Shorter people are better for the planet according to New York Times. New York Times psyoping liberal girls into lowering their standards.
dayum I feel excluded what’s considered as short btw?
5 inches and below
If you're short you have to be ultra confident to be attractive to women. If you're 6ft+ you can just... exist, and women will flock to you. I've seen this in person. Women would walk up to my tall friend and ask HIM for a night out in Vegas. Bro was with at least two chicks a night lmao. Guess you can't outrun biology
'Potentially' but you just left that out
Imagine if a dude did an article about weight. "When you mate with skinner people. You're shrinking your needs and will have a much smaller footprint. When you date fatter people, you'll need more money, time and resources." "John Smith, a US-based researcher who at one time studied social status, said that fat women, counter to prevailing stereotypes, may "compensate" for being fat."
Damn.
There are much better ways to leap towards a greener environment than resorting to this practice. But cannot expect that from NY TIMES.
One could almost guess the writer was short... Yeah the avarage waste of food and other things independently of a person's size must dwarf whatever the height of a person does. Dumb article.
New York Times is heavily biased as we know from the SBF situation. This article was funded by a short person.
As if women are reading this to say "You know what? I WILL date shorter guys now. Thanks NYT!"
Leftist earth saving women who blindly follow NYT might consider it. Smart move by the short people association.
OP, are you short? Lol
Liberal girls have to get married before they become insufferable banshees.
This is the kind of NYT propaganda I can get behind.
Latina girls be happy