NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/soc/motss/48837

Text File | 1992-11-22 | 1.6 KB | 39 lines

Newsgroups: soc.motss
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!utcsri!psych.toronto.edu!paul
From: [e-mail] (Paul Hastings)
Subject: Re: Food for thought, was : Bear Crap
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 21:01:07 GMT
Lines: 28

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael S. Pettersen) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (a flying squirrel) writes:
>> Dave Kerlick writes:
>>
>>>>GDM:
>>>>I realize we're probably not going to do away with the prejudice
>>>>against "overweight" any time soon; but there is no reason
>>
>>>To put it in another light, how would tall people feel if they were
>>>referred to in the media and by others as "overheight?"
>>
>Choice or no choice, discrimination on the basis of height also exists.
>It's well known, I think, that the taller candidate for president is more
>likely to win; it may not be as widely known that there is a correlation
>between height and wages (tall=$$$).

Height isn't always a plus.  Everyone please shed a tear for attractive
men 6'4" and over who are told they are too tall to model professionally.
Yup.  It happens.  Males have pretty much gotta be between 5'11" and
6'3" to walk that runway.
Gosh, sort of tugs the ol' heartstrings, don't it?
-paul

--
Aunt Em,
     Hate you.  Hate Kansas.
     Taking the dog.
                        Dot.