4 ms·
It’s these reductionist arguments that lose the forest for the trees. If we see a clear health disparity between two groups who should otherwise have equal out
by spacephysics 4y ago
It’s these reductionist arguments that lose the forest for the trees.
If we see a clear health disparity between two groups who should otherwise have equal outcomes, then it implies there’s possibly something in the environment of one group that’s negatively effecting them. And therefore could possibly have other side effects we’re not privy too.
You say height is of no importance, but a majority of women[0][1] would disagree, and men below average height would also disagree. Perhaps our evolutionary signals point to something other than “a social construct” for choosing height in mates. Wild thought.
0 - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886913000020 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01918...
1 - https://www.wsj.com/articles/online-dating-investing-match-tinder-bumble-11657890982?mod=lead_feature_below_a_pos1 https://www.wsj.com/articles/online-dating-investing-match-t... (quote of note: “A former Bumble product manager says that a majority of women on the platform tend to set a floor of 6 feet for men, which would limit their candidate pool to about 15% of the population.“)
- ptoo 4y agoThe majority of women, especially before we began to actually combat racism, would also agree that being white is preferable, as would black men who were subjected to the results of living in a racist society. We currently live in a heightist society so naturally being taller is perceived as better. The crux of the issues is that it shouldn't be considered better. It's a totally inconsequential trait.
- zpthree 4y agoHeight is a physical measurement and has actual consequences, it's not a social construct like race is.
- popcalc 4y agoThen again, race has actual consequences too. We unfortunately still don't live in a colorblind world.
- rajin444 4y ago> The crux of the issues is that it shouldn't be considered better. It's a totally inconsequential trait. They physical advantages of height are very apparent and simple to understand. Even animals recognize the larger you are the safer you are (generally). How is that inconsequential?
- brandall10 4y agoPhysical threat and violence should have no place in a modern society. Throwing in the note about animals should underscore that.
- rajin444 4y agoI agree, but they do, thus height is important. Why try to pretend otherwise? I’m still stuck on how one can defend “height has no importance”.
- brandall10 4y agoConfused how one can come to that conclusion. If violence is not a trait in a modern society, how big people are should be of no consequence. Back in times of the caveman this was an extremely important trait because violence was an aspect of daily life that had real utility. Now, people can go their entire lives never having been in a fight. In fact I would argue having an arms race for ever bigger humans is antisocial and detrimental... just the carbon footprint aspects alone is a good reason to discourage that. The extra stress on our food system. Bigger cars, airplanes, fuel, etc... as opposed to women dig it and you can beat people up. Really?
- rajin444 4y agoSorry, I meant that it'd be ideal for violence to have no place but it does.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]