5’1” here and most seats are pretty roomy. There’s upsides and downsides to everything, but being short is pretty comfy at least.

5'8 here in south east asia, while 5'8 isn't tall in other countries, here you're sometimes forced to sit in a fetal position when taking public transport.

Mid 5 foot gang, we get the worst of both worlds

I definitely feel that one

Agreed.

Ye you're right about the social status thing. It's complex, however. Wouldn't a society that allows women to be strong and tall be more desirble for them to live in? Why is it for example that those occupations you mention are consisting of mainly men? At least the short men working there, who indeed have to work harder than their taller and potentially stronger coworkers, can work there... while there are almost no women who have gotten the job due to discrimination and norms that limits their options. Anyway, the phsycial differences in strength between the genders are not straight forward, for example men can build muscle better but women have generally higher pain tolerance. And they aren't that big either, unless you are a pro athelte they are quite easily overcome. And yet very few women can get into those occupations, even those who wants to. I might have to add (because there is usually some reddit neckbeard screaming about men's rights if I don't) that I view the issue in the same way, when it comes to female dominated occupations that men struggle getting into. That's a problem for them, too. Still agreeing that there are specific disadvantages for short men, that short women don't have. Like dating and what not. But what I'm saying is that the sort of social status short women can get compared to short men, might not always be desirable in the first place. Anyway, it's a bit complex right, I don't really know. Just thinking out loud.

@@jonelervorths4110 There are litany of reasons why men go for those positions. They tend to demand greater physical strength and are much more prone to accidents, including fatalities. Men are hypothetically more individually expendable as a society; you can reduce your male population temporarily without necessarily decreasing your overall population size as a few men can quickly reproduce with many women and not the inverse (eg see the aftermath of the Battle of Cannea) . Females are both harder to replace and costly to lose at scale. Women having a 'higher pain tolerance' is so removed from its narrow context that it is misinformation/disinformation. Women have higher pain tolerance specifically and exclusively during late stage pregnancy after months of build-up of natural painkillers; their baseline pain tolerance outside of that is significantly lower on average than in males. Males are less statistically prone to damage by hard physical labor jobs and violence, less likely to develop PTSD (especially in acute-stress jobs like military), and have higher baseline and average physical strength to where the inverse are edge cases. Mixed sex/gender professions also tend towards far greater drama and efficiency loss as sexual/romantic drama and professional misconduct becomes a statistical inevitably (although this does depend on the industry). In fields like the military, they are linked to dramatically higher accident and fatality rates and reduced performance or efficiency. With other hard physical jobs-construction, sewage, mining, drilling, etc-you are often dealing with specifically rough, strong, aggressive men with a disagreeable disposition and harsh mode of communication and a lot of testosterone resulting in a lot of aggression that is a poor combination with women around during work. Those challenges are _anything_ but easy to overcome individually and impossible to at scale. While owners and managers sometimes do not want mixed workforces, most women do not want to work in those positions to begin with, and reasonably so. There is also a lot of evidence to suggest that similar issues tend to crop up with female management in a way that is rarer to become a problem with male management (although the majority of managers add net zero or negative value to begin with, so take that with some salt). There are factors that incline towards conventionally female-dominated roles prior to socialization. Breastfeeding, a statistical inclination towards more agreeable personalities and greater attention towards people over objects, among other factors, incline women towards more social and nurturing roles, especially combined with the relative safety of more controlled environments such as the home. Which is not to say that women did not work (the 1950s stay-at-home middle class mother concept is a blip in the historical record), but that they were employed in fields more oriented towards their lifestyles and proclivities. Eg, textile production was a massive and lucrative economic industry that had a very high rate of female activity for most of history (pretty much until the Industrial Revolution). As far as short women again, specifically-it does matter when and where. Eg, the average height is overall much higher in much of Scandinavia; a woman who is short by American standards would be extremely so there, and that can certainly work against them in the dating market there. And not all positions that men are conventionally involved in make height particularly important or advantageous, either. Nonetheless, size is _much_ more likely to be significantly advantageous for men, and thus is unsurprisingly an attractive trait in potential mating partners. People are also susceptible to myopia and some dramatically overestimate its importance relative to other factors, and while it is _often_ advantageous, it comes with drawbacks (perceived threat, higher caloric needs, lower life expectancy, higher liability of bone damage at middle-age onwards, shallow people attracted to you for your height, infrastructure and resources too small for you, etc). Genetic inheritance also comes more from the mother than the father. It is nonetheless a reasonable factor to consider, and it is both biologically and socially more significant in men than women.