Why is heightism given vastly less attention than feminism in the developed world?

Scanlas The 2nd

http://www.livescience.com/5552-taller-people-earn-money.html

Take a read. Height discrimination is on a par with feminism yet it receives virtually no media coverage in comparison to feminism.

What is the reason for this?

Why is our society so preoccupied with gender discrimination ahead of other forms of discrimination? Remember this isn't Sauid Arabia.

I think it basically comes down to ego, people identify with gender so even minor occurences of gender discrimination angers them, both male and female. Many of these people I believe will proclaim the importance of equality when in fact it is their ego that is important to them. If equality were so important to these people surely heightism would be on their radar.

Heightism is so devoid of identity to people it is seen as laughable because it has no relevance to their ego.

diddlybit

:rolleyes: Is there a Napolean complex at work here?

Scanlas The 2nd

Napoleon was actually around average height for his day I believe.

As for me, I'm 5'10. I don't really care about heightism but I find it interesting that people who claim to exalt equality don't appear to care about heightism. I believe it highlights their bullsh!t. Though I don't want to generalise, I'm sure there are many people who actually really care about equality more than simply their own interests and egos.

I should highlight the fact that I'm this is only relevant to the first world where our equality problems are luxuries compared to the third world.

Count Duckula

diddlybit wrote: »

:rolleyes: Is there a Napolean complex at work here?

Because to highlight an issue someone must be being unreasonable and/or slighted.

28064212

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Take a read. Height discrimination is on a par with feminism

That's quite a leap to make. Are short people making less money because other people are discriminating against them, or because, for example, they're less likely to be confident? Correlation doesn't imply causation. There's also research that suggests taller people tend to be more intelligent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_and_intelligence)

It's something that should be looked at. There should be studies, research, it should be investigated. I've never heard, first-hand or otherwise, of an incident where someone suffered discrimination because of their height. On the other hand, I personally know of several incidents where women suffered discrimination because of their gender

godspal

First off this is absurd. You can't say that just because someone has, what society considers, a positive attribute, and therefore excel because of this positive attribute, that they are being positively discriminated against.
I think there are two reasons why tall people excel in jobs; because people are more likely to talk to them and therefore they build confidence. And secondly we instintively promote people who we think have good genes to roles of authority.

After that, you clearly have no idea what its like to be tall. I am 6'7. And from about 10-18 I spent a lot of time fighting. Not because I was aggressive, because any person who was small or had a point to prove would pick me and try to prove their metal.
Now that I am an adult I spend a lot of my time getting harrassed by people when I go out for the night, thinking its okay to make fun of, to think its okay to insult me, and every conversation I have with a new person starts with how tall I am. Its irritating. But I can deal with, its made grow a thick skin.

So after that lesson i hope you have grown up a bit (either in height or maturity, I don't really care) because you clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Scanlas The 2nd

28064212 wrote: »

That's quite a leap to make. Are short people making less money because other people are discriminating against them, or because, for example, they're less likely to be confident? Correlation doesn't imply causation. There's also research that suggests taller people tend to be more intelligent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_and_intelligence)

It's something that should be looked at. There should be studies, research, it should be investigated. I've never heard, first-hand or otherwise, of an incident where someone suffered discrimination because of their height. On the other hand, I personally know of several incidents where women suffered discrimination because of their gender

At last the penny drops. Now isn't it just possible women earn less through their own behavours rather than just because they are women.

Likewise there is also research that suggests men are more intelligent than women.

diddlybit

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Likewise there is also research that suggests men are more intelligent than women.

Please substanciate this with some evidence.

I find your comparison of feminism with heightism myopic. There is no simple answer for the oppression of half the world's population.

There is for height discrimination. They are called stacked heels.

28064212

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

At last the penny drops. Now isn't it just possible women earn less through their own behavours rather than just because they are women.

Likewise there is also research that suggests men are more intelligent than women.

You missed the entire point of my post. Your claim is that because there is a difference, short people must be discriminated against. I'm saying further research is needed to find out if discrimination is actually happening.

For gender, we know discrimination exists. The extent is up for debate, but it definitely exists. There are hundreds of examples where women are discriminated against because they are women, not to mention historical stuff like suffrage.

Have you ever heard, first-hand or otherwise, of an incident where someone suffered discrimination because of their height? I haven't

Scanlas The 2nd

diddlybit wrote: »

Please substanciate this with some evidence.

I find your comparison of feminism with heightism myopic. There is no simple answer for the oppression of half the world's population.

There is for height discrimination. They are called stacked heels.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/higher/dr-paul-irwing-there-are-twice-as-many-men-as-women-with-an-iq-of-120plus-426321.html

Tall people are respected on average more than short people. I think you know that it the truth.

Remember I'm discussing gender discrimination in the developed modern world.

Scanlas The 2nd

28064212 wrote: »

You missed the entire point of my post. Your claim is that because there is a difference, short people must be discriminated against. I'm saying further research is needed to find out if discrimination is actually happening.

For gender, we know discrimination exists. The extent is up for debate, but it definitely exists. There are hundreds of examples where women are discriminated against because they are women, not to mention historical stuff like suffrage.

Have you ever heard, first-hand or otherwise, of an incident where someone suffered discrimination because of their height? I haven't

I'm talking about modern developed world gender discrimination where it isn't that big of a deal. Gender discrimination was much worse than height discrimination throughout history and in poor countries.

28064212

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I'm talking about modern developed world gender discrimination where it isn't that big of a deal. Gender discrimination was much worse than height discrimination throughout history and in poor countries.

Gender discrimination is still quite a big deal. "A woman's place is in the home" is far from an unusual opinion to hold. Many men will not hire a woman for an advanced position on the basis of their gender. Many women do suffer for no other reason than their gender.

Have you ever heard, first-hand or otherwise, of an incident where someone suffered discrimination because of their height?

Scanlas The 2nd

28064212 wrote: »

Gender discrimination is still quite a big deal. "A woman's place is in the home" is far from an unusual opinion to hold. Many men will not hire a woman for an advanced position on the basis of their gender. Many women do suffer for no other reason than their gender.

Have you ever heard, first-hand or otherwise, of an incident where someone suffered discrimination because of their height?

I've neither heard first hand of someone suffering discrimination because of their height or their gender.

That stats cleary show similar levels of discrimination in terms of wages, yet we hear a running update of the percentage differential in women's wages yet not a word is said about short people's wages. The correlation isn't causation rebuttal applies to both scenarios.

28064212

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I've neither heard first hand of someone suffering discrimination because of their height or their gender.

But you have heard it from other sources for gender? I've heard it both first-hand and from other sources for gender. I've never heard anyone suggest that their height was the reason they didn't get a job or a promotion. I've never seen an "old tall-ies club" mentality (as opposed to old boys clubs, which are common). There is a huge body of evidence that shows direct discrimination does occur on the basis of gender

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

That stats cleary show similar levels of discrimination in terms of wages, yet we hear a running update of the percentage differential in women's wages yet not a word is said about short people's wages. The correlation isn't causation rebuttal applies to both scenarios.

The stats do not show that. The stats show similar levels of difference in terms of wages, the stats do not put forward any reason for the difference. Evidence shows that women are discriminated against, so it's sensible to postulate that it is one of the reasons for the wage difference. AFAIK, there is no evidence that says short people are discriminated against.

Scanlas The 2nd

28064212 wrote: »

But you have heard it from other sources for gender? I've heard it both first-hand and from other sources for gender. I've never heard anyone suggest that their height was the reason they didn't get a job or a promotion. I've never seen an "old tall-ies club" mentality (as opposed to old boys clubs, which are common). There is a huge body of evidence that shows direct discrimination does occur on the basis of gender


The stats do not show that. The stats show similar levels of difference in terms of wages, the stats do not put forward any reason for the difference. Evidence shows that women are discriminated against, so it's sensible to postulate that it is one of the reasons for the wage difference. AFAIK, there is no evidence that says short people are discriminated against.

Likewise the stats don't show a reason for gender difference.Women could be paid less because they are shorter for all we know.

28064212

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Likewise the stats don't show a reason for gender difference

Which is exactly what I said.

You're ignoring the part about the huge body of evidence that women are discriminated against because of their gender. There is no such body of evidence for height discrimination

southsiderosie

I would want to see the methodology of these studies before jumping to any conclusions. Unless they are controlling for factors such as childhood poverty (which could stunt both physical growth and cognitive development which would in turn affect future employment prospects), participation in sports (which can build confidence and personal networks), and other mitigating issues, I'm not sure that height is doing all of the explanatory work here.

Zombrex

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Why is our society so preoccupied with gender discrimination ahead of other forms of discrimination? Remember this isn't Sauid Arabia.
...
Many of these people I believe will proclaim the importance of equality when in fact it is their ego that is important to them.

By "these people" you mean women?

I think you answered your own question there....

Bottle_of_Smoke

I reckon its because people don't realise they are being discriminated against over their height. And the people discriminating don't realise either.

Though its a very good point. Feminists(as well as anti-racists and other groups) often cite statistical difference in pay/success as evidence of discrimination and assume gender is a causal factor without looking at any other factors.

Scanlas The 2nd

southsiderosie wrote: »

I would want to see the methodology of these studies before jumping to any conclusions. Unless they are controlling for factors such as childhood poverty (which could stunt both physical growth and cognitive development which would in turn affect future employment prospects), participation in sports (which can build confidence and personal networks), and other mitigating issues, I'm not sure that height is doing all of the explanatory work here.

I read somewhere in a study (I'll try find it again) that there is a strong correlation with height with intelligence and that is one of the reasons men are on avearge more intelligent than women. The study did point out though that an x height woman is on average more intelligent than an x height man though.

I think feminism is given much more attention than heightism for example in the developed world for two main reasons, the first being that it used to be a huge problem and the culture has given it momentum even when no big problem exists like decades ago. Secondly I think it's given so much attention because men and women tend to identify very strongly with their gender so they are very sensitve to any implication that men or women are inferior.

Scanlas The 2nd

Wicknight wrote: »

By "these people" you mean women?

I think you answered your own question there....

Any section of society which exalts equality but coincidentally only defends the section of society that they belong to.

Scanlas The 2nd

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I read somewhere in a study (I'll try find it again) that there is a strong correlation with height with intelligence

This is already addressed in her quote:

Unless they are controlling for factors such as childhood poverty (which could stunt both physical growth and cognitive development which would in turn affect future employment prospects)

Count Duckula

diddlybit wrote: »

There is for height discrimination. They are called stacked heels.

If it was suggested that a woman should try to overcome gender discrimination by being more masculine and concealing her femininity, the person who suggested it would be torn apart.

And yet it's alright to suggest that short people disguise themselves as tall people rather than be honest about their height?

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Likewise there is also research that suggests men are more intelligent than women.

I have never in my life seen any research claiming that. I have, however, seen plenty of research - not least leaving cert and degree scores from the past ten years - which suggests that women are the most intelligent (and sometimes by some considerable margin).

Sexist discrimination has nothing to do with women being genetically inferior nor with them being more stupid. Height discrimination does seem to have at least some basis in genetics, however, though I'm sure more research is needed.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Count Duckula wrote: »

Sexist discrimination has nothing to do with women being genetically inferior nor with them being more stupid. Height discrimination does seem to have at least some basis in genetics, however, though I'm sure more research is needed.

Going down a dangerous path with genetics there. Maybe intelligence doesn't have any genetic basis, but what if traits like leadership or charisma did? Would it then be fair to discriminate against one of the genders for management jobs?

Count Duckula

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Going down a dangerous path with genetics there. Maybe intelligence doesn't have any genetic basis, but what if traits like leadership or charisma did? Would it then be fair to discriminate against one of the genders for management jobs?

Not at all, because I never suggested we screen for those talents. I'm merely saying that tall people tend to be more intelligent. This means they do better in exams and get better jobs. They're not being chosen for those jobs because they're tall; they're being chosen because they're more intelligent. That just happens to coincide with their height - does that make society heightist, or is it simply allowing more intelligent people (who might happen to be taller) to do better?

There is no such disparity with gender, and yet women are held back. You can't point to secondary characteristics such as intelligence or management skill and use that as the basis for the discrimination. Women aren't held back by coincidence just because they happen to be less able in a skill that employers hire for. Thus we must draw the conclusion that, unlike heightism, women are being discriminated against simply for being women.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Count Duckula wrote: »

Not at all, because I never suggested we screen for those talents. I'm merely saying that tall people tend to be more intelligent. This means they do better in exams and get better jobs. They're not being chosen for those jobs because they're tall; they're being chosen because they're more intelligent. That just happens to coincide with their height - does that make society heightist, or is it simply allowing more intelligent people (who might happen to be taller) to do better?

The article suggests it isn't that. More that people associate leadership with tall people.

There is no such disparity with gender, and yet women are held back. You can't point to secondary characteristics such as intelligence or management skill and use that as the basis for the discrimination. Women aren't held back by coincidence just because they happen to be less able in a skill that employers hire for. Thus we must draw the conclusion that, unlike heightism, women are being discriminated against simply for being women.

Sidestepping the point here. If there was a peer reviewed study showing one gender tended to be more charismatic or had better leaders would it then be acceptable to discriminate in their favour?

Also I do not accept women are held back at all.

HivemindXX

I've never heard anyone say they couldn't work for someone short, I've heard people say they couldn't work for a woman.

I've never heard anyone say that anyone under 6' just isn't physically capable of doing the job, I've heard people say a woman just isn't physically capable of doing the job.

I've never worked anywhere where there were email groups set up to organise nights out that excluded short people but I have worked places where women were excluded in this way.

Am I correct in saying that the OP doesn't actually care about or believe in "heightism" but is using this as a way of challenging the existence of sexism?

Annasopra

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Height discrimination is on a par with feminism

Is it? I don't see any correlation whatsoever. One is a social movement that promotes and campaigns for women's rights. The other is discrimination against someone on the basis of their height. Perhaps you got confused and meant to say discrimination against women

bryaner

godspal wrote: »

First off this is absurd. You can't say that just because someone has, what society considers, a positive attribute, and therefore excel because of this positive attribute, that they are being positively discriminated against.
I think there are two reasons why tall people excel in jobs; because people are more likely to talk to them and therefore they build confidence. And secondly we instintively promote people who we think have good genes to roles of authority.

After that, you clearly have no idea what its like to be tall. I am 6'7. And from about 10-18 I spent a lot of time fighting. Not because I was aggressive, because any person who was small or had a point to prove would pick me and try to prove their metal.
Now that I am an adult I spend a lot of my time getting harrassed by people when I go out for the night, thinking its okay to make fun of, to think its okay to insult me, and every conversation I have with a new person starts with how tall I am. Its irritating. But I can deal with, its made grow a thick skin.

So after that lesson i hope you have grown up a bit (either in height or maturity, I don't really care) because you clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about.

I must agree with you, I'm not tall by any manner or mean but I have some very tall mates, and what I've noticed on many nights out is that when the local wannabe hard shaw comes on the scene who does he normally try to start on?

Yes the big lads, it seems like it's a medal of honor for this type of numpty to try and start on the big lads, and it has become a bit of a hindrance for my very tall mates.

Annasopra

HivemindXX wrote: »

Am I correct in saying that the OP doesn't actually care about or believe in "heightism" but is using this as a way of challenging the existence of sexism?

Pretty much yeah - he is trying to create false problems for feminists and egalitarian. There'll probably be more threads on discrimination against red haired people and bald people and left handed people soon enough

3DataModem

diddlybit wrote: »

:rolleyes: Is there a Napolean complex at work here?

Napoleon was above average height.

Bottle_of_Smoke

HivemindXX wrote: »

I've never heard anyone say they couldn't work for someone short, I've heard people say they couldn't work for a woman.

I've heard people make that remark, though I've never seen someone walk out of a job because the new manager was a woman. Its a stupid flippant remark idiots make.

I've never heard anyone say that anyone under 6' just isn't physically capable of doing the job, I've heard people say a woman just isn't physically capable of doing the job.

Again, idiotic flippant remark, though I would argue the people who say it mean "most women" and if they actually came across a physically strong woman they'd have no issue working with/hiring them.

And also the shorter you are the less seriously you'd be taken for jobs in security/police

I've never worked anywhere where there were email groups set up to organise nights out that excluded short people but I have worked places where women were excluded in this way.

That's disengenuous. Gender themed nights out are an exception. Like Stag/Hen nights. Both genders would get excluded in this way. Wouldn't count it as real sexism

Scanlas The 2nd

Count Duckula wrote: »

Not at all, because I never suggested we screen for those talents. I'm merely saying that tall people tend to be more intelligent. This means they do better in exams and get better jobs. They're not being chosen for those jobs because they're tall; they're being chosen because they're more intelligent. That just happens to coincide with their height - does that make society heightist, or is it simply allowing more intelligent people (who might happen to be taller) to do better?

There is no such disparity with gender, and yet women are held back. You can't point to secondary characteristics such as intelligence or management skill and use that as the basis for the discrimination. Women aren't held back by coincidence just because they happen to be less able in a skill that employers hire for. Thus we must draw the conclusion that, unlike heightism, women are being discriminated against simply for being women.

There is such a disparity with gender. Men are roughtly 5 IQ points more intelligent on average than women. Exams don't prove intelligence as there are other factors which play a huge part such as motivation, dedication and enjoyment of the subject to name a few. Per unit height women appear to be more intelligent than men.

I'm not too bothered about heightism or feminism in the developed world. I started this thread as inconsistency annoys me.

Scanlas The 2nd

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Is it? I don't see any correlation whatsoever. One is a social movement that promotes and campaigns for women's rights. The other is discrimination against someone on the basis of their height. Perhaps you got confused and meant to say discrimination against women

Yea should have said discrimination against women.

Byron85

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

There is such a disparity with gender. Men are roughtly 5 IQ points more intelligent on average than women. Exams don't prove intelligence as there are other factors which play a huge part such as motivation, dedication and enjoyment of the subject to name a few. Per unit height women appear to be more intelligent than men.

Studies i've read point to the opposite. Women on average, have higher IQs but they underestimate their IQ whereas men overestimate theirs; it's the Downing Effect or something similar.

I don't have my text book with me at the moment though so I can't follow up on it and i'm not using wikipedia as a source for information about something like this.

diddlybit

Count Duckula wrote: »

If it was suggested that a woman should try to overcome gender discrimination by being more masculine and concealing her femininity, the person who suggested it would be torn apart.

And yet it's alright to suggest that short people disguise themselves as tall people rather than be honest about their height?

A little off-topic here but have to reply to something.

Femininity in women is a privileged gender performance in society, as is masculinity in men. It is obvious when examining the different terms utilised to describe women and men in postions of power. For example, he is an "authority figure" whereas she is a "ballbreaker". The representation of women in politics is highly critical of women that show any masculine traits. The American media destroyed Clinton's campaign as she was percieved as being too hard and cold i.e she was not in touch with her emotional side which was a trait that the general population thought was necassary in women. When she, cried, she was faking it.

Individuals that display gender performances that are as seen not to match to their biological sex, masculine women or feminine men are marginilsed both socially and culturally. They are objects of ridicule in the media and language as they threaten the polarised positions of masculine and feminine. A woman that "butched" herself up to circumnavigate gender discrimination, I believe and unfortuantely so, would find herself further outside the circles of privilage.

HivemindXX

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That's disengenuous. Gender themed nights out are an exception. Like Stag/Hen nights. Both genders would get excluded in this way. Wouldn't count it as real sexism

I accept this and such gender specific events can certainly be justified under some circumstance in my opinion. However I think it is still relevant that there are no height specific social events that I am aware of.

Skerries

trying to change peoples perceptions is a tall order

WesternNight

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

There is such a disparity with gender. Men are roughtly 5 IQ points more intelligent on average than women. Exams don't prove intelligence as there are other factors which play a huge part such as motivation, dedication and enjoyment of the subject to name a few. Per unit height women appear to be more intelligent than men.

You're making these assertions, but have you any actual reference for them? Have you read Hyde's Gender Similarities Hypothesis? Have a look at that, preferably from an objective stand-point, and you may be surprised by what the findings are.

Alternatively, tl;dr: men and women are vastly more similar than they are different on almost all scores, and this 'on average men are more intelligent than women' business is nonsense.

Bottle_of_Smoke

HivemindXX wrote: »

I accept this and such gender specific events can certainly be justified under some circumstance in my opinion. However I think it is still relevant that there are no height specific social events that I am aware of.

Then I have to wonder why you used it as a point when you consider it to be acceptable

I honestly don't see social events as relevent to this discussion. There are jobs that will exclude short people though. No matter how good looking a guy/girl is they won't be a catwalk model unless they're tall enough.

Just to make it clear I'm not trying to argue there should be height quotas for jobs or anything, I just agree with the OP that short people do suffer in similar ways from inequality as women(as well as other things like ugly people/black people in America particularly/low socioeconomical class people: biggest one) yet there's nowhere near as much attention given to it

goose2005

Count Duckula wrote: »

Not at all, because I never suggested we screen for those talents. I'm merely saying that tall people tend to be more intelligent. This means they do better in exams and get better jobs. They're not being chosen for those jobs because they're tall; they're being chosen because they're more intelligent. That just happens to coincide with their height - does that make society heightist, or is it simply allowing more intelligent people (who might happen to be taller) to do better?

There is no such disparity with gender, and yet women are held back. You can't point to secondary characteristics such as intelligence or management skill and use that as the basis for the discrimination. Women aren't held back by coincidence just because they happen to be less able in a skill that employers hire for. Thus we must draw the conclusion that, unlike heightism, women are being discriminated against simply for being women.

But why is it that any statistic that makes men look inferior - they commit the vast majority of violent crime, make up almost all prisoners and homeless, most alcoholics and drug addicts, do worse in school, live many years fewer, do all of the dangerous work - is put down to natural inferiority, but any statistic that makes women look inferior is put down to a vast conspiracy?

southsiderosie

goose2005 wrote: »

But why is it that any statistic that makes men look inferior - they commit the vast majority of violent crime, make up almost all prisoners and homeless, most alcoholics and drug addicts, do worse in school, live many years fewer, do all of the dangerous work - is put down to natural inferiority, but any statistic that makes women look inferior is put down to a vast conspiracy?

Is it?

This seems like a gross oversimplification to me.

Scanlas The 2nd

southsiderosie wrote: »

Is it?

This seems like a gross oversimplification to me.

Really, care to elaborate how it is an oversimplication.

I think men get the top jobs for a variety of reasons. I don't reject the idea that sexism is a factor but I'd say it's small, certainly smaller than other factors. I think men get the top jobs mainly due to higher levels of testosterone and then I'd say intelligence comes into it too. The level of male geniuses vastly outnumbers female geniuses. I

Sleepy

I'd put it down to short people being less inclined to whinge about statistical differences than women.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd put it down to short people being less inclined to whinge about statistical differences than women.

I honestly think that's true and it begs the question, should they whinge about it or should feminists stfu about it?

Boskowski

This is the silliest thing I heard in a long time and I wonder is the article a pisstake in order to ridicule the idea of gender discrimination.
I think you could also ask the question what it is about stupidism since stupid people statistically earn less money than clever people. Or positive discrimination - what about highly skilled soccerism? These people are making an awful lot of money.

Height I think has a direct correlation with how well you were raised (ding, ding). I mean how healthy your food was, when you were sent to bed, how stable your environment etc. It's not too far fetched to build a bridge between poorer and less educated households and their opposites when it comes to raising their kids (statistically) and how well these kids then do in their professional lifes.

HivemindXX

One of those pop-economics books (think Freakonomics but not that one) had a bit about children who went to the library earning less in later life than those who didn't visit the library.

Weird eh? Reading is a negative factor for your job prospects? Turns out it's a classic causation versus corelation issue. Children who go to the library are from poorer families on average. Children of wealthy families have books bought for them.

Children of wealthy families have better diet, better education possibilities, better networking opportunities and all that leads to better employment prospects...or maybe it's just wealthism.

HazDanz

Byron85 wrote: »

Studies i've read point to the opposite. Women on average, have higher IQs but they underestimate their IQ whereas men overestimate theirs; it's the Downing Effect or something similar.

Well from the research I was reading yes woman have higher IQ in the general population. Woman out perform men consistently on memory and verbal tasks for example. But research shows that in terms of the highest IQ (Outliers basically) men have always been more prominent, these cases of exceptionally high IQ is not common place however. In the general population woman are shown to be higher on IQ tests. But what I find funny is that men and woman are much more similar in terms of intelligence than different. In fact tests comparing men/men and men/woman found more of a difference in the same sex grouping than the opposite sex grouping so.... Whats the point in debating... In the general population woman tend to be smarter, but only minimally. Its not significant.

Anyways... The height bias is there in terms of job opportunities, managers are generally taller for example. But thats not the same as the sexism argument. You could suggest why do good looking people get special treatment also. Its all too subjective to be "oh you heightist pig you didn't pick me because i'm not six foot!". It could be for a host of different things.

Scanlas The 2nd

From most studies I've seen men have a higher IQ than women.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/sep/08iq.htm


It's interesting on this thread that numerous times the argument of "correlation doesn't imply causation" against heightism has come up yet I am struggling to remember one single time someone has brought up that argument against sexism.

I think people don't bring it up because they fear being labelled sexist or that they have been so brainwashed that they think women couldn't possibly have an inferior ability to men in any area.

28064212

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

It's interesting on this thread that numerous times the argument of "correlation doesn't imply causation" against heightism has come up

And despite that, you still haven't understood the reason it has been brought up. The evidence for heightism so far consists of one factor, the pay differential. The evidence for sexism consists of huge numbers of studies and testimonies (both from victims and perpetrators).

Sexism demonstrably exists. There are arguments over the extent of it, but it's certainly a lot higher than the incredibly rare cases of heightism

Scanlas The 2nd

28064212 wrote: »

And despite that, you still haven't understood the reason it has been brought up. The evidence for heightism so far consists of one factor, the pay differential. The evidence for sexism consists of huge numbers of studies and testimonies (both from victims and perpetrators).

Sexism demonstrably exists. There are arguments over the extent of it, but it's certainly a lot higher than the incredibly rare cases of heightism

I'm not saying sexism doesn't exist. I just don't see why sexism in the developed world gets so much more attention than heightism. Look at pay differential, women getting paid less is always in the media and short people getting paid less is never in the media.

Also short people get less respect than tall people and treated less seriously. There are fewer studies and testimonies because no one cares about it because it isn't ego relevant to most people the way sexism is.

Look at the evidence from this thread, numerous times people have countered (deservedly) with the "correlation isn't causation" argument yet when do you ever hear someone even proposing that argument against sexism. They don't dare say women get paid less because they are on avearage less intelligent or have less testosterone.