humans cannot: https://gondwana-collection.com/blog/how-do-namibian-himbas-...

Even if part of it is genetics, it shows even that is easily malleable therefore manipulatable for long term goals.

Your comment shows your hand on your prejudice, because you're still somewhat commenting from the viewpoint that tallness is still an inherent positive trait. That clearly didn't work out for the dinosaurs. I'm not saying the opposite is true (that shortness is an inherent positive trait), but I do believe we need to dispel our preconceived notions because they are very short-sighted.

Take solace in the fact that if you find yourself on HN, you're likely at least a few SD above the mean in this trait, so you don't have much to worry about. Furthermore, you can use this trait to understand the fickle nature of sexual attraction, and how to obtain whatever it is you're looking for in an efficient manner.

No... if that were true then it would be OK to deride someone who was born with a deformed limb, because in that case the "inferiority" would really have an "objective basis in reality". They would be objectively inferior at certain tasks then someone without it. Does that make it ok to insult them?

Suggesting racism (or prejudice) is wrong simply because it's not objectively inferior is missing the point.

The actual answer, which I think you would have come to eventually, is that deride someone for an attribute they had no control over, is the essence of prejudice.

People do not chose to be born in a poor country, in an abusive family, black, French, short or handicap, these are simply the hands they were dealt.

Stop trying to sanitise the world, that's why no one can live in it.

I'm shifting all the way back on that one. Fat is fit. So I was talking to a girl, a model in fact, I was a model too, met a lot of models. I said I am going to want exactly the sort of woman I want, and no other, without any other man's judgment being taken into consideration at all.

So it's actually about white fat versus brown fat cells, apparently. Saturated or unsaturated, based on diet, to a lesser extent fat but to a greater extent sugars and especially toxins[1]. So without it women look ripped and bony. All the models I saw like that looked great on TV but terrible in real life, the models who didn't get work had that...that baby fat I guess you could call it. I got her to come around on the subject she was like, "yeah, a thin but not too thin and even layer of fat, it looks good!"

[1] Many but not all psychiatric compounds. All of them alter body fat, I think. Fluoride, for lots of reasons. So hard to escape that F'ing F atom. Then what other toxins...pesticides and especially fire-retardant.

Assuming that it is some innate quality that women are attracted to people taller than them is also flawed. What about homosexual woman? If they both prefer someone taller how does that work?

It's really hard to consider these things as "fatter" probably meant larger dowry (!), better survivability, healthier and by extension better for child-rearing. Whilst fatter in Western society now (anorexia, etc., aside) is almost certainly healthier, fitter for child-rearing and such.

Populations were lower and people moved around less, there was far less choice for mates.

But then choosing, rather than falling in love seems strange from where I am.

Contrast to today where it is easy to be fat, so therefore not hip to be round anymore. That means we’d see more fatter people than in the past because it is easy now.

Is there a citation? I've heard only the rich were 'plump' in ancient times, though not that it was ever sexually desirable.

> What about homosexual woman? If they both prefer someone taller how does that work?

Nature doesn't always fit our intuition or first hypothesis. IIRC, gay men strongly prefer very fit men, yet they cannot procreate. That struck me as counterintuitive, though if the cause is genetic there could be a variety of factors leading to such genes.

One hypothesis is that gayness is from an evolutionary point of view "too much bisexuality". Similar to how one sickle cell gene is beneficial, but two is deleterious. According to this theory, evolution favors bisexuals, and sometimes produces gays as a side effect of that.

No one is dictating anything about attractiveness, and you really shouldn't be trying to marginalize my arguments on the ground that I might be short. It really has no relevancy here. I wasn't talking about dating and people's dating preferences. I was referring specially to the person receiving a derogatory comment about his stature, that was in the context of normal socializing. Again, it is not socially or morally acceptable to deride someone for their skin color, and my point is that it's equally unacceptable to do so on another genetic trait such as height. Just because that random man did not find the height adjusted man to be attractive or not has no bearing on whether he has the right to express derision about his height in such a nonchalant manner. I mean, it shouldn't be made illegal, but it shouldn't be socially acceptable either assuming all parties are not toxic and want to be part of well-intenioned society.

However, if we want to shift the topic to dating/attractiveness, your statement applies to people's "preferences" on race as well. OK Cupid published these preferences against black woman (and also Asian men) on their site. We can use this as an example because it's been more in the spotlight than the topic of stature, and easier to see my point.

My opinion on this is that if you are short/Black/Asian and dating then just skip to the next person who can't see past superficial physical qualities. Usually it's a sign of dating inexperience anyways. It's a free market, and the winners will be those that are able to make a decision beyond superficial factors. Many people can't see past the superficial qualities as trivial as a candidate being a woman instead of a man, and the same thing applies here. It's their loss. Societal trends will always lag reality. We can't force people to get up to speed, nor should we (and I never advocated for this). The best thing to do is to simply reward those who are prescient.

You're just inverting reality now. "The winners of dating are those that pick partners with the least desirable physical traits".

If there's two men with identical personalities, but one is 6'5 and muscular and the other is 4'2 and 300lbs what exactly would a woman be "winning" by going with the second man?

So, over time, the rare woman who prefers short obese kings would outcompete the rest. I don't think this particular example is the case, but I do think something like this dynamic is happening. (In the other direction, actually.)

Different from skin colour, there's an evolutionary trait to height preference. Studies have shown that heterosexual women prefer partners taller than them. It's understandable this subconscious bias. And what seems like discrimination, it's just a natural product.

Similarly, men have always shown preference to larger breasts and hips, signs of fertility. We can't, even shouldn't, shut down our instincts due to politically correctness.

Obviously taller men are naturally superior to shorter men and so it's just natural that they make more money. /sarcasm

And saying men have always shown a preference for larger breasts is begging the question. There are plenty of studies out there showing that breast size preference is complicated -- bigger is not always better.

Some cultures prefer medium sized breasts (actually, most studies I found this is the preference).[1] Poorer men might prefer larger breasts and richer men might prefer smaller breasts [2][3] Or maybe sexist men prefer larger breasts [4]

I don't think we know why women have the breasts they have or if breast size actually is a meaningful signifier of reproductive fitness. Seems like evidence points that women get breast implants because of their own opinions of their body image and not because it's an actual reproductive advantage.[5]

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10905...

[2] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

[3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20862533/

[4] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23412650/

[5] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/how-we-do-it/202001/...

Also I would like to add that not even all cultures like big asses. Some even find the practice of injecting cement into buttocks (to enlarge them) to be repulsive. Different cultures have different preferences. Heck, different cultures can even be sensitive to different colors in their eyes[1].

Once people open their eyes and broaden their minds they'll see that perceptions are extremely malleable.

Height didn't work out for the dinosaurs, and being small works great for the cockroach. There is no objective short == bad in reality.

[1] https://gondwana-collection.com/blog/how-do-namibian-himbas-...

Isn't this something we're watching evolve in real time? like right now? Cultures that didn't appreciate them now seem to be viewing them in a positive light.

Of course we should. Relying on reasons that would have been acceptable to a caveman 10,000 years ago is no basis for modern society. We've beaten evolution. Modern science, medicine, and society means evolutionary pressures can be ignored - women with bigger breasts and hips aren't any more likely to have successful offspring now because women without those traits can go to Walmart for baby formula and a GP if their baby gets ill. Evolution has no bearing any more. Why keep using it as a reason?

No we haven't, and that's a good thing because a society made up of completely dysgenic people who need countless supplements and medical products just to stay alive would not be the utopia you're trying to paint it as.

You brought up oxygen reliance as a silly point but you're actually right. Humans relying on oxygen actually isn't that great, we can't go into space or underwater (without external support) and we get out of breath when exercising. A group of humans that evolved to not need oxygen at all would be a great genetic improvement.

I believe the main evolutionary advantage of your anaerobic humans is that they're imaginary, so they don't have tradeoffs, which definitely helps if you want to add features.

I think I'd prefer to be able to detect low O2 instead of instantly passing out; that'd probably be good enough.

It's an impossibility. Evolution is by definition something we can't escape.

> Modern science, medicine, and society means evolutionary pressures can be ignored

No. It means evolutionary pressure will increase and accelerate. Modern science will allow couples to genetically alter/select for best embryos. It will be a genetic arms race to produce the taller, faster, smarter, healthier, etc children.

The advances of modern science will do the exact opposite of what you are claiming. Take down syndrome. Genetic screening has all but eliminated the down syndrome trait from much of the advanced world.

People choosing which traits to optimize for isn't evolutionary pressure. Evolution is a very specific mechanism that optimizes through random mutation. Choosing what to optimize for, using science to continue 'undesirable' genetic traits, making people choose who to reproduce with by manipulating what's considered attractive through Pornhub and Instagram, etc are all ways humans are now a poat-evolution species.

The fact we happen to still pick the traits that evolution optimized for in the past is because this is something that's only happened very recently. We're only just starting to move past evolutionary pressure. We could select for anything through science and tech. The fact we'd probably go for things like height, intelligence, etc just means we're not being very imaginative. One day we might decide to push for smaller offspring so we can fit more of them on spaceships, or for children who can survive with less water because the climate is screwed, etc.

The outcome will be the same as evolution, eg optimizing for the survival of the species, but the mechanism that causes it will be very different and absolutely not evolution.

If anything, what you describe is intelligent design, just by humans instead of a god.

It sure is. Look up selection or selection pressure ( another name for evolutionary pressure ).

> Evolution is a very specific mechanism that optimizes through random mutation.

Random mutations are meaningless without selection pressure. It's the selection that drives evolution not random mutations. You could have evolution without any mutations - the environment could change which selects for certain existing traits.

> We could select for anything through science and tech.

Which is called evolution. You seem to have a misunderstanding of what evolution is. Evolution isn't only "natural selection". Artifical selection exists. For example, dogs evolved from wolves by human/artificial selection, not "natural" selection. Regardless, it is still evolution.

Does this difference exist? I recall studies that showed that babies are afraid of people who look very different from them and their family members. As such I was under the impression that there was a genetic basis for discrimination of people based on some outward difference in appearance like skin colour that was due to people having an inherent distrust in the 'other.'

If that's the case it's not unreasonable to desire that society progress in a way that mitigate these biases against short people in the same way that we desire that society progresses in a way that mitigate biases against people of colour.

> Similarly, men have always shown preference to larger breasts and hips, signs of fertility. We can't, even shouldn't, shut down our instincts due to politically correctness.

What kinds of things that you feel are due to an instinctual bias to discriminate against short people, and why should we not attempt to shut down this discrimination? If your children were short and they felt like they were discriminated against for being that way, what sort of advice would you give them?