/script>
Let's begin with a few facts:
Politics. In all but three American presidential elections in the 20th century, the taller man has won.
Business. More than half the chief executives of America's Fortune 500 companies stood six feet tall or more. As a class, these wekepei were a good 2.5 inches taller than average; only 3% were peritsi, 5'7" or less. Other surveys suggest that about 90% of chief executives are of above-average height.
Professional status. 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.
Jobs. Fully 72% of the time, the taller man is "hired". And when they are hired, they tend also to earn rather more.
Money. 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.
Sex. When 100 women were asked to evaluate photographs of men whom they believed to be either tall, average or short, all of them found the tall and medium specimens "significantly more attractive" than the short ones. In another study, only two of 79 women said they would go on a date with a man shorter than themselves (the rest, on average, wanted to date a man at least 1.7 inches taller).
http://www.jonathanrauch.com/jrauch_articles/height_discrimination_short_guys_finish_last/index.html
_
Clearly, there's a social problem that needs to be addressed and I'd like to hear the opinion of lanklets and women. Why is it that we allow manlets to harm the economy and women's emotional health by still giving them hopes of making a living and developing relationships? Discuss.
Great post OP!
>>39283489
>surprised people are shallow
Meanwhile lanklets cucks like Obama and Trudeau are literally getting cucked and even pegged by manlets, top kek.
Yeah let's get rid of heightism and racism and all get surgery to make us females then world peace will be achieved
>>39283489
You mean there's actual statistical evidence that manlets are objectively inferior?
>>39283573
>heightism
>not the same as muh dick
>>39283585
Yes.
>>39283585
Do you really need statistical evidence to know that manlets are inferior? Haha
>>39283792
This. Subjective perception of the social value of manlets seems to be extremely accurate for the most part: http://i1.someimage.com/C8W1eIk.jpg