Guest Post: Heightism

The following is a guest post from my good friend Lindsay, who writes her own blog And How Do You Feel About That. She has written about the perception of height in our society.  Enjoy!

"Very few people want to admit how readily they judge others. I’ve discussed some of the subtle discrimination in our society, like the couching of racist remarks in “jokes” and descriptions, in my blog, which you can find here. But one lucky type of discrimination still enjoys a special place, still funny and socially acceptable. And it falls on the short guys.


In our society, we have many gendered expectations, and height comes into play as a masculine trait. Men who are taller are considered more assertive, powerful, and attractive, all because of certain genes that put them above the average height of 5’8’’. Connecting manliness with height in our society can affect people’s job credibility, their attractiveness to romantic partners, and their self-esteem.

These men have very few options when it comes to responding to others’ jabs at their height. If they laugh it off, they land a spot on the comedic roll, and risk being objectified by their height permanently. They become “cute,” “goofy,” not taken as seriously. If they respond seriously or try to defend themselves, they are told that it’s “just a joke,” not to take it to heart. Now they’re saddled with a Napoleon complex, so whenever they get touchy about jokes it’s their own fault, not the insensitivity of the joker.

That this prejudice can also be unconscious creates serious problems in the workplace, when men are considered less qualified for a position of leadership because of the lack of respect their stature demands. I believe if people are aware of the ramifications of this heightist approach, our society could make steps towards amending the situation.

If you are interested in pursuing the topic of heightism, The Social Complex has a wealth of information about the various impacts on society. Also, Sociological Images is a great place to find examples of prejudice and discrimination in our culture."

Homosexuality and the Bible

I belong to a very liberal church. As such, we have been reading excerpts from Sex Texts from the Bible by Teresa J. Hornsby in my youth group. I found the section on homosexuality particularly interesting since the Bible has long been a tool to condemn homosexuality. Hornsby takes passage typically used to condemn homosexuality and puts the passages back into their historical context. Using this neo-historic approach, the potential interpretations of the scripture changes dramatically.

One of the most commonly cited passages to condemn homosexuality is Leviticus 20:13, "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them". Even Hornsby agrees that the message here is frank: men who have sex with other men shall be killed. What is more important she argues, is why the Israelites would have responded in such a way. The word "abomination" is translated from the Hebrew word tovah which means mixing or confusion or unlike things. In this case, the gender roles of man and woman are being mixed. Hornsby argues that they had these views of homosexuality because their culture depended on the idea of remaining separate and not "mixing", therefore any time when things were not in their proper category the Israelites saw it as dangerous to their culture and therefore repulsive (Hornsby 64). They respond with such extreme punishment because they see homosexuality as a threat to their existence since it is a form of "confusion" to them.

Whenever looking to the Bible for guidance, it is important to remember that it was not written for our culture and our modern problems. People chose what to include in the Bible and what to leave out. Many of the stories were also adopted to appease the social trends of the era when the Bible was first being put into writing because followers wanted Christianity to be more main stream.

Leviticus is the book of Jewish laws, few, if anyone, follows all the laws in Leviticus. Most Jews and Christians only follow a select few. I argue though that if we can arbitrarily choose which ones to follow and not follow, such as not keeping Kosher, we should not adopt these views on homosexuality.

KONY 2012

After having both my Twitter and Facebook accounts assaulted by the Kony 2012 video (if you have not seen it I am shocked, but here is the link), I felt compelled to write a blog post about it. I wouldn't consider myself an Invisible Children "hater" per-say, but I am definitely among their skeptics.

I'll start with some of the positives. The video has proven widely successful at raising awareness with over  86 million views since it's release less than one month ago. The organization set out to prove that young people can have an impact and change things, and so far they have proven that. They also helped add to the growing evidence that social media can be a power tool for social change. As a member of their target audience, I am comforted and emboldened by the fact that my voice can actually be heard. However, the organizations propaganda feeds into American misperceptions about Africa to gain support and attention.


The following is a quote from one of several open letters written to the CEO of Invisible Children, Jason Russell written by Penny Carothers , "By positioning yourself as the mouthpiece for this cause, you have denied the people of Uganda the opportunity to speak for themselves. You have depicted them as voiceless, hopeless, and at our mercy. Nothing could be further from the truth". The Uganda people are portrayed in this video as helpless, starving, and child-like, a stereotype that Americans are very comfortable with. I've written about this stereotype before in Simba doesn't live in Nairobi, and here again we see the same stereotype being used by an aid organization to try and garner support. It disgusts me a little bit that people with such big ideas would resort to such dehumanizing stereotypes to sell their ideas. Carothers goes on to say, "Jason, your video is slick and well produced, and it has garnered attention because it’s emotionally appealing and tragic. But it gives Americans the idea that they are the solution to the conflict, when they simply are not". That is what annoys me the most about this video. The message is: Americans must be the solution because Ugandans haven't fixed it yet.


The video also makes some fairly outrageous claims. They claim that no one cared about the issue and that the children were invisible before their organization came around, but that is complete specualtion. Also why are they invisible until recognized by a Western audience? Do they not truly exist until America cares? They also claim that the president could withdraw the military advisors from Uganda at any moment and then they would fail, so we have to keep pressuring the government. I am highly skeptical of this logic. First, I do not believe Obama would be so quick to pull out the 100 military advisors; he has nothing to gain from that. Second, the removal of those 100 military advisors would not ensure the failure of this campaign. The video seems to assert that without US military assistance the Ugandans cannot win. This patronizing view point frustrates me. 


In another open letter to Jason Russell by Amber Ha of the Acholi Times, she ends with this, "There is an Uganda saying that goes, 'The grass will always suffer when two elephants fight.' Isn't it time we let the grass grow?".