Size Matters - Featured on Leonard Lopate Show

While I have been pretty busy and haven't been posting lately, I thought that readers may be interested in listening to a particular radio segment on New York's public radio station, WNYC. For those of you that love public radio as much as I do (or are just interested in the segment), Leonard Lopate will be speaking with Stephen S. Hall today about his book, Size Matters: How Height Affects the Health, Happiness, and Success of Boys — and the Men They Become.

Hall is a science writer that has written a book that gives a historical overview as to how height has been understood over the years, and why it has changed. He also explores the causes and effects of the culture of size bias. The author himself is 5'5 3/4" and includes examples and antecdotes from his own life. (It's interesting to note that he makes a point to emphasize his height accurately down to the quarter inch. Fighting for every last bit or trying to deliberately not pass as 5'6"?)

I will definitely be tuning in to listen to the interview and picking up a copy of his book soon. Those interested in a more detailed review can read the NY Times review.

The Leonard Lopate Show will be airing this segment live on July 3, 2007 at noon on 93.9 FM in the NY metro area. You will also be able to call in to ask questions or make comments during the live segment at 212-433-WNYC (212-433-9692). Those that are unable to tune in directly can stream it, or download the segment later free from iTunes or off the show's page. (Please note that there is a slight delay with the streamed content.)

***correction***
The segment is actually a replay of a previous interview.

Massachusetts Height & Weight Anti-Discrimination Laws

As reported by the Associated Press last Friday by Ken Maguire, Boston Representitive Byron Rushing is sponsoring a bill to add height and weight to the anti-discrimination laws. This would provide legal protection for individuals in the workplace as well as while undergoing real estate transactions. According to Rushing (who is black, slim and of average height), he proposed this out of a desire to defend civil rights.

While I'm perfectly clear about that I see that this discrimination occurs, it's equally clear most people don't really believe that the issue is anything serious. Some choice comments from the BostonChannel.com forums prove enlightening on public opinion:

• I'm so sick of people using 'discrimination' as a tool to demand special services. The airlines have seats in the planes, there is NO discrimination, you're welcome to sit in it. IF you don't fit, who's fault is that? Discrimination is so abused. Everyone has the right to work, to be all that they can be and there is no finer country, but stop complaining, stop using excuses and stop looking outward, look inward and figure out ways to succeed, just the way our parents and grandparents all did. If you are too short to fly a jet plane, then get a different job don't expect a jet plane to be specially configured just for you....that's discrimination. You're getting something that no one else is.
• So I looked up the exact definition of Discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit. So would the 'group' that these people belong to be over-weight people? I believe the real reason discrimination acts were brought into effect were to protect sex, race and religious beliefs. Not to protect people who chow on fast food a little too much. If you're overweight and you think people treat you differently, go on a diet!
• Except for the most extreme situations you are never going to stop discrimination with a law. People looking for work or housing are discriminated against every day because they are the wrong color, religion, sex, handicapped, fat, tall and you name it....Its a way of life and human nature so better get used to it.

Mixed in with the comments of denial, trivialization, and outright viciousness (check out the more vitriolic ones at the posting) are a few posts defending the proposal. What is interesting is that a lot of people feel that it's perfectly acceptable to punish people using employment opportunities for traits that have absolutely nothing to do with their work performance (or credit-worthiness in the case of real estate). Or it's also fine to pass moral judgements about their character (Napoleonic complex anyone?). Some individuals even try to better define the understanding of what constitutes acceptable levels of discrimination for "overweight," as if a more nuanced bit of discrimination would then be okay.

There is no justification for this. Unless a job requires some physical characteristic in order to perform the duties of the job (i.e., jockeys, models, etc.), there really is no reasonable justification to penalize an individual based on how he looks. All candidates should be given equal opportunity for employment or living accommodations. The reason that certain categories are protected under law, such as race or gender, is that they've been shown to be systematically treated at a disadvantage. Time and time again, it's been shown that the short are economically penalized for their height, all else being equal.

For race, this problem has even been shown to produce disadvantages that are generational because the effects (and wealth, or lack thereof) add up over time and are passed along to offspring. Arguably, height and weight could be considered genetically passed along as well. Could height and weight characteristics be another example?

I applaud Representative Rushing for his proposal. Can't Massachusetts do at least as well as Ontario, Michigan, San Francisco, Victoria (Australia), and Santa Cruz to protect our rights?

While most of the heated commenting has been in regards to weight, how do people feel about the proposed legislation?

Short Male Reporter Gets Publicly Ridiculed

Thank you to Alex for letting me know about this!

BBC reporter Steve Rosenberg (5'6") was sent to interview German MP Silvana Koch-Mehrin (6'4" in heels). Having trouble getting both of them in the shot (supposedly), Rosenberg was asked to stand on an equipment box.

Someone snatched a shot and sold it to Bild, Germany's biggest-selling daily newspaper, where it was mocked under the headline: 'Little Brit Questions Big Woman Politician'.

The situation is clearly ridiculous to people either because he's standing on a scruffy box and/or because he's short.

What's interesting to me is:

1. Was this actually physically necessary or just something to tip over the edge to require a "fix"?
2. Are female field reporters afforded the same luxury? And if not, is it because they're typically tall anyway? (and thin and attractive...)
3. I'm assuming there's some level of national rivalry that made this worth it for the paper. (i.e., it's ok to make fun of him because he's British)
4. If the gender situation was reverse, it's clear that this wouldn't have been quite as amusing to everyone.
5. Is there some journalistic rule that they can't just both sit in chairs? It's not exactly a war zone or security issue here.
   

I feel rather sorry for Rosenberg because he was obviously just trying to do his job. With the box, he's either vain or insecure. Without it, he appears weak to people because he's so short. It's a lose-lose situation, and clearly unfair. Publishing the photo was undeniably mean-spirited of Bild for any number of reasons.

For you those versed in German, here's the actual article and picture:

CNN Features Segment on Short Discrimination

CNN's Dan Lothian released a short video segment online today entitled, "Small World" that highlights a few of the problems that short individuals face every day. Thank you to my friend Farid, who sent me a link. It's a short four-minute video, so watch it!

It's an interesting feature that tries to give the topic a fair shake. He notes that being short can have real world repercussions - particularly for men in dating and "some say" in workforce pay parity. This latter was probably the only point that I found a little disingenuous - pay inequality (along with access to promotions, etc.) has long been documented in the workforce.

He speaks with a few prominent individuals that have been fighting against short discrimination:

Matthew Campisi, president of the National Organization of Short Statured Adults (NOSSA), speaks with Lothian about his experiences with height discrimination.

Ellen Frankel has written and talked about the problems of short stature in her book, "Beyond Measure."

Please take a look at their work!

Tall = Basketball Player, Short = Hobbit?

A few weeks ago, I went out to dinner at Poke, this great sushi place on the UES. This place is always super crowded and as we were leaving, I noticed a very tall guy squeezed in the corner right by the door. I shamelessly admit that I always check out all the super tall and super short people around me (Hey! I just mean their stature people!), so I definitely was paying attention when it happened.

As we were walking out, a woman walking in looked up in surprise at Tall Guy and said, "Wow, you're really tall. You must be a basketball player!"

The look on Tall Guy's face was priceless. He was probably in his early 30s, probably at least 6'5"(?), and had a slight bit of a beer belly from sitting way too long at the law firm/investment bank. He didn't have a couch potato look, but there was no way this guy was a pro or semi-pro like she seemed to be implying. Hungry and crowded into the corner, I could tell he was trying really really hard to come up with some response that wasn't rude or too self-deprecating. Maybe this woman was doing a piss poor job at flirting? Eventually, he settled on a polite, "no, but I used to play a little bit when I was in school."

I think I may have made it out of the door before I started laughing uncontrollably and commenting really loudly about the hilarity of the situation. I couldn't help but think of the grocery store incident a few months ago. I forget sometimes that tall people get as much abuse about their height as short people. Perhaps Restaurant Lady was trying to be flattering? Maybe it's just everyone Pavlovian response to assume 'basketball player' to the stimulus of a Very Tall Person - and she just didn't happen to have a better verbal filter?

All I know was that I actually felt really badly for this poor guy! I mean, how could he take it as a compliment either? I'm sure several things could have flitted through his head at that moment, including: 'I actually suck at basketball. Don't you actually have eyes woman?? I'm so out of shape that I have a gut. Do I have to hear this again???'

This of course, gets me thinking of all the common and outrageous assumptions about people based solely on height. I confess that I too have the basketball = tall connection wired in my brain somewhere (but have a better filter than she did). Tall thin women usually make me think 'model.'

The obvious snide and rather unlikely connections with short people I can think of are typically:

• dwarves
• hobbits (wait, you mean that they don't really exist?)
  
• jockeys
• circus people
  

Of course, I think '12-year old' usually is the top of the real list.

What are things you automatically associate with very tall/short people yourselves?

It's a Compliment - Really

"You look twelve," said an older woman. At the time, I was currently spacing out, clutching my oranges, waiting to pay. I whipped around to see who was speaking to me. Lo and behold, I was not the 'lucky' recipient of such a comment. Instead, it was a young mother waiting in line behind the older speaker.

Mommy didn't actually say anything to the comment, and the older woman must have realized that she overstepped somewhere. "It's a compliment," she backpedaled. She helpfully offered it up as an explanation - since Mommy was obviously too dense to 'get it'. I mean, doesn't every self-respecting mom want to look pre-legal? No comment from Mommy still. Older lady made a beeline to the exit.

I glanced over and noticed the kid. Now, I'm not exactly as accurate as say, most people, in guessing children's ages. The height throws me off (middle and even elementary school children are sometimes taller than me). But he had to be at least 5, but younger than 10. The kid was way closer to 12 than his mommy. I couldn't help but wonder, how exactly was she supposed to take that as a compliment? That she looks like a pre-teen mother? Or a little girl? No offense, but except for her height, there's no way this woman was less than 25, even sans kid as proof.

Awkwardly, I offered my sympathy by telling her, "I get that all the time" as she left. Not exactly comforting, but hey, what can you possibly say?

Word to the wise. It's never complimentary to tell a woman that she looks like she's 12 year old. Definitely don't try that at the bar guys.

Link in the Wikipedia!

Thank you to the lovely reader who was kind enough to include my post as a link in the Wikipedia entry on Height and Intelligence. Thanks to everyone else who's stuck with me on this crazy journey!

While I certainly blog for my own amusement, it really is great to know that other people find my essays worth reading. I really try to focus my entries and give a detailed analysis - whether a shopping trip, a noteworthy bit of news, or just a general commentary.

So, just out of curiosity, what do readers find to be the most interesting (or boring or just too long-winded) of my entries? The store reviews? The essays on news items? This started off as just a shopping documentary blog, but has definitely expanded (and possibly moved away) to include quite a few other things. I'm intrigued to know what people think about it.

Oh, and I promised two writers posted reviews of their short-related books, so stay tuned. I'm way behind, but as you realize by now, I try to do everything thoroughly. I am indeed, insanely pedantic about some things, so I refuse to just re-release the press releases without reading them first!

A Question of Semantics - Our Favorite Dwarf Planet

Slightly behind the news cycle, this week's New York Times On Language essay by William Safire recapped the revocation of Pluto's planetary status because of its irregularity.

Pluto is now officially downgraded to a new category called dwarf planet, and all textbooks in all languages are ordered to refer to it with that adjectival derogation....The interest of language mavens in this astronomical rejiggering is the connotation of the words dwarf.... Dwarf, as both noun and adjective, means “shorter than the average for the species,” sometimes “malformed or disproportionate.” Because of cruel folklore portraying those affected by dwarfism as ugly Rumpelstiltskins, many with that genetic abnormality prefer to be called “little people” or “of short stature.” Midget, though well proportioned, is used to describe objects like tiny cars and submarines, and many little people take offense when the word is applied to them.

While he is certainly at least slightly tongue in cheek about the whole thing, Safire is nevertheless one of the few (maybe only?) well known writers that is actually taking notice of the incorrect and disparaging use of these terms in the public arena.

For a nation that is almost squeamishly politically correct on certain topics in both language and concept, America (and, mostly everywhere else too) remains quite blissfully ignorant of the problems of heightism and sizism. Writers don't question the inclusion of size (or lack thereof) as a point of either unflattering or irrelevant discussion.

Under the new rules, a planet must meet three criteria: it must orbit the Sun, it must be big enough for gravity to squash it into a round ball, and it must have cleared other things out of the way in its orbital neighborhood. The last of these criteria knocks out Pluto and Xena, which orbit among the icy wrecks of the Kuiper Belt, and Ceres, which is in the asteroid belt. Dwarf planets, on the other hand, need only orbit the Sun and be round. (emphasis added)

Taken from the NY Times again, the quote above neatly points out a not insignificant problem with the literal designation of a planet as a 'dwarf'. From this definition, it is clear as day that Pluto's problem isn't really size at all, but an entirely different requirement. Could it be that usage of the term 'dwarf' stems from a more insidious figurative implication?

Perhaps it comes from the assumption that the smallest humans are not supposed to have the force of will to forge ahead and clear out our own earthly paths. We need only gravitate towards, or just plain avoid, our larger and superior neighbors for survival. Our astronomers have seen fit to let us know that 'dwarf' refers not to a smaller body, but really, to a weaker spirit.

Princeton Study Coorelates Height and Intelligence

Stature and Status: Height, Ability, and Labor Market Outcomes
Anne Case and Christina Paxson

Two Princeton economists recently produced a study that examines the correlation between height and intellectual capacity. It is commonly acknowledged that taller people hold jobs of higher status and usually make more than their shorter coworkers. Most previous studies conclude that discrimination, self esteem, and social dominance are the factors that contribute to the very real differences in outcome. The 52-page paper instead offers another hypothesis: "On average, taller people earn more because they are smarter....As adults, taller individuals are more likely to select into higher paying occupations that require more advanced verbal and numerical skills and greater intelligence, for which they earn handsome returns."

And as unsavory as this paper's conclusion may seem, it is not as brutally simplistic as it sounds. True, Case and Paxson do actually posit that height and intelligence are correlated. But more importantly, (and very easily ignored) it also stated that factors that affect adult height, such as malnutrition and in utero substance exposure, prevent, for lack of a better expression, full actualization of a person's potential. In short (no pun intended!), people associate taller people with less physical and psychological deprivation during childhood - deprivations that are empirically known to detrimentally affect a person's abilities. They also take pains to remove other variables from affecting their conclusions:

One possible explanation for these correlations is that taller children are provided with greater levels of cognitive stimulation at school. Teachers may pay more attention to taller children, or taller children may be more likely to be enrolled in school earlier than shorter children of the same age. However, evidence from other surveys indicates that the association between height and cognitive outcomes begins too early for this hypothesis to be plausible. For example, Rose (1994) finds that the length of 5- to 12-month-old infants is associated with measures of information processing speed.

The authors move on to explain that smarter adults tend to gravitate towards higher status fields that place more value on intelligence - which means prestigious professionals were advantaged developmentally, and are likely to be taller. They also briefly mention a study that tried to understand the perception of height in relation to status:

In another experiment, groups of college students were introduced to the same person...whose status was described differently to each group. On average, students perceived the confederate to be taller when he was introduced as a lecturer than as a fellow student, and even taller when introduced as a senior lecturer, and taller still when thought to be a professor (Wilson 1968). But this difference in perceived height reflects the reality that more successful academics are on average taller (Henley 1993), which may have led the students to statistically discriminate when judging the height of a ‘professor.’ Asked to identify “great” US Presidents and those who were “failures,” Americans single out significantly taller presidents as “great” relative to those mentioned as “failures” (Young and French 1996). Although the authors argue that this supports the self esteem hypothesis, it could also be that presidents who were identified as “great” were both tall and of superior intelligence, and that it is the latter to which their greatness is attributable.

Impressive and interesting as the study may be, I am disappointed that the two authors made no pains give us as readers many suggestions or cautionary notes in interpreting their study. Surely, if this was a study on the correlation of race and crime (with associated causal relations of socioeconomic factors), great efforts would be made to clearly state that determining potential criminality in an individual should not be affected by his race. Actually, even if it wasn't, we're well trained to immediately understand this (although, interestingly enough, not actually touched upon at all in this study). Sexism is also understood; the study does note that even controlling for height, women still make 17% less than their male counterparts. But heightism?

It's actually almost casually brushed aside. Case and Paxson mention that other studies hypothesize heightism (noted as "discrimination" in the paper) as a major factor in discrepancies in pay, but barely touch upon it themselves. They also mention that, when given the opportunity to do so, deprived children almost, but not completely, catch up with their taller peers in both physical and cognitive development. But what if the individual never has the opportunity to jump ahead cognitively? That is, after all, the reason that the college admissions process takes into account an individual's socioeconomic status and current potential opportunities when evaluating candidates.

Height bias is just not considered something worth quibbling with - and when you actually do, it's scoffed at and ignored. It's like a bad joke - surely you're kidding right? The reality is, short people do experience discrimination. The lack of public acknowledgement that it even exists only makes experiencing it worse. It's like the doctor telling you there's nothing wrong with you - it's all in your head. I would postulate that plenty of taller people would find the existence of sites like Short Persons Support to be completely ridiculous. After all, we're just overly sensitive right?

The release of a report like this without disclaimers is really a grave oversight - and dare I say, ethically questionable? The seriousness of the situation is clearly ignored. Kai Ryssdal even made it a joke about how he should be better paid because of his height - and this was the signoff to the popular NPR radio show Marketplace!

A couple of weeks ago, we told you about an interesting study we found. It said college-educated, left-handed men earn more than righties. I thought that was nice to hear, since I'm a lefty myself. Now, another piece of research in the same vein. Economists have long known that tall people make more than short people. The standard theory was that it had to do with social discrimination. But some economists at Princeton argue taller people . . . well, they're just smarter. So, they make more. Four inches in height gets them about 10 percent more in pay. Let's see. My boss is about 5-10 . . . I'm 6-1 . . . Yeah, I'm definitely asking for a raise.

I cringe at the interpretations of this study. Blogs have already picked up the sound bite. I will give Case and Paxson the benefit of the doubt - perhaps this study was not meant to surface to the light of day (and impatient media handlers). I doubt most of the bloggers have even read more than the Reuters piece (and not even all of it). I already see blogs like the Huffington Post ignoring the more detailed aspects of the study. As this blog states already, "Princeton economists say findings justify better pay for more height." Here's another off MySpace that has already spawned ridiculous comments along the lines of "I guess this means I'm stupid...." (yes, yes you are if you agree that this study makes you stupid)

I'll just be waiting for an enterprising short Princeton student to hang a mockery of a banner off the economics building screaming "Short people are dumber! Princeton professors inside say so!"

Short Discrimination is Alive and Well

While it is commonly acknowledged that short people often get the short end of the stick in regards to jobs, respect, dating, and other parts of life, it is not generally acknowledged that this type of discrimination constitutes a real problem that needs to be addressed. It is most definitely acknowledged as an inconvience, but it somehow falls into a zone of inattention and apathy amongst the population at large.

It is discriminatory to use a handicap, age, or marital status against individuals with regard to employment or opportunities. These categories are protected by law because it is generally acknowledged and understood that a negative bias is used against them. Even discrimination against overweight individuals has been acknowledged (most notably against several airlines for firing heavier flight attendants), as these lawsuits illustrate. These traits have nothing to do with a person's qualifications for most jobs - and neither does height. While discrimination against height is allowed in most locations, a few jurisdictions officially have anti-heightism laws - Ontario, Michigan, San Francisco, Victoria (Australia), and Santa Cruz.

The glass ceiling is real, and not just for women and minorities. Is it a coincidence that most corporate executives and public officials are taller than average? A full 30% of men are 5'7" or under but only represent 3% of the executives at Fortune 500 companies. Short people also earn about $800/inch less per year than taller workers and fare poorer for job interviews. (sources here)

The media outlets contribute to the problem of heightism with nary a thought. For example, as I was reading through The New Yorker this week (June 19, 2006), Hilton Als offers both a generous tribute to Gregg Toland and a non sequitur shout-out to Toland's height in The Cameraman. "A wispy, laconic man of five feet one, Toland was born in...." There is no other mention of this anywhere else, no any explanation offered for what relevance it has to the topic at all. Was it difficult being shorter as a cameraman? How does this relate to Toland's work or life? We are left in the dark, with only a budding suspicion that the author was surprised to find that a short person could actually contribute something of worth to the evolution of filmcraft.

There are definitely practical and understandable difficulties that crop up from being short, just like for lefties (Yes, I am that too), that does not constitute discrimination. To reach some of my cabinets that are above my head, I often climb onto my kitchen counter (think nothing of the terror of almost falling sometimes). Chairs are often too deep and are too tall for me to comfortably sit in. Clothes are obviously a pain. Luggage and shopping bags are too big or long and drag or bang painfully into my legs. I am at armpit level on the subway or large crowds, and have even once seriously feared suffication at a crowded college party. At a parade, gathering, or meeting, I often can't see anything because anyone in front of me is in my line of vision. These are understandable and somewhat immutable problems that aren't a product of discrimination so much as a regression towards the average (taller) height.

As a female, I've been shielded from some of the indignities that short men must suffer through. I've never been stuffed in a locker or mocked by potential dates. For men, height is much more the measure of his worth and success, and the degree of respect he is given is most definitely dependant on it.

Still don't buy it? Ask women whether their gender contributed to being passed up for raises or promotions. Ask minorities if they're looked at funny or queried if they know English. When I balk at the derogatory short comments, I'm ridiculed for being "overly sensitive" or "ridiculous." Let's stop pretending heightism doesn't exist and realize that it is a problem that should be discussed with sincerity instead of snickering.