On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, MARINA YERESHENKO wrote:
> Another reason for the difference could be the fact that smaller women
> are considered more feminine (only in Western countries that changed a
> bit in 60's, with the advent of Twiggy), therefore prettier, therefore more
> likely to marry and pass on their genes. While the scary big woman
> would die old maidens. Natural selection. Some genes are gender-connected,
> so maybe height is one of them.
>
It's going to be really interesting to look back on the issue in about
2010. From about my generation on, (I was born in 1972, same year as Title
9 passed) there's been a new emphasis on women and physical fitness and
sports. When I was in high school, it was a Big Deal to make it on the
women's basketball or volleyball teams. (A couple of sports where height
is a very useful thing.) These days, something like women's basketball is
getting a huge amount of publicity. 6'4" Rebecca Lobo is considered to be
a good role model for girls. Volleyball player Gabrielle Reese is 6'2",
very athletic looking, and is also a fashion model.
I've got a hunch that there's a shift in the idea of how women should look
out there.
"It's kind of cool when you can bench press your husband." Amy Van Dyken-
multiple Olympic champion.
Jill Gillham jilkey@grfn.org http://members.aol.com/~ferndock2
\|/ \|/ D=|[[] "All-arm'd I ride, whate'er betide,
=0: + =0: = \O/ Until I find the Holy Grail."
/|\ /|\ |*| -- Alfred, Lord Tennyson [Go WINGS!]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:40 PDT