Anyone listen to 'Today'?
Michael Calwell
As some of you may know I have been on various Radio stations talking about
attitudes to height in our society. It's all a fascinating business, and all
is not as it seems... also lots of socio-medical issues that we need to
resolve.
I gather that the subject was mentioned on 'Today' - did anyone hear it? I'd
like to know the context...
Michael
david56
There's a link on the Today web site at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/radio4/today/listen/audiosearch.pl?ProgID=985767710,
but it doesn't work for me.
--
David
I say what it occurs to me to say.
The address is valid today, but I will change it at to keep ahead of the
spammers.
Phillip K Dick
No problem
I think you have been mis-informed, the item on Today was actually
addressing the issue of a 'shortage of arses' who take up absurd
causes in order to fill their sad lives and boost their self-esteem.
Hmmm? upon reflection, maybe it was about short-arses.
This is the most stupid of band-wagons available to a person wanting
the most out of life, and your approach smacks of an element of
self-serving motivation - "see me (at last!) I've had a letter on
Feedback, and talked to John Peel about being a titch" - or is it
therapy?
To create 'social ghettos' (for once you have a 'society/movement',
that is what it is) for any groups that are 'the non-average' is
absurd and intellectually moribund.
You'll be 'doing a Janner' on us next and saying that an
ant-Lilliputian stance is replacing 'heightism'! (If you heard him
(Janner) on Today this morning you will understand).
You could always start a new basket-ball league based on height ranges
(as boxing does with weight) - but would that cure your itch of
resentment at the roll of life's dice that you were dealt - regarding
your height? I suspect not.
There are of course groups within society that are deserving of
attention to overcome prejudice of society's treatment of them. Yours
is not, and frankly it is an insult for it to be compared (in terms of
a need for 'extra' awareness) with the efforts of those in more
genuine need of consideration.
HTH
Michael Calwell
am Phillip K Dick typed
> There are of course groups within society that are deserving of
> attention to overcome prejudice of society's treatment of them. Yours
> is not, and frankly it is an insult for it to be compared (in terms of
> a need for 'extra' awareness) with the efforts of those in more
> genuine need of consideration.
If I come on a R4 newsgroup and ask a simple question do I deserve to
receive this hurtful and hateful diatribe from someone I have never met and
who has never met me? You have made a huge number of sweeping statements
without examination on the facts.
Do you think people in our society in the year 2002 receive different
treatment on account of their height? Is it acceptable that people who have
committed no greater crime than having parents who are tall/short deserve to
be treated differently than people who haven't? Do people who have black
parents deserve the same?
If you cannot answer a question that I have posted then ignore it. But why
do you see it as an excuse to launch into a vituperative personal attack
laden with unpleasant, spiteful and prejudiced remarks? Nobody else has.
That says far more about you than anything I am trying to achieve, not
simply on my behalf, but on behalf of others.
You need to change your attitude sunshine, not me. Most people I have met
acknowledge a problem, not just tall/short people but sentient people of
average height. If we cannot reach out to one another and acknowledge
irrational injustice in our world there is no hope for us. If we are
incapable of tolerating and accepting the diversity of humanity without
casting value judgements on people then that is a pretty sad reflection on
the society in which we live.
It's only for the existence of people like you that there's a problem.
Perhaps you should be doing something about it, not me.
Michael Calwell
am Phillip K Dick typed
>
> To create 'social ghettos' (for once you have a 'society/movement',
> that is what it is) for any groups that are 'the non-average' is
> absurd and intellectually moribund.
>
> You'll be 'doing a Janner' on us next and saying that an
> ant-Lilliputian stance is replacing 'heightism'! (If you heard him
> (Janner) on Today this morning you will understand).
If you think that I'm not aware of the dangers of doing this then you have
underestimated me. This is not about 'polarisation', or the creation of
minority groups. That, as you have so accurately pointed out, is redundant
and futile.
The next group of people you will hear on HT will be tall people. Tall
people often feel ostracised on account of their height, and have difficulty
in many situations. So in fact what I and others are trying to tackle is
general attitudes to height. We are trying to make our society height blind,
make height the very boring subject that it actually is. Asking people to
re-examine their preconceptions is a perfectly valid device to employ in
social progression.
Tony Walton
>
> I think you have been mis-informed, the item on Today was actually
> addressing the issue of a 'shortage of arses' who take up absurd
> causes in order to fill their sad lives and boost their self-esteem.
It was funnier when the Goodies did it - IIRC they set up a system of
"apart-height".
--
Tony
Michael Calwell
Topley typed
>
> Being black has no real physical consequences, whereas physical size
> does.
Actually, at 11 well proportioned stone and no fat, I've never experienced
any real physical consequences as a result of my height.
>
> So why not tell us what you were trying to achieve with your post, then?
> Are you campaigning for everyone of average height and above to go
> around in a crouch to level things up, or what?
Not at all. It's simply that I discovered about 6 months ago that many
people in Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Western societies actually made value
judgements (beyond the physical) about others on the basis of their height.
It's something I still completely fail to understand. I went out and spoke
to other short people about the issue and I learned that many of them had to
work far harder at their lives than people of 'normal' stature. I spoke to
people in other cultures who didn't. Many of them felt isolated and alone.
I came to understand that this was not the way to deal with the problem in a
modern society. Most agreed that someone needed to tackle the issue, so I
started the ball rolling.
When I did this I was perfectly aware that I might come under attack from
others. I accept that this is par for the course in tackling any prejudice.
Someone mentioned to me that the issue cropped up on 'Today' and I wondered
if anyone on this NG had heard it.
>> If we cannot reach out to one another and acknowledge
>> irrational injustice in our world there is no hope for us. If we are
>> incapable of tolerating and accepting the diversity of humanity without
>> casting value judgements on people then that is a pretty sad reflection on
>> the society in which we live.
>
> Yes, but that's hardly news, is it?
It should be.
>> It's only for the existence of people like you that there's a problem.
>> Perhaps you should be doing something about it, not me.
>
> It's hard not to get the impression that you are just reinforcing the
> stereotype that short people have a chip on their shoulder, and adopt
> aggressive attitiudes in compensation for a lack of physical stature.
Please don't then. I'm a very balanced, happy and easy going person. I have
a wonderful and happy personal life. My physical stature has never been a
barrier to any physical activity I have performed (which is why I have never
had a desire to be taller), but it has shaped the way that many people who
do not know me have perceived me, as I came to understand as I reached
adulthood.
That phrase 'chip on the shoulder' is one of the many completely unwarranted
stereotypes of people who happen to be short. There is nothing in it. It is
an example of the prejudice at work. Once, we did actually say that black
people had a 'chip on their shoulders'. That was until we understood that
being black was not the problem, but that the attitudes of white people were
the problem. If short people often may come across as being aggressive, that
is not because they are short, it is because other people treat them
differently because they are. It is not a 'compensation' for lack of
physical stature. It is a compensation for other people's prejudice.
If, as a society, we stopped treating people differently on account of their
height, then that wouldn't happen any more. Simple.
Where I believe black people went wrong in tackling racism was that they
pointed the finger, they accused and blamed. I'm not doing that. It is
perfectly possible for very good, decent and kind people to hold prejudices.
I understand that and I believe that resolving the matter lies in simple
education, patience and asking the media to stop distorting the truth about
people, to stop churning out stereotypes. It lies in asking people whether
it is valid or acceptable to use language that negatively ascribes lack of
virtue to others for reasons such as their stature. It is about bringing the
matter out into the open, where it can be far more effectively tackled, and
where a culture of tolerance can be fostered. Now, what is beautiful, is
that tall people are joining the movement to counter these ideas. Many tall
people often experience intolerance. They shouldn't have to either. I think
there's value in all of us, short, average and tall, trying to ameliorate
the situation. I am just trying to bring everyone on board.
I hope this answers your questions.
Michael Calwell
typed
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2002 14:02:31 +0100, Michael Calwell
> <mic...@mcalwell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Do you think people in our society in the year 2002 receive different
>> treatment on account of their height? Is it acceptable that people who have
>> committed no greater crime than having parents who are tall/short deserve to
>> be treated differently than people who haven't?
>
> #Short people got no reason to live.#
Randy Newman was a short-arse too.
Ju Baldhu
<mic...@mcalwell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Not at all. It's simply that I discovered about 6 months ago that many
>people in Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Western societies actually made value
>judgements (beyond the physical) about others on the basis of their height.
Old news:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1038000/1038531.stm
Ju
(fat, but average height)
Michael Calwell
Topley typed
> I simply don't believe that many people are prejudiced in this way to
> any significant degree. Your personal impression that the vertically
> challenged feel that such prejudice exists is just not reliable
> evidence.
Sadly, many people are profoundly prejudiced - perhaps you are someone with
a broad mind and a liberal education so you are not. Perhaps you are tall,
and so do not 'see' it . (My experience is that tall men are the least
height prejudiced).
The other posting from Ju linked to a BBC website linking pay to stature.
Now that is a deeply offensive and unacceptable situation in our society
today. That MUST be stood up to at whatever cost to the individuals in
question. We can ALL stand up to that. If people believe in fundamental
equality they should be incensed by this situation.
>> When I did this I was perfectly aware that I might come under attack from
>> others. I accept that this is par for the course in tackling any prejudice.
>
> Oh come on, you're hardly a martyr to the cause, are you? Nobody seems
> to be suggesting nailing you to anything by the hands and feet, so far
> as I can see.
No but I know that there is a risk of alienating people by standing up and
saying it. So far no-one's hung me yet but I have received a certain amount
of personal abuse.
>>> Yes, but that's hardly news, is it?
>>
>> It should be.
>
> But let's have a sense of proportion. Even if serious "heightism" exists
> to any extent (which I frankly doubt), then it's well down the scale of
> current social injustices. Let's solve all the racial/ethnic/religious
> conflicts which are killing hundreds daily before we waste effort on
> soothing some hurt feelings.
NO - let's solve them all. Let's tackle PREJUDICE in whatever form it
manifests itself in. Instead of breaking prejudices up into small and
discrete components and tackling them individually let's stop and ask
ourselves - "do I judge other people for completely irrational reasons?"
I can't accept that it's a trivial situation when for reasons outwith their
control people are treated differently, be it for their height, the colour
of their eyes or the colour of their skin.
Imagine life as 5'0" tall man. Go on, I dare you. Say that's not trivial in
this society. Would you want to be? I'm not that short, but I can empathise.
How would people respond to you if you walked in a room or a pub? If you
stood up in front of a crowd? If you joined a dating agency? If you tried to
make it to the top of your organisation? Is that trivial? How _might_ that
have an effect on your self esteem, your sense of self worth, your basic
dignity? How much harder would you have to work at your life than if you
were 6'0 tall? Is that reasonable, or fair, or just?
> I did hear the item on "Today", but didn't pay any attention, since I
> considered the item relatively trivial in comparison to events in the
> Middle East, say.
Michael Calwell
Horrible term - implies a problem when there isn't one. I much prefer
'short'.
Ken Tough
>JAF
>typed
>>> Do you think people in our society in the year 2002 receive different
>>> treatment on account of their height? Is it acceptable that people who have
>>> committed no greater crime than having parents who are tall/short deserve to
>>> be treated differently than people who haven't?
>> #Short people got no reason to live.#
>Randy Newman was a short-arse too.
... but he got better?
--
Ken Tough
chopsmcp
which doesn't imply "lacking something"?
>
Michael Calwell
pm chopsmcp typed
No, just different. A perfectly acceptable way of distinguishing one person
or object from another. A term, which, if used without prejudice, should
have no negative connotations.
Michael Calwell
typed
Was he ill in the first place? I don't know. Were/Are Lawrence of Arabia,
Uri Gagarin, Picasso, Einstein, Naseem Hamed, Kruschev, Tolkein et al 'ill'?
Is that how you view the situation?
Ken Tough
>Imagine life as 5'0" tall man. Go on, I dare you. Say that's not trivial in
>this society. Would you want to be? I'm not that short, but I can empathise.
>How would people respond to you if you walked in a room or a pub? If you
>stood up in front of a crowd? If you joined a dating agency? If you tried to
>make it to the top of your organisation?
hmmmm...can't see it...I just keep imagining I'm Bernie Eccleston..
>Is that trivial? How _might_ that
>have an effect on your self esteem, your sense of self worth, your basic
>dignity? How much harder would you have to work at your life than if you
>were 6'0 tall?
I presume you've made good use of the well-known fact that every
inch above 5'8" is worth $1,000 in salary. (In the US, 10 yrs ago).
>Is that reasonable, or fair, or just?
Not anymore than adding a leg to a chromosome gets you a 25% pay cut.
--
Ken Tough
Ken Tough
>Ken Tough typed
>> Michael Calwell <mic...@mcalwell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> JAF
>>> typed
>>>> #Short people got no reason to live.#
>>
>>> Randy Newman was a short-arse too.
>>
>> ... but he got better?
>Was he ill in the first place? I don't know. Were/Are Lawrence of Arabia,
>Uri Gagarin, Picasso, Einstein, Naseem Hamed, Kruschev, Tolkein et al 'ill'?
>Is that how you view the situation?
You said he -was- a short arse. As far as his recent appearance
at the Oscars[tm] reflected, he still is (alive anyway). So is he
not short anymore, or just not a short-arse? The "he got better"
line is an allusion to a Monty Pythonic Newt.
Perhaps it went over your head.
--
Ken Tough
chopsmcp
"Ken Tough" <k...@objectech.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Dh7jkJTi...@artslink.co.za...
lol. (I know I shouldn't, but I did)
>
> --
> Ken Tough
westender
"Michael Calwell" <mic...@mcalwell.demon.co.uk>
<snip>
> Imagine life as 5'0" tall man. Go on, I dare you. Say that's not trivial
in
> this society. Would you want to be? I'm not that short, but I can
empathise.
> How would people respond to you if you walked in a room or a pub? If you
> stood up in front of a crowd? If you joined a dating agency? If you tried
to
> make it to the top of your organisation? Is that trivial? How _might_ that
> have an effect on your self esteem, your sense of self worth, your basic
> dignity?
Prince, Bono, Roger Daltrey, Kylie, Madonna, Billy Joel, Tina Turner...and
several others I can't remember from an ancient issue of Q magazine I was
reading this evening....none of them are over 5ft 4ins tall.
westender
"JAF" <j...@jaf.NILSPAMco.uk> wrote in message
news:1fc3buc7a9atm8ep6...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2002 14:02:31 +0100, Michael Calwell
> <mic...@mcalwell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Do you think people in our society in the year 2002 receive different
> >treatment on account of their height? Is it acceptable that people who
have
> >committed no greater crime than having parents who are tall/short deserve
to
> >be treated differently than people who haven't?
>
Randy Newman (who is quite short) - I Thangyew!
Michael Calwell
11:38 pm westender typed
>
> Prince, Bono, Roger Daltrey, Kylie, Madonna, Billy Joel, Tina Turner...and
> several others I can't remember from an ancient issue of Q magazine I was
> reading this evening....none of them are over 5ft 4ins tall.
>
I think some of those you have mentioned are a bit taller. But there is a
sense in which the exceptions tend to prove the rule. Why are we 'aware' of
their height? Are we aware of their hair colour? It does seem that we have
no better or more sophisticated ways of distinguishing between individuals.
There is little disputing that your height, especially if you are noticeably
short or tall, can have a profound effect on your life. It can have a
_disproportionate_ effect on your life. For what amounts to a trivial
physiological characteristic it has the potential to overwhelm your other
qualities. I am perfectly happy to accept that being tall (to a point) is a
'nice to have', but not that short is a 'bad to have', which it is perceived
as by many.
>
ronny_magic
uk.media.radio.bbc-r4:
><snip reply>
Michael, you seem to have responded to the entire e-mail, except the
good bit:
>Since I have no idea about your own altitiude, then I can't judge, but I
>have known short people who have found it impossible to operate an
>unmodified motor car, for instance. I have not seen an instance where a
>problem of comparable magnitiude has been due to skin pigmentation.
What he's getting at here is that discriminating on the grounds of
skin-colur is foolish because skincolour does not effect a persons
ability to do things, whereas height does.
What I think is behind your campaign Michael, is the modern fallacy
that all discrimination is bad. On the contrary, some forms of
discrimination, such as against stupid people, are essential.
I wholeheartedly agree that discrimination on the basis of height in
some (or most) areas (for instance the IT industry) is foolish, but in
the industries where height does effect efficiency, I say three cheers
for discrimination.
Michael Calwell
ronny_magic typed
> mohh, Michael Calwell <mic...@mcalwell.demon.co.uk> cussing me in
> uk.media.radio.bbc-r4:
>
>> <snip reply>
>
> Michael, you seem to have responded to the entire e-mail, except the
> good bit:
>
>> Since I have no idea about your own altitiude, then I can't judge, but I
>> have known short people who have found it impossible to operate an
>> unmodified motor car, for instance. I have not seen an instance where a
>> problem of comparable magnitiude has been due to skin pigmentation.
>
I agree with that statement.
> What he's getting at here is that discriminating on the grounds of
> skin-colur is foolish because skincolour does not effect a persons
> ability to do things, whereas height does.
>
> What I think is behind your campaign Michael, is the modern fallacy
> that all discrimination is bad. On the contrary, some forms of
> discrimination, such as against stupid people, are essential.
>
> I wholeheartedly agree that discrimination on the basis of height in
> some (or most) areas (for instance the IT industry) is foolish,* but in
> the industries where height does effect efficiency, I say three cheers
> for discrimination.
>
Of course. I have no intention of campaigning for more short people in
basketball than more fat people in steeplechases. That would be farcical.
When we talk about height discrimination in non-height related fields, we
may be talking about a 'hangover' from the industrial revolution or
pre-industrial times where height was related to work-rate or nutrition. Now
it's down almost completely to unavoidable genetics. I think it's perfectly
valid to challenge that orthodoxy, to restructure people's erroneous value
judgements. You said height discrimination was foolish. I think it's nothing
short of criminal.
You may be surprised how many sane, rational and capable short people
witness less able and capable people who are merely taller being promoted
ahead of them. I personally believe that my height has limited my career. Up
until now they have shrugged their shoulders and worked harder. That's not
the way to do it. I am tired of the preconceptions about my ability or basic
worth based on my height. Am I not entitled to challenge that? Is that
'having a chip on my shoulder'?
Michael Calwell
JAF typed
> On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 11:05:41 +0100, Michael Calwell
> <mic...@mcalwell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Why are we 'aware' of
>> their height? Are we aware of their hair colour?
>
> Of course. And the size of their noses, breasts, arses, etc.
> We're human, innit?
Yes of course - but the problem isn't that most people notice height - they
often pass judgement on it.
Michael Calwell
JAF typed
> So, ignore them, only deal with those *you* choose to deal with.
> Fuck'em, as they say.
>
No, because that implies a negative judgement towards those people. If I do
that I look like a misanthrope. I'm not. I love people. I'm pretty sure I've
been rejected by a number of women on the grounds of my height but I
persisted until I found a gorgeous girl noticeably taller than me who is now
my girlfriend.
If I reach out to those people, I say that I care enough about _them_ that I
think that they should care about me.
If you had blue eyes, and all your life you had been perfectly happy with
your blue eyes, and then you turned on the TV one day to find that your blue
eyes militated considerably against you in life and the workplace, you would
be faced with a choice. You could do either try to change your eye colour or
work within the system. Or you could challenge that prejudice.
Then you found out that other people _believed_ that blue eyed people hated
their blue eyes and wanted brown ones. That consequent to that blue eyed
people were messed up people, incapable and bitter people, and emotionally
scarred. You would be entitled to present a positive face of blue eyed
people to the world, to challenge those ideas.
sbu...@eggconnect.net
> You may be surprised how many sane, rational and capable short people
> witness less able and capable people who are merely taller being promoted
> ahead of them. I personally believe that my height has limited my career. Up
> until now they have shrugged their shoulders and worked harder. That's not
> the way to do it. I am tired of the preconceptions about my ability or basic
> worth based on my height. Am I not entitled to challenge that? Is that
> 'having a chip on my shoulder'?
I think it depends on whether you have real, concrete evidence that
height discrimination is the problem. My career has gone a lot less
well than I would have hoped, and if I were a member of a minority
group it might well make me feel better to blame it on discrimination.
As it is I just have to accept it as part of life. I recently saw
a statistic that women scientists feel that 10-20% of their male
colleagues are prejudiced against them. I might suggest that, for
all but the most charismatic people, it's pretty normal if 10-20%
of other people don't like you, and if one of them happens to be
your boss it will cause problems whoever you are. I'm not suggesting
that serious discrimination never happens, but I'm not sure it helps
to label things as discrimination which are just down to the normal
vicissitudes of life.
--
Stephen Burke
sbu...@eggconnect.net
> If I come on a R4 newsgroup and ask a simple question do I deserve to
> receive this hurtful and hateful diatribe from someone I have never met and
> who has never met me? You have made a huge number of sweeping statements
> without examination on the facts.
Err, you're new to Usenet I take it ...
--
Stephen Burke
Michael Calwell
sbu...@eggconnect.net typed
>
> I think it depends on whether you have real, concrete evidence that
> height discrimination is the problem. My career has gone a lot less
> well than I would have hoped, and if I were a member of a minority
> group it might well make me feel better to blame it on discrimination.
> As it is I just have to accept it as part of life. I recently saw
> a statistic that women scientists feel that 10-20% of their male
> colleagues are prejudiced against them. I might suggest that, for
> all but the most charismatic people, it's pretty normal if 10-20%
> of other people don't like you, and if one of them happens to be
> your boss it will cause problems whoever you are. I'm not suggesting
> that serious discrimination never happens, but I'm not sure it helps
> to label things as discrimination which are just down to the normal
> vicissitudes of life.
You pose a very very interesting question and I suppose you could call it
the 'short man's dilemma'. First, there is strong evidence (see Ju's
previous posting) that height discrimination does go on in the workplace. It
manifests itself in less pay for equal work, for example.
You are then left facing a poser which is basically - am I being overlooked
or underpaid on grounds of my height, or for more valid reasons. It's a very
difficult thing to work out. Since there is little or no 'awareness' of the
issue, or legislation, it's a nightmare. In my case whilst I felt that my
superiors were perfectly happy to deal with complex technical issues that
they could barely comprehend, I was perceived as unlikely to be the next
head of department. OK, I'm still young, but there was a kind of tacit
understanding.
There is nothing remotely normal about pay inequalities unrelated to
ability. I'm not saying it's not done unconsciously now. I'd like to bring
it to national consciousness. It will be a long hard road. It starts with
competent, articulate and able short people standing up for themselves and
believing in themselves. Some people may call that 'attention seeking' or
'self publicising' but it's just a way of prompting others to think about
the issue. I've actually got far better things to do with my life than talk
about this - really. But to the best of my knowledge no-one's stood up to
this before and someone has to. This is the 21st century for heaven's sake.
Ophelia
The 'heightism' that you describe has never entered my consciousness, nor
does it seem to have of those around me. I have never heard any of those I
know mention such a thing and I suppose if it were affecting their lives I
would certainly hear complaints. The Scots around here are not slow to air
their views on anything:)
There are many 'isms' in life. Intolerance and prejudice are present in all
societies by some. I suppose there are those who like to pick up something
that makes them feel superior. I have no time for any of that but surely if
you are fighting for 'heightism' you should be looking at the whole subject
not just a small part of it. :o)
regards
Ophelia
Michael Calwell
typed
> The area of Scotland that I live has a predominance of very short people.
> The 'heightism' that you describe has never entered my consciousness, nor
> does it seem to have of those around me. I have never heard any of those I
> know mention such a thing and I suppose if it were affecting their lives I
> would certainly hear complaints. The Scots around here are not slow to air
> their views on anything:)
Interesting statement - are you in Dundee? (I'm in Edinburgh). I noticed how
noticeably shorter people are up there. There is a perception in Britain
that class and height are somehow related, that there is a link between
socio-economic status and height. It may have to do with nutrition, though
there is a genetic component as well.
It's almost something taken for granted, that operates on a subconscious
level. If people aren't aware of some of the employment issues surrounding
height in all professions, they should be.
> There are many 'isms' in life. Intolerance and prejudice are present in all
> societies by some. I suppose there are those who like to pick up something
> that makes them feel superior. I have no time for any of that but surely if
> you are fighting for 'heightism' you should be looking at the whole subject
> not just a small part of it. :o)
Exactly! Which is why I am forging links with the tall club of the UK and
Ireland who seem to agree that we can do far more together than apart. A
pincer movement from above and below, so to speak.
What I dislike most about attitudes to height is the dishonesty surrounding
it. If someone should feel negatively about me on the basis of my height I'd
wish they'd just tell me to my face rather than making me guess at the crime
I had committed!!
MC
> regards
>
> Ophelia
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
sbu...@eggconnect.net
> You pose a very very interesting question and I suppose you could call it
> the 'short man's dilemma'. First, there is strong evidence (see Ju's
> previous posting) that height discrimination does go on in the workplace. It
> manifests itself in less pay for equal work, for example.
Like some other people in this thread I find it rather hard, from personal
experience, to believe that height discrimination is all that significant.
I'm not especially tall, and I have no reason to think that has any
effect at all on anyone. Of course, it may well depend on the kind
of work you do. But raw statistics are not anything like enough to
show causality; I'm often dubious of the methods behind even the
statistics on better-known forms of discrimination, they often don't
seem to be dealt with on a serious statistical basis. For example,
every time I apply for a job I have to fill in an equal opportunities
form, but from that there is no way anyone can tell if there is
discrimination or not, they don't collect anything like enough
information (or indeed check that it's true). I suspect many of the
employers are just trying to make it look as though they're doing
something, rather than finding out whether there really is discrimination.
> You are then left facing a poser which is basically - am I being overlooked
> or underpaid on grounds of my height, or for more valid reasons. It's a very
I'm not saying that the reasons are necessarily all that valid. Being
rejected for a job because the interviewer doesn't like you is not
a particularly valid reason, but it can happen to anyone and it's
hard to see how you could stop it. The real problem is where people
are getting rejected for *every* job because nearly everyone they
meet has the same prejudice. Another issue is networking, one of the
reasons I suspect I haven't done better is because I haven't been
a good enough politician, getting to know the right people, saying
the right things etc. Should that sort of thing be banned? How would
you ever enforce it?
Incidentally, I have been rejected for at least one job on the grounds
of being too old (I was about 35 at the time), and age discrimination
remains very common, there are many jobs advertised with age limits
(sometimes implicit, e.g. salary limits where the salary scale is tied to
age). It will be interesting to see how employers cope if age discrimination
is banned ... of course, since nearly everyone will get old eventually
you might argue that age discrimination doesn't involve discriminating
against any particular individuals anyway.
--
Stephen Burke
Michael Calwell
sbu...@eggconnect.net typed
> Like some other people in this thread I find it rather hard, from personal
> experience, to believe that height discrimination is all that significant.
When, ceteris paribus, you earn £800 p/a for every inch above 5'7" you are -
it's real. When you realise that for every inch _below_ that height you get
especially penalised it's real. I can't emphasise enough to you the penalty
imposed on you by society for simply having short parents. It's staggering.
It's bloody hard work getting the acknowledgement you basically deserve in
many, many aspects of your life - in relationships, at work, in society, in
politics. It can be fun to do, but remains fundamentally unjust. Not to say
that it can't change though.
Would you be indifferent to being 5" shorter? If not, you may have answered
the question I have posed.
From an Economist Article of 1995
=======================
Business. A survey in 1980 found that more than half the chief executives of
America's Fortune 500 companies stood six feet tall or more. As a class,
these were a good 2 inches taller than _average_ ; only 3% were 57' or less.
Other surveys suggest that about 90% of chief executives are of
above-average height.* Similarly for:
Professional status. Looking at several professions, one study found that
people in high-ranking jobs 'were about two inches taller than those down
below, a pattern that held even when comparing men of like educational and
socioeconomic status. Senior civil servants in Britain, for instance, tend
to be taller than junior ones. Shorter people also have worse:
Jobs. Give job recruiters two invented resumes that have been carefully
matched except for the candidates' height, as one study did in 1969. Fully
72% of the time, the taller man is 'hired'. And when they are hired, they
tend also to earn rather more:
Money. In 1994 James Sargent and David Blanchflower, of America's Dartmouth
College, analyzed a sample of about 6,000 male Britons whose progress was
monitored from birth to early adulthood. Short teenaged boys made less money
when they became young adults (aged 23) than their taller peers - even after
other attributes, such as scores on ability tests or parents' social status,
were factored out. For every four inches of height in adolescence, earnings
went up more than 2% in early adulthood. Another survey, of graduates of the
University of Pittsburgh, found that those who were 62' or taller received
starting salaries 12% higher than those under six feet.
* So, you see, people of 'average height' have much to gain by challenging
heightism too.
> I'm not especially tall, and I have no reason to think that has any
> effect at all on anyone. Of course, it may well depend on the kind
> of work you do. But raw statistics are not anything like enough to
> show causality; I'm often dubious of the methods behind even the
> statistics on better-known forms of discrimination, they often don't
> seem to be dealt with on a serious statistical basis. For example,
> every time I apply for a job I have to fill in an equal opportunities
> form, but from that there is no way anyone can tell if there is
> discrimination or not, they don't collect anything like enough
> information (or indeed check that it's true). I suspect many of the
> employers are just trying to make it look as though they're doing
> something, rather than finding out whether there really is discrimination.
Yes, of course.
>How would you ever enforce it?
With difficulty. You can't enforce it. What you can do is raise it as a
social issue, and ask people to re-examine their preconceptions and
prejudice. Is there any validity in judging a person by their height? Of
course not. It's crazy. But it happens. Does a person's height tell you
anything about them other than their unavoidable genetics? Perhaps a link to
physical strength, but even then not a huge amount. Mike Tyson stands a full
8" shorter than many of his opponents.
>
> Incidentally, I have been rejected for at least one job on the grounds
> of being too old (I was about 35 at the time), and age discrimination
> remains very common, there are many jobs advertised with age limits
> (sometimes implicit, e.g. salary limits where the salary scale is tied to
> age). It will be interesting to see how employers cope if age discrimination
> is banned ... of course, since nearly everyone will get old eventually
> you might argue that age discrimination doesn't involve discriminating
> against any particular individuals anyway.
Employers have as much to gain than to lose by challenging prejudice
irrespective of its manifestation (gender, age, height). The finest guy I
worked with was 50+ in an industry dominated by young people (I.T.). I grant
you, he struggled with the technical issues, but as a manager he more than
made up for it. A company that only employs under 30s is sowing the seeds of
its own destruction.
The problem is this. It's become so 'natural' to discriminate on the basis
of height that few people have stopped to challenge it. For many people, to
suggest that you can't or shouldn't use height as an estimator of a persons
ability or worth would be to turn the world on its head. It would be like
saying the world isn't flat. It verges on the heretical.
Many people are uncomfortable talking about it in the language of
prejudice, but of course, that's exactly what it is - an irrational
judgement about someone else's ability or qualities.
Consequently it will be a massive challenge for me to get others out to talk
about it and to challenge it. I'm doing it, slowly but surely. It may take
generations. It may take 10 years. It may never happen. But I'm b*ggered if
I'm not going to have a shot. One day, it may belong with slavery and
witchcraft.
Richard Caley
>> How would you ever enforce it?
mc> With difficulty. You can't enforce it. What you can do is raise it as a
mc> social issue, and ask people to re-examine their preconceptions and
mc> prejudice.
If it is down to preconceptions and prejudice, it's pointless to have
people `re-examine' them since they will be pre-rational.
mc> Is there any validity in judging a person by their height? Of
mc> course not.
Note that this is not an `of course'. I'm not saying it is false, just
that by saying `of course' you are falling for your own
preconceptions and you need to be careful of that.
The way to deal with preconceptions is not to try and balance them
with opposing preconceptions, but to provide rational reasons for
overcoming them. Eg if you can provide evidence that height is not
linked with anything relevent to some job, then organisations which
discount height will gain a direct advantage (since they will have on
average beter people in that job).
Of course, you may found that being tall _is_ better for, say, top
executives. For instance if a significant part of their performance is
controled by how they are percieved and height-bias is widespread,
then short CEOs would perform worse.
mc> Does a person's height tell you anything about them other than
mc> their unavoidable genetics?
Probably tells you something about their childhood nutrition (which is
why average heights have been increasing for a long time now). That in
turn may or may not indicate oter things beside height which are
affected by nutrition (vulnerability to some disorders, and who knows
what effects on mental features). Also, if you are right, it will give
you a clue as to their social status and income.
mc> The problem is this. It's become so 'natural' to discriminate on the basis
mc> of height that few people have stopped to challenge it. For many people, to
mc> suggest that you can't or shouldn't use height as an estimator of a persons
mc> ability or worth would be to turn the world on its head.
I doubt this very much. I suspect what effect there is is unconscious
and so those practicing it would tend to agree with you wholeheartedly
and wonder why you were talking to _them_.
BTW, there is a lovely Dilbert cartoon where he is introduced to a new
employee who has been placed on the management fast track programme
because he is very tall and has `executive hair' which will probably
turn silver with age.
--
Mail me as MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
|<
Larry Lightbulb
writes
>
> Incidentally, I have been rejected for at least one job on the grounds
>of being too old (I was about 35 at the time), and age discrimination
>remains very common, there are many jobs advertised with age limits
>(sometimes implicit, e.g. salary limits where the salary scale is tied to
>age). It will be interesting to see how employers cope if age discrimination
>is banned ... of course, since nearly everyone will get old eventually
>you might argue that age discrimination doesn't involve discriminating
>against any particular individuals anyway.
>
restrictions in their job advertisements and found that for many it was
a coded way of saying they were offering low salaries, and it was
assumed the older the applicant the more responsibilities and so the
more payment they wanted.
--
larry lightbulb
Michael Calwell
Caley typed
> In article <B8D9FE56.1AB%mic...@mcalwell.demon.co.uk>, Michael Calwell (mc)
> writes:
>
>>> How would you ever enforce it?
>
> mc> With difficulty. You can't enforce it. What you can do is raise it as a
> mc> social issue, and ask people to re-examine their preconceptions and
> mc> prejudice.
>
> If it is down to preconceptions and prejudice, it's pointless to have
> people `re-examine' them since they will be pre-rational.
Is it? I'm sure in the US in the 19th C many people believed black people to
be fundamentally unworthy. That situation improved. Ditto with women and
votes in this country 80 years ago. AFAICS, gender discrimination was far
more 'timeless' than height discrimination.
>
> mc> Is there any validity in judging a person by their height? Of
> mc> course not.
>
> Note that this is not an `of course'. I'm not saying it is false, just
> that by saying `of course' you are falling for your own
> preconceptions and you need to be careful of that.
>
Well, I have yet to find any evidence that there is then. I've looked at The
Bible - nothing - Chaucer - nothing - Shakespeare - nothing except for
Andrew Aguecheek and Falstaff being tall.
> The way to deal with preconceptions is not to try and balance them
> with opposing preconceptions, but to provide rational reasons for
> overcoming them. Eg if you can provide evidence that height is not
> linked with anything relevent to some job, then organisations which
> discount height will gain a direct advantage (since they will have on
> average beter people in that job).
You are absolutely right.
> Of course, you may found that being tall _is_ better for, say, top
> executives. For instance if a significant part of their performance is
> controled by how they are percieved and height-bias is widespread,
> then short CEOs would perform worse.
Yes - it is a chicken/egg situation that is part of a vicious circle that
needs to be broken somehow.
> mc> Does a person's height tell you anything about them other than
> mc> their unavoidable genetics?
>
> Probably tells you something about their childhood nutrition (which is
> why average heights have been increasing for a long time now). That in
> turn may or may not indicate oter things beside height which are
> affected by nutrition (vulnerability to some disorders, and who knows
> what effects on mental features). Also, if you are right, it will give
> you a clue as to their social status and income.
Yes, but I think for the majority of people in 21st C britain, that will not
be the case. Certainly not for me.
>
> mc> The problem is this. It's become so 'natural' to discriminate on the basis
> mc> of height that few people have stopped to challenge it. For many people,
> to
> mc> suggest that you can't or shouldn't use height as an estimator of a
> persons
> mc> ability or worth would be to turn the world on its head.
>
> I doubt this very much. I suspect what effect there is is unconscious
> and so those practicing it would tend to agree with you wholeheartedly
> and wonder why you were talking to _them_.
>
> BTW, there is a lovely Dilbert cartoon where he is introduced to a new
> employee who has been placed on the management fast track programme
> because he is very tall and has `executive hair' which will probably
> turn silver with age.
I know - I was looking for it. Also a Dilbert cartoon that made reference to
someone being 'too short'.
Richard Caley
>> If it is down to preconceptions and prejudice, it's pointless to have
>> people `re-examine' them since they will be pre-rational.
mc> Is it? I'm sure in the US in the 19th C many people believed black
mc> people to be fundamentally unworthy. That situation
mc> improved.
Yes, but I would say not because people were told they were
discrimination and thought `oh I better stop then'.
>> Probably tells you something about their childhood nutrition (which is
>> why average heights have been increasing for a long time now). That in
>> turn may or may not indicate oter things beside height which are
>> affected by nutrition (vulnerability to some disorders, and who knows
>> what effects on mental features). Also, if you are right, it will give
>> you a clue as to their social status and income.
mc> Yes, but I think for the majority of people in 21st C britain,
mc> that will not be the case. Certainly not for me.
Which one?
Average quality of childhood nutritian peaked during and just after
WWII and has been dropping since IIRC.
mc> I know - I was looking for it.
Strip from 27/8/92 according to a dilbert trivia web site.
mc> Also a Dilbert cartoon that made reference to someone being 'too
mc> short'.
Anything with Wally and a woman in it I would think. (Wally is my
hero).
Michael Calwell
Caley typed
> In article <B8DA1CDA.1B4%mic...@mcalwell.demon.co.uk>, Michael Calwell (mc)
> writes:
>
>>> If it is down to preconceptions and prejudice, it's pointless to have
>>> people `re-examine' them since they will be pre-rational.
>
> mc> Is it? I'm sure in the US in the 19th C many people believed black
> mc> people to be fundamentally unworthy. That situation
> mc> improved.
>
> Yes, but I would say not because people were told they were
> discrimination and thought `oh I better stop then'.
I actually think it was through the positive representation and
self-representation of black people that made white people question their
previously unchallenged thinking.
>
>>> Probably tells you something about their childhood nutrition (which is
>>> why average heights have been increasing for a long time now). That in
>>> turn may or may not indicate oter things beside height which are
>>> affected by nutrition (vulnerability to some disorders, and who knows
>>> what effects on mental features). Also, if you are right, it will give
>>> you a clue as to their social status and income.
>
> mc> Yes, but I think for the majority of people in 21st C britain,
> mc> that will not be the case. Certainly not for me.
>
> Which one?
I'm short because my parents are. My father (Irish), mother
(Maltese/Egyptian). It's all in the genes.
Richard Caley
mc> I'm short because my parents are. My father (Irish), mother
mc> (Maltese/Egyptian). It's all in the genes.
Plainly untrue since average height has been increasing far faster
than can be the result of genetic change. Childhood nutrition is known
to affect adult height.
Alun Jones
>In article <B8DA8936.1C5%mic...@mcalwell.demon.co.uk>, Michael Calwell (mc)
> writes:
>
>mc> I'm short because my parents are. My father (Irish), mother
>mc> (Maltese/Egyptian). It's all in the genes.
>
>Plainly untrue since average height has been increasing far faster
>than can be the result of genetic change. Childhood nutrition is known
>to affect adult height.
I think Michael meant that he's short compared to the rest of the population
(i.e. compared to average height) because of genes. He's not suggesting that
the rest of the world evolved and he didn't.
Alun.
~~~~
[Note that answers to questions in newsgroups are not generally
invitations to contact me personally for help in the future.]
--
Texas Imperial Software | Try WFTPD, the Windows FTP Server. Find us at
1602 Harvest Moon Place | http://www.wftpd.com or email al...@texis.com
Cedar Park TX 78613-1419 | VISA/MC accepted. NT-based sites, be sure to
Fax/Voice +1(512)258-9858 | read details of WFTPD Pro for NT.
Michael Calwell
4:58 am Alun Jones typed
> In article <87hemjt...@bast.r.caley.org.uk>, Richard Caley
> <MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk> wrote:
>> In article <B8DA8936.1C5%mic...@mcalwell.demon.co.uk>, Michael Calwell (mc)
>> writes:
>>
>> mc> I'm short because my parents are. My father (Irish), mother
>> mc> (Maltese/Egyptian). It's all in the genes.
>>
>> Plainly untrue since average height has been increasing far faster
>> than can be the result of genetic change. Childhood nutrition is known
>> to affect adult height.
>
> I think Michael meant that he's short compared to the rest of the population
> (i.e. compared to average height) because of genes. He's not suggesting that
> the rest of the world evolved and he didn't.
Yes!! My father was a consultant physician (he did paediatrics) so I doubt I
was under-nourished.
Richard Caley
aj> I think Michael meant that he's short compared to the rest of the population
aj> (i.e. compared to average height) because of genes.
He seemed, to me at least, to be making a much wider claim - `for the
majority of people in 21st C britain, that will not be the case'.
Ophelia
I am nearer the West. But in Glasgow itself the people are also noticably
smaller. You may be correct about nutrition in this area but I do feel
genetics has a greater role. Friends of mine who are small do not in
general have very much taller children. A little maybe but not enough to
say the better nutrition has made them very tall:) I know many people who,
although small have no problem defending themselves from anyone:)) The
Glesgae kiss doen't have to be in the forehead you know *eg* Also they
don't seem to feel inadequate in any way... why should they?:) Of course I
am very tall - 5ft 3 1/2 inches tall. So watch it:) I think those further
north ie Inverness etc, are much taller.... I am sure these people were not
richer in past times than their countrymen further south
> It's almost something taken for granted, that operates on a subconscious
> level. If people aren't aware of some of the employment issues surrounding
> height in all professions, they should be.
>
> > There are many 'isms' in life. Intolerance and prejudice are present in
all
> > societies by some. I suppose there are those who like to pick up
something
> > that makes them feel superior. I have no time for any of that but
surely if
> > you are fighting for 'heightism' you should be looking at the whole
subject
> > not just a small part of it. :o)
>
> Exactly! Which is why I am forging links with the tall club of the UK and
> Ireland who seem to agree that we can do far more together than apart. A
> pincer movement from above and below, so to speak.
>
> What I dislike most about attitudes to height is the dishonesty
surrounding
> it. If someone should feel negatively about me on the basis of my height
I'd
> wish they'd just tell me to my face rather than making me guess at the
crime
> I had committed!!
>
> MC
Just be sure it is not your own insecurities that lead you to this
conclusion. If you are in a place where people are on average tall this may
be the case.
Yes... small people are known as aggressive.. rightly or wrongly. I guess
some are fighting what they see as heightism. But one can never generalise.
Perhaps it is easier where the population is generally smaller. Maybe you
should move west:) I gather Edinburgh is THE place for the tall posh folk
to live:) Some of the houses cost a small fortune and maybe these are the
Southerners moving north to escape at least the London prices.
I have a couple of friends in Edinburgh.. not in Morningside:)) and they are
wee too:))
Ophelia
Alun Jones
>In article <eR7t8.77780$Sw4.306...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>, Alun Jones
> (aj) writes:
>
>aj> I think Michael meant that he's short compared to the rest of the
> population
>aj> (i.e. compared to average height) because of genes.
>
>He seemed, to me at least, to be making a much wider claim - `for the
>majority of people in 21st C britain, that will not be the case'.
I read that as "for the majority of people, childhood nutrition is essentially
equivalent". Though maybe he means that the majority of people are of at
least average height? That would make sense, too.
Michael Calwell
typed
> Just be sure it is not your own insecurities that lead you to this
> conclusion. If you are in a place where people are on average tall this may
> be the case.
>
> Yes... small people are known as aggressive.. rightly or wrongly. I guess
> some are fighting what they see as heightism. But one can never generalise.
Ophelia,
You've hit on some interesting points. We are diverse - some of us are tall,
some of average height, some short. Other cultures seem to recognise and
celebrate that diversity. But there is evidence that in our culture people
have made value judgements and created stereotypes on the basis of height.
What I mentioned earlier was that, if you are short, especially a short
male, people frequently make value judgements about your temperament,
psychological, emotional and intellectual fitness. They may make assumptions
about your 'status', success and ability, about your fitness for purpose in
many roles in life - father, husband, leader etc. It is something that
transcends the 'physically unattractive' and moves into different
departments. The media constantly reflects and reinforces that stereotype
with damaging effects.
The consequent effects are profound, and result in having to work far harder
at life than someone who is merely taller. From my discussions, and from
responses to an essay I wrote (http://www.mcalwell.demon.co.uk/fame.html)
I felt that this was a genuine social issue that would be best dealt with
externally rather than internally. Yes, I know, it may appear (initially at
least) to be a result of insecurity, but I can assure you that it isn't.
It's simply a call to others to rethink and reassess those value judgements.
My efforts have found their way to the tall community, and we are hoping to
do something together.
MC
>
>
Ian Sharrock
<mic...@mcalwell.demon.co.uk> enlightened uk.media.radio.bbc-r4 by
saying
>What I mentioned earlier was that, if you are short, especially a short
>male, people frequently make value judgements about your temperament,
>psychological, emotional and intellectual fitness. They may make assumptions
>about your 'status', success and ability, about your fitness for purpose in
>many roles in life - father, husband, leader etc. It is something that
>transcends the 'physically unattractive' and moves into different
>departments. The media constantly reflects and reinforces that stereotype
>with damaging effects.
>
You're not kidding. I dread to think the reaction to any one that puts
on their CV that they're a one-legged, depressed, black, dwarf,
deaf-mute, bald, pregnant, partially sighted autistic. There again, I
suppose that person might get the job, as the employer has a quota of
"disabled" people they have to fill by law in the UK.
Going over the top? My some of my family members have lived that
prejudice :-(
Just a lack of height does not make you in any way inferior.
People are too willing or conditioned to judge by appearances, even if
they are totally wrong in their assumptions.
My apologies if I've failed to offend any "minority" group :-) I'll try
better next time!
Ian, father of a son that has no physically visible abnormality, but
does have problems (and is trying not to rant *too* much).
--
Ian Sharrock. Permission to send unsolicited commercial e-mail to this
host is explicitly *withdrawn*
Ken Tough
>What I mentioned earlier was that, if you are short, especially a short
>male, people frequently make value judgements about your temperament,
>psychological, emotional and intellectual fitness. They may make assumptions
>about your 'status', success and ability, about your fitness for purpose in
>many roles in life - father, husband, leader etc. It is something that
>transcends the 'physically unattractive' and moves into different
>departments. The media constantly reflects and reinforces that stereotype
>with damaging effects.
The same does go for attractiveness as well. Lots of social
psychological experiments have shown that people will judge
physically attractive people as more intelligent, funnier,
and in general more "like them".
That's not to say height isn't a problem too, worth mentioning.
I suppose we can all just be sufficiently pissed off at the
tall good looking lot.
--
Ken Tough
Alun Jones
>You're not kidding. I dread to think the reaction to any one that puts
>on their CV that they're a one-legged, depressed, black, dwarf,
>deaf-mute, bald, pregnant, partially sighted autistic. There again, I
>suppose that person might get the job, as the employer has a quota of
>"disabled" people they have to fill by law in the UK.
It depends - if you're looking for someone to program computers for a few
weeks in a noisy environment with only a few feet of clearance, for very
little pay, those might be ideal qualifications :-)
>Ian, father of a son that has no physically visible abnormality, but
>does have problems (and is trying not to rant *too* much).
Not physically visible? I'd lay good odds that he's thin as a rake.
Michael Calwell
typed
> That's not to say height isn't a problem too, worth mentioning.
> I suppose we can all just be sufficiently pissed off at the
> tall good looking lot.
Another interesting point - many tall men feel themselves on the receiving
end of irrational jealousy that frequently stops people from seeing 'them'.
From what I can gather they are far more likely to be on the receiving end
of physical attacks than me because they are seen as 'targets'.
What shocks me is the number of guys 5'8" to 5"11 who want to be 2" taller.
The question I have asked before is - do you want to be taller? If so why?
There's no good answer to that question. A subtext to what I am trying to do
is to make all people happy with the heights that they, and others are.
Ian Sharrock
Jones <al...@texis.com> enlightened uk.media.radio.bbc-r4 by saying
>In article <cPgYFeGU...@sharrock.org>, i...@sharrock.org wrote:
>>Ian, father of a son that has no physically visible abnormality, but
>>does have problems (and is trying not to rant *too* much).
>
>Not physically visible? I'd lay good odds that he's thin as a rake.
Bloody hell Alun, change your name to John Edward (Doris Stokes might
be going too far). You're right, he is - another morning today with no
breakfast and no drink :-)
Ian
Timothy Lee
<k...@objectech.co.uk> writes
>The same does go for attractiveness as well. Lots of social
>psychological experiments have shown that people will judge
>physically attractive people as more intelligent, funnier,
>and in general more "like them".
Umm, what like the ditzy blonde?
--
Timothy Lee http://www.wightproperty.com
sbu...@eggconnect.net
> I suppose we can all just be sufficiently pissed off at the
> tall good looking lot.
But if we are, no doubt they will be accusing us of irrational
prejudice ...
--
Stephen Burke
Michael Calwell
sbu...@eggconnect.net typed
...and they'd be right.
Why are so many of us discontented with who we are? Mind you, no-one ever
sold a glossy or a product by telling people that they should be happy with
who they are.
This is what I love about R4 - lookism goes out the window. But in comes
voicism. Don't even consider a career in radio if you're from Toxteth or the
Gorbals.
sbu...@eggconnect.net
> When, ceteris paribus, you earn 800 p/a for every inch above 5'7" you are -
I'm sorry, but as a bald statement this is rubbish. I'm only 5'6",
and I can absolutely guarantee that I'd be paid exactly the same
whatever height I was. I'm also about 99% sure that my chances of
getting my current job would be the same (the head of my current project
is significantly shorter than I am, as it happens). It may be that there
are some areas where it does have an effect, but you aren't forced
to go to them. Tallness is a component of physical attractiveness,
and for jobs like top executives that is a significant issue; my
lack of charisma would mean that I wouldn't be suited to a job like
that regardless of my height. I can't play football either, so
sadly I will never collect the salaries that footballers can get,
but I don't blame that on discrimination.
> Would you be indifferent to being 5" shorter? If not, you may have answered
> the question I have posed.
I'm probably untypical, but yes, I'd be completely indifferent to it.
--
Stephen Burke
Michael Calwell
sbu...@eggconnect.net typed
> Michael Calwell <mic...@mcalwell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> When, ceteris paribus, you earn 800 p/a for every inch above 5'7" you are -
>
> I'm sorry, but as a bald statement this is rubbish.
I agree with you that as a bald statement it is. Of course there are badly
paid tall men and well paid short men. I'd fall into the latter category.
> I'm only 5'6",
> and I can absolutely guarantee that I'd be paid exactly the same
> whatever height I was. I'm also about 99% sure that my chances of
> getting my current job would be the same (the head of my current project
> is significantly shorter than I am, as it happens). It may be that there
> are some areas where it does have an effect, but you aren't forced
> to go to them.
You shouldn't be denied them.
>Tallness is a component of physical attractiveness,
Especially in our society.
> and for jobs like top executives that is a significant issue;
That's just _nonsense_. That's like saying weight is a factor in drawing.
>my lack of charisma would mean that I wouldn't be suited to a job like
> that regardless of my height. I can't play football either, so
> sadly I will never collect the salaries that footballers can get,
> but I don't blame that on discrimination.
Well I can send you two studies that indicate the opposite.
Check out
http://www.shortsupport.org/News/0106.html
for starters.
And that it cuts across all professions from computer programming to
roadsweeping.
>> Would you be indifferent to being 5" shorter? If not, you may have answered
>> the question I have posed.
>
> I'm probably untypical, but yes, I'd be completely indifferent to it.
VERY untypical... now come on...
Ophelia
<sbu...@eggconnect.net> wrote in message
news:a96tfh$1d...@newton.cc.rl.ac.uk...
Well if your boss is shorter than you he prolly sees you as tall *grin*
after all tall people are more attactive.. aren't they?
O the very tall person - 5' 3 1/2" and don't forget the half :))))))))
Alun Jones
>Why are so many of us discontented with who we are? Mind you, no-one ever
>sold a glossy or a product by telling people that they should be happy with
>who they are.
Are we discontented with who we are, or how we think we are treated _because_
of who we are?
>This is what I love about R4 - lookism goes out the window. But in comes
>voicism. Don't even consider a career in radio if you're from Toxteth or the
>Gorbals.
But if you sound like Charlotte Green...
westender
"Ophelia" <Junk...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a94aor$7ahd$1...@ID-88328.news.dfncis.de...
Gaun yersel hen!.....from another short Glaswegian }o)
Ophelia
"westender" <west....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:VbVt8.14475$sL6.2...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
Stephen Burke
news:B8DCBCA2.25D%mic...@mcalwell.demon.co.uk...
> Especially in our society.
> > and for jobs like top executives that is a significant issue;
>
> That's just _nonsense_. That's like saying weight is a factor in drawing.
I have no idea what you're saying here. Are you really denying that
attractiveness is an advantage to people in leadership roles? It seems pretty
evident to me. Or are you saying that you want to persuade people to see
attractiveness in a different way? I don't think there's much chance of that;
the things we find attractive are deeply embedded in our psyche, and I doubt
you are any different. Are there people you find unattractive? Could you
change that by an act of will? As for tallness, I doubt that it represents a
major component of attractiveness but it clearly has some impact. If you were
ugly instead of short you would probably meet a lot more problems. In an ideal
world it might be nice if it didn't matter - but can you honestly say that you
react exactly the same way to someone whether they're beautiful or ugly? Of
course, no one is likely to produce any statistics on discrimination against
ugly people because no-one would want to classify themselves as ugly ...
You're focussing on correlations of income with height, but in fact you can
find correlations with all sorts of things - parent's income and occupation,
where you grew up, which school you went to, how you speak (we recently had
people expressing prejudice against people who say "could of"), baldness,
fatness ... it's also quite well-known that having a surname near the start of
the alphabet is a benefit; would be scientists should consider changing their
name to Aardvark, then they'll be lead author on all the papers! And having a
name which is awkward or risible can be a handicap. (That also raises the
question of whether prejudice against things that people can change, like
their name or their weight, is less bad than things they can't change.) There
may even be prejudice against people who seem too perfect. You may suffer to
some extent from prejudice against your height, but it's likely that there are
several other factors working in your favour, there aren't many people who
have everything going against them (and Ann Widdecombe seems to have done
fairly well anyway :) How do you propose to even collect statistics which
judge all possible forms of prejudice, let alone try to deal with them? If you
focus only on tallness I could argue that that in itself represents prejudice
against all the other things ...
--
Stephen Burke
Stephen Burke
> after all tall people are more attactive.. aren't they?
Not as far as I'm concerned ... I tend to be more interested in the mind than
the body, but no doubt that's just as discriminatory. I don't think men
generally look for tall women, certainly not taller than them, but women do
often seem to prefer tall men. There's all this propaganda about how women
just want caring, sensitive men and don't care about shallow things like
appearance, but it doesn't quite seem to work out that way in practice ...
--
Stephen Burke
Ophelia
O
"Stephen Burke" <sbu...@eggconnect.net> wrote in message
news:3cb9827f$0$225$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
Michael Calwell
Stephen Burke typed
I'll get back to your other points later, but you raise interesting
questions about women's attitudes to height in men.
From a short man's perspective, you know that many women out there
discriminate between men on the basis of height - a brief glance through the
personals will confirm this. The evidence that is that this is stronger in
our culture than others. Also there is a kind of Aryan stereotype of the
'couple' that women like to conform to. Of course, there is a degree of
sexual preference in there as well.
The challenge you face if you happen to be short is to find those women who
are unprejudiced, or at least those women who may have a preference but who
can be 'swung' by your other qualities. The beauty is that they come in all
shapes and sizes, and I think that for many women their 'requirement' for a
taller man is in many respects a function of their own personal insecurity.
My current 'significant other' is noticeably taller than me (also young,
beautiful and intelligent) so it can work in your favour. I think that you
have to accept if you are a short male that what you lack in 'quantity' of
women you more than make up in 'quality', which is the experience of my
life. You are more likely to find yourself single, but you learn to like
that, and to employ that time constructively to better yourself, and develop
your strengths, confidence and independence. It can be a fun challenge. Of
course many people will be 'blinded' to your qualities because of your
height, but that social myopia isn't your problem, and shouldn't stop you
from forging on and maintaining your self respect and self esteem. Nor
should it let you fall into the trap of misogyny and misanthropy, which is
self destructive and counter productive to say the least.
Michael Calwell
Stephen Burke typed
> "Michael Calwell" <mic...@mcalwell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:B8DCBCA2.25D%mic...@mcalwell.demon.co.uk...
>> Especially in our society.
>>> and for jobs like top executives that is a significant issue;
>>
>> That's just _nonsense_. That's like saying weight is a factor in drawing.
>
> I have no idea what you're saying here. Are you really denying that
> attractiveness is an advantage to people in leadership roles?
I think leadership is an advantage in leadership roles. The idea that a
dynamic and popular short man might be discriminated against in favour of a
less competent taller man would be a joke if it wasn't so unfunny.
>It seems pretty
> evident to me. Or are you saying that you want to persuade people to see
> attractiveness in a different way? I don't think there's much chance of that;
> the things we find attractive are deeply embedded in our psyche, and I doubt
> you are any different. Are there people you find unattractive? Could you
> change that by an act of will? As for tallness, I doubt that it represents a
> major component of attractiveness but it clearly has some impact. If you were
> ugly instead of short you would probably meet a lot more problems. In an ideal
> world it might be nice if it didn't matter - but can you honestly say that you
> react exactly the same way to someone whether they're beautiful or ugly?
I try not to, certainly not in fields outwith the mating game. I have made a
conscious effort not to judge.
> Of course, no one is likely to produce any statistics on discrimination
against
> ugly people because no-one would want to classify themselves as ugly ...
Well they have... !
> You're focussing on correlations of income with height, but in fact you can
> find correlations with all sorts of things - parent's income and occupation,
> where you grew up, which school you went to, how you speak (we recently had
> people expressing prejudice against people who say "could of"), baldness,
> fatness ... it's also quite well-known that having a surname near the start of
> the alphabet is a benefit; would be scientists should consider changing their
> name to Aardvark, then they'll be lead author on all the papers! And having a
> name which is awkward or risible can be a handicap. (That also raises the
> question of whether prejudice against things that people can change, like
> their name or their weight, is less bad than things they can't change.)
Yes.
>There
> may even be prejudice against people who seem too perfect.
Yes
> You may suffer to
> some extent from prejudice against your height, but it's likely that there are
> several other factors working in your favour, there aren't many people who
> have everything going against them (and Ann Widdecombe seems to have done
> fairly well anyway :) How do you propose to even collect statistics which
> judge all possible forms of prejudice, let alone try to deal with them? If you
> focus only on tallness I could argue that that in itself represents prejudice
> against all the other things ...
You raise a question (I think) about the very confusing nature of the issue.
I mind far less that a degree of bigotry and prejudice surrounds the issue
of height than the dishonesty that surrounds it.
What I do object to though it the stereotypes resident in the media of short
people, men especially. They vary from the weak, through the subordinate to
the stupid and insecure. I think that we can all stand up to that, and be
aware of it, and challenge it. I think that's highly unacceptable. Also the
chronic absence of positive stereotypes.
The medical profession can be asked questions about the ethics surrounding
height distortion (either through hormone administration or orthopaedic
surgery). Is it as valid to make a short person taller than to make a black
person whiter? Does the medical profession in fact foster intolerance
towards others on the basis of their height by being complicit in distorting
height?
Another thing that the directors of http://www.tallclub.co.uk and myself are
going to bring pressure to bear on the media to do is to present more 'mixed
height couples' (i.e man short/woman taller), to challenge that stereotype.
So these are the things we can do.
> --
> Stephen Burke
>
>
Richard Caley
mc> I think leadership is an advantage in leadership roles. The idea that a
mc> dynamic and popular short man might be discriminated against in favour of a
mc> less competent taller man would be a joke if it wasn't so unfunny.
Ah, but the point is, if you are right and there is mass
discrimination, he wouldn't be popular, so he shouldn't get the job.
mc> What I do object to though it the stereotypes resident in the
mc> media of short people, men especially. They vary from the weak,
mc> through the subordinate to the stupid and insecure.
You mean they do things like post to newsgroups about how badly they
are treated because they are short? :-)
mc> Another thing that the directors of http://www.tallclub.co.uk and
mc> myself are going to bring pressure to bear on the media to do is
mc> to present more 'mixed height couples' (i.e man short/woman
mc> taller), to challenge that stereotype.
I would think it would be better to work on the real world than on
fiction.
Besides, you'd have to change everyone's TV from landscape to portrait
aspect ratio. :-)
``It's like being at the bottom of bloody well!''
- Napolean in Time Bandits
Stephen Burke
> My current 'significant other' is noticeably taller than me (also young,
> beautiful and intelligent) so it can work in your favour. I think that you
The fact that you list "young, beautiful and intelligent" suggests that you
think they are significant. Why? Should I assume that if a woman was old, ugly
or stupid you wouldn't be interested in her? Is that fair?
--
Stephen Burke
Michael Calwell
Stephen Burke typed
Well regarding youth, there's a valid and practical reason - regarding
intelligence, I DO see women as more than a receptacle for my emissions, and
she just HAPPENS to be beautiful, but I have been HOH in lurve with women
who don't happen to have the last characteristic. And they've told me to
sling my hook. ;-)
>
> --
> Stephen Burke
>
>
Richard Caley
mc> Well regarding youth, there's a valid and practical reason
Fancying younger women is a sign you are over the hill.
Fancying dim women is a sign of lack of confidence.
westender
"Ophelia" <Junk...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> > > I have a couple of friends in Edinburgh.. not in Morningside:)) and
they
> > are
> > > wee too:))
> > >
> > > Ophelia
> >
> > Gaun yersel hen!.....from another short Glaswegian }o)
> >
> How yer daein pal?:))
>
Magic! how's yersel'? :o)
Ophelia
sbu...@eggconnect.net
> I think leadership is an advantage in leadership roles. The idea that a
> dynamic and popular short man might be discriminated against in favour of a
> less competent taller man would be a joke if it wasn't so unfunny.
I don't think a dynamic and popular leader *would* be discriminated
against, there are plenty of examples of leaders who aren't tall. The
point is just that a taller person may start off with (so to speak)
a head start.
> I try not to, certainly not in fields outwith the mating game. I have made a
> conscious effort not to judge.
If you have to make a conscious effort then it suggests that intrinsically
you are prejudiced ... I think it's definitely good if people can try
to understand their own prejudices and try to override them. I
have certainly known people with whom I haven't got on very well
but who have nevertheless tried to be fair to me. I've never been
in a position where I had power over other people, but I hope I would
do the same if I were.
However, I question whether you can impose that sort of attitude with
legislation or other rules. Certainly the usual way, to count the
number of people from particular groups and impose explicit or
implicit quotas, seems to me to be likely to have the opposite
effect, it means that race/sex/whatever is the first thing in
the mind of any selector, instead of being dismissed as irrelevant.
It also means that things which aren't subject to quotas or
monitoring (like tallness or good looks) go unchecked.
> You raise a question (I think) about the very confusing nature of the issue.
I raise a question about why you are so concerned about the particular
thing which affects you. If you are prepared to dismiss all the other
things, why shouldn't the rest of us dismiss your concerns?
--
Stephen Burke
Michael Calwell
sbu...@eggconnect.net typed
> Michael Calwell <mic...@mcalwell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> I think leadership is an advantage in leadership roles. The idea that a
>> dynamic and popular short man might be discriminated against in favour of a
>> less competent taller man would be a joke if it wasn't so unfunny.
>
> I don't think a dynamic and popular leader *would* be discriminated
> against, there are plenty of examples of leaders who aren't tall. The
> point is just that a taller person may start off with (so to speak)
> a head start.
I think that it works the other way round. You hit a point where it becomes
an increasingly difficult issue to dismiss - could Our Dear Leader _really_
be 5'0" tall?
>
>> I try not to, certainly not in fields outwith the mating game. I have made a
>> conscious effort not to judge.
>
> If you have to make a conscious effort then it suggests that intrinsically
> you are prejudiced ... I think it's definitely good if people can try
> to understand their own prejudices and try to override them. I
Which is largely what I am trying to encourage people to do.
> have certainly known people with whom I haven't got on very well
> but who have nevertheless tried to be fair to me. I've never been
> in a position where I had power over other people, but I hope I would
> do the same if I were.
It's about fostering a culture of tolerance and acceptance.
> However, I question whether you can impose that sort of attitude with
> legislation or other rules.
No you can't - only through education and social consciousness.
> Certainly the usual way, to count the
> number of people from particular groups and impose explicit or
> implicit quotas, seems to me to be likely to have the opposite
> effect, it means that race/sex/whatever is the first thing in
> the mind of any selector, instead of being dismissed as irrelevant.
You are absolutely right.
> It also means that things which aren't subject to quotas or
> monitoring (like tallness or good looks) go unchecked.
>
>> You raise a question (I think) about the very confusing nature of the issue.
>
> I raise a question about why you are so concerned about the particular
> thing which affects you. If you are prepared to dismiss all the other
> things, why shouldn't the rest of us dismiss your concerns?
I certainly don't dismiss all other things (read my essay at
http://www.shortsupport.org/Essays for my take on this)
- and yes, you have a choice, to ignore me or listen. That is your freedom
which I can't challenge.
It doesn't just affect me. It affects many many other people - I see value
in reaching out. Here is an except from one of the many emails I receive. I
also get similar from tall men & women. In the meantime, check out
news://alt.support.short
===============================================
Hello I am an Australian male and I'm 21 years old.
I first started noticing my height or lack thereof when I was about 19. I
soon noticed that all my small counterparts had grown the extra inches or
two to become was is perceived as normal height.
At the time I had never really given any thought to being short. A few
months later I was at my cousins house for a party. He is a 6ft lawyer
successful type. He made a joke about my height referring to me a shortly.
To which I responded "Hey! I'm still growing" to which he laughed at. And
it went downhill from there. I lost my girlfriend to a tall med student,
and after seeing pages on the internet unlike this ones involving scams
about growing I soon became obsessed with my height.
I ended up taking some amino acids which sources had said would make me grow
which nearly gave me a heart attack (I was very sick). Every night I
stretched out my legs while I slept. I hung from poles. I thought about it
non-stop.
One of the underlying thoughts was I could never be a superhero in a film.
Now this was right in the back of my mind, never thought about for more than
a millisecond consciously. after reading your article I see that Hollywood
has forced this stereotype upon people.
Then I realised I am living up to the stereotype that short men have. I am
often opinionated and seen as a troublemaker and I overstate my opinions
because I feel I am not being heard. Or if I am heard not taken seriously.
I feel my lack of confidence is due to combination of these things a
vicious circle. I act how I think I am supposed to act therefore people see
my as the little guy. I am trying to be more subtle with my opinions after
reading your essay and I think its beginning to work- a bit.
My problem is I am also a musician. I see bands and all the frontmen are
tall. I feel that I am not capable of being a frontman (singer and
guitarist) in a band because I would not be able to pull it off. i.e. people
would not take me seriously.
I need your take on this. I know what you have said before but I want some
personalised help. Please I don't want to be bitter about this and I hate
it when people say I have small man syndrome.
Thank for your time
Ben