It's disturbing how this is framed like some eugenics issue ("can blame DNA"). Not only do these articles often take a flippant tone, with lame height puns like "Short men do tend to get the, well, short end of the stick," but they always conveniently leave out the following:
"We show that height has a significant effect for the occupational sorting of employed workers but not for the self-employed. We interpret this result as evidence of employer discrimination in favor of taller workers." - SourceI just find it funny how most sites post the studies that don't look into the discrimination angle. As more mainstream sites like CNN and The Guardian post these articles (without focusing on the root cause), they will only make matters worse. It will further perpetuate this cycle, because people will think tall men are inherently superior.
Also notice how the CNN article ends it:
"Could the earnings differences be because of depression or a lack of confidence among shorter or heavier people, as some earlier studies have theorized?"Call it like it is. This is due to discrimination, because again, self-employed short men do as well as tall ones. Replace this topic with race or something, and they wouldn't dare question whether the victim's "confidence" is to blame.
We all know a confident short man has a Napoleon Complex anyway. If these studies instead found out short men earn more on average, people would attribute it to some chip on short men's shoulders, a need to "compensate" or prove something.
I always imagine these assholes rubbing one out as they giddily type these articles, like it confirms their preconceived notions that taller men are better. Too bad this one line pretty much proves the results are due to prejudice:
"Short women are in luck. There was no real household income difference between short and tall women."The author tries to portray this as a good thing, but unless she wants to claim the average 5'0 woman is intrinsically more capable than a 5'5 man, there's no reason why this should be about short men rather than short people in general. There's a reason why Dunkin' Donuts in the Philippines requires at least 5'4 men but only 5'2 women. Women are shorter on average, but what's the technical difference? If anything, a 5'2 man is still more physically able on average than a 5'2 woman, not that this should even matter in most mundane jobs.
There's no need to spin this into some convoluted shit about "depression" or "confidence." There's a reason why those traits would even be there in the first place, and personally, I can't "blame DNA."
Update: These "studies" made it to the front page of reddit. They never fail to avoid addressing heightism, instead always opting to go for the "evolushun" narrative, in a way they wouldn't dare do for racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, or even fat women. I expect nothing less from reddit, a majority user base which is proudly and openly heightist. Just like everywhere else, really, online or offline.
