You seem to think that women don't really care about height and other superficial metrics because of that IPSOS data you linked. Instead of looking at data from surveys (where people can inscribe their own biases), you should look at real world data, from dating apps like bumble. The data they published shows the overwhelming majority of women prefer taller men (particularly above 6 feet), and like stated in the movie, ignore short men.
You can also experiment with this yourself - create a profile with a normal looking man and mark his height as 5'6, and see how many matches you get. Try again with the exact same profile and list the height as 6'2 and you can see the difference. It's not hard.
Using that IPSOS data as proof that women don't value height is like saying that misogyny doesn't exist because you asked 1000 men if they hate women and they all said "no".
Your interpretation of this movie is hindered by the fact that you are ignorant to the reality of how superficially strict women in the modern dating sphere really are. Lucy protesting that height doesn't matter, while choosing the naturally tall man, actually reflects reality perfectly - women will lie to themselves to appear less superficial than they actually are.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment, which made me reflect on the points I was making. I want to clarify first that my take on the survey data referenced was not to suggest that height doesn’t matter at all to people, but it does seem to suggest that men can overestimate how much it matters. And while the comparison with behavioural data from dating apps is a fair challenge, surely it does not entirely mean the survey data is entirely wrong. While the survey data may have some social desirability that influences what people express, data from apps does not necessarily represent an authentic ‘untainted’ response. There are all sorts of reasons for this, but, for example, with limited information, combined with a design that encourages swift responses, then perhaps little wonder people fall back on stereotypes.
The wider, and for me the more central point I was making about the film, was that Lucy’s behaviours seem to unintentionally mirror a dubious script: the belief that women are ‘programmed’ to trade up for taller, higher-status men, and that male suffering (for shorter men) is the inevitable consequence. This is in the context of a film that was essentially a critique of narrow, transactional relationship ‘rules’ where we might expect this to be examined in some way. So while it seemed that Lucy was breaking other rules by marrying Chris, her penniless ex-boyfriend (rather than following the rules about marrying into wealth), it failed to properly examine the height issue. In fact, my reading was that it was de facto almost treating it as legitimate whilst pointing out the dubious nature of the other behaviours (such as marrying for money).
You seem to think that women don't really care about height and other superficial metrics because of that IPSOS data you linked. Instead of looking at data from surveys (where people can inscribe their own biases), you should look at real world data, from dating apps like bumble. The data they published shows the overwhelming majority of women prefer taller men (particularly above 6 feet), and like stated in the movie, ignore short men.
You can also experiment with this yourself - create a profile with a normal looking man and mark his height as 5'6, and see how many matches you get. Try again with the exact same profile and list the height as 6'2 and you can see the difference. It's not hard.
Using that IPSOS data as proof that women don't value height is like saying that misogyny doesn't exist because you asked 1000 men if they hate women and they all said "no".
Your interpretation of this movie is hindered by the fact that you are ignorant to the reality of how superficially strict women in the modern dating sphere really are. Lucy protesting that height doesn't matter, while choosing the naturally tall man, actually reflects reality perfectly - women will lie to themselves to appear less superficial than they actually are.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment, which made me reflect on the points I was making. I want to clarify first that my take on the survey data referenced was not to suggest that height doesn’t matter at all to people, but it does seem to suggest that men can overestimate how much it matters. And while the comparison with behavioural data from dating apps is a fair challenge, surely it does not entirely mean the survey data is entirely wrong. While the survey data may have some social desirability that influences what people express, data from apps does not necessarily represent an authentic ‘untainted’ response. There are all sorts of reasons for this, but, for example, with limited information, combined with a design that encourages swift responses, then perhaps little wonder people fall back on stereotypes.
The wider, and for me the more central point I was making about the film, was that Lucy’s behaviours seem to unintentionally mirror a dubious script: the belief that women are ‘programmed’ to trade up for taller, higher-status men, and that male suffering (for shorter men) is the inevitable consequence. This is in the context of a film that was essentially a critique of narrow, transactional relationship ‘rules’ where we might expect this to be examined in some way. So while it seemed that Lucy was breaking other rules by marrying Chris, her penniless ex-boyfriend (rather than following the rules about marrying into wealth), it failed to properly examine the height issue. In fact, my reading was that it was de facto almost treating it as legitimate whilst pointing out the dubious nature of the other behaviours (such as marrying for money).