Asian American Attitudes toward Height | Asian American Poll

AA ATTITUDE TOWARD HEIGHT
(Updated Saturday, Jun 6, 2026, 12:07:54 AM to reflect the 100 most recent valid responses.)

Assuming you are an Asian American, how important is height in your assessment of a person's attractiveness?
It's a key element of attractiveness. | 20%
It's one of many factors I consider. | 44%
It's less important than other personal qualities. | 28%
I am not attracted to tall people. | 8%

Assuming you are an Asian American, which best matches your feelings toward your own height?
I'd like to be 3 inches taller. | 43%
I'd like to be an inch taller. | 27%
I'm happy with my height. | 26%
I'd like to be an inch shorter. | 4%

HOME | PERSONALITIES | FEATURES | NEWS

© 1996-2025 Asian Media Group Inc
No part of the contents of this site may be reproduced without prior written permission.

b.lee

now you're just getting into an ad-hominem attack on me. normally i'd return the favor, but i'm not really into this bickering at this moment.

of course i'm biased and have my own take on things. and i can also admit that i can be and probably am wrong in lots of things. but funny isn't it that i can speak with my anthropology professors about these things and they seem much more knowledgeble than those "citations" you provided?

and for the record, i disagree with intentional female infanticide but not with abortion. i'm as pro-choice as they come. as i've already stated, there are huge amounts of problems with china's attempt at the "great leap forward" and the human costs are insufferable. but i go by the people in glass houses should not throw stones ideology. don't judge unless you've fully understood the whole issue. i don't claim to understand the severity and scope of this female infanticide problem, and i bet you don't either. but i'm ticked off by your baseless criticisms of a nation you hardly seem to understand. whereas for me being chinese-american i at least want to know about the circumstances and then decide for myself.

and you're right i'm not going to validate your eugenics topics anymore. i've never read this height forum before and plan on not to after this eugenics thing have died down. i'm 5'11" and don't really care about the height "issue." B^)
anthropology student Monday, April 22, 2002 at 18:44:51 (PDT)

theres some hope for you short guys

http://www.salon.com/health/sex/urge/2000/02/29/short/
short ribbed Monday, April 22, 2002 at 18:43:24 (PDT)

B. Lee

I have been to China. To answer some of your questions as I am suited from empirical observation:

1) Have you noticed a highly disproportionate ratio of males/females, especially in the rural areas?

Actually, I have not noticed this. If anything, logical conjecture would have us assuming that such disproportionate numbers would be found in cities, where the government would obviously have much greater control and access to the residents. On the other hand, a rural environment where the population is scattered not even within practical proximity for such restrictions or measurements, would quite frankly make such government control almost impossible. Therefore, in the most rural regions, one would expect a more natural and even distribution of male vs female populations. When I visited the rural regions of Zhejiang and Jiangsu province, I did not notice this imbalance that you speak of. At most, the distribution would have been only mildly offset.

2) Have you ever witnessed female infanticide?

No, I have never witnessed such practices, though I do not rule out its existence.

3) How often have you read articles in the Chinese media criticizing the Chinese government.

With all honesty, I never bothered to read Chinese publications, though I did watch CCTV, which would be the state-run media. And neither I, nor any individuals that I know, could understand the government criticizing itself. That would be rather non-productive to the overall status quo of governments aiming to perpetuate themselves...in fact, it would be self-destructive. Does anyone recall the Espionage Act of June 1917 in the United States? And more importantly, the Sedition Amendment to this law? It imposed heavy penalties on anyone convicted of using "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the government, the Constitution, the flag, or the military.
I hardly think China's position is much worse, and in fact, should probably be better in achieving democracy.

Note: I am not trying to champion any form of government but simply answering your questions.
You should consider yourself fortunate for my courtesy.

Back to the subject of height:
In 1941, during WWII, the United States came under intense stress regarding the Japanese and the Chinese. More important to the public was how to tell the difference between a friendly Chinese and a heinous Jap.
The December 1941 issue of "Life" Magazine published an article on the topic:

"Tall Chinese brothers, full length, show lanky, lithe build of northern anthropological group that has suffered most in China’s recent history from flood, famine and war with Japs. Average height of Northern Chinese is 5 ft. 7 in., sometimes exceeds 6 ft. "

This attributed to the unappealing conditions indicative of poor health to numerous hardships endured by the Chinese at the time.

Of course, health has risen once again and we find the correlation between height and living conditions to hold quite true. From my response to question number three, one would believe that had eugenics been a priority for the Chinese government, we would find an ever expanding breech in height between urban and rural populations. This difference would at least be considerably greater than it had been in pre-modern times. However, this has not been the case at all. In reality, the height margin has been ever decreasing and nutrition now plays a greater role than ever before.

According to Eveleth and Tanner (1990:1):
“A child’s growth rate reflects, perhaps better than any other single index, his
state of health and nutrition; and often indeed his psychological situation also.
Similarly, the average values of children’s heights and weights also reflect
accurately the state of a nation’s public health and the average nutritional status
of its citizens, when appropriate allowance is made for differences, if any, in
genetic potential [for growth].”

Measurements have since been taken during 1979, various times in the 1980’s. Most recently, the state organs involved were the State Sports Commission, State Education Commission (Education
Ministry in 1979), Ministry of Public Health, State Nationalities Commission, and the
State Science and Technical Commission. During a recent case study performed by the various aforementioned parties, which was summarized and annotated by the University of Melbourne, various measurements, including height and BMI, were taken from 253, 007 students. These samples were averaged and ranked by province, as well as producing a national average. The two age groups in this case study were from the seven and seventeen year old age group. Chinese children in the seven-year age group are comparable to United State’s seven-year-olds in the wealthy provinces and municipalities. Shandong seven-year olds were even a full standard deviation taller than American seven-year-olds, at 127.9 cm. The province with the tallest seventeen year old males were from Beijing, which held on to an average height that was roughly 174 centimeters, which is a shade over 5’8.5, and a 3.9 cm increase from the initial 1979 survey. Second in the ranking was Shanghai, which held an average height of 173 cm. Among the wealthiest municipalities in China, Shanghai has long been held as a cosmopolitan society, and relatively ahead of their compatriots by leaps and bounds. Northern provinces such as Shandong, which held the third greatest average, and wealthier municipalities, including Tianjin, also boasted similar measurements. Although rural regions of these provinces still trailed the urban inhabitants, the margin had become substantially reduced from a decade ago. The greatest increases in heights were to be found in the rural inhabitants, where average height has since increased by 4 + cm in Beijing, Tianjin, and Shanghai, with Tianjin rural populations on par with their urban neighbors. Southern provinces still lagged behind, particularly those farther inland such as Sichuan and Hunan, with heights in the 168-169 cm range. And while Guangdong holds a 168.5 cm average, it is still a height increase of 1.8 cm from 1979. The rural portions of Sichuan still sport the lowest average height, at 165 cm, though this is actually a 4.6 cm increase from the 1979 census.
The Body-Mass Index, or BMI, which is calculated as the ratio of one’s weight in kilograms divided by one’s height in meters squared, or kg/m^2. On this scale, Chinese 17 year olds have all shown relative improvements, with varying degrees, as have Chinese seven-year-olds. All averages of 17-year-old men from northern provinces, including Shanghai, held BMI’s in the 21 range, with some above that mark. Southern provinces averaged within the 19 – 20 range. Undeniably, the varying degrees of success between northern and southern provinces is notable, some of which may be a result of genetic predisposition, but the nation as a whole has shown a gradual increase. The national average of Chinese 17- year-old men is roughly over 5’7, including both northern and southern provinces.
The GNP and GNP per capita have increased, and with these increases have living conditions in China.

The heights are not eye-popping, nor unfathomable, as I should point out that the average height of South Korean men ages 22-25 is a shade over 172 cm, or a tad under 5’8. And yet we never accuse them of eugenics.

To put it quite frankly, why do you want to overcomplicate the matter, B. Lee? The increase hasn’t been inexplicable, but rather reasonable beyond little doubt, so leaving little room from all out eugenics to play a role. Your subjectivity remains a strong point in your responses, though strong simply because they are the primary basis for your posts, rather than from convincing reasoning, shown through your biased facts from biased sources (aka special interest groups).

chinatown Monday, April 22, 2002 at 18:11:10 (PDT)

TAll GUY vs. SHORTER GUY

I personallly would prefer to be with a guy who's tall, because I'm myself is tall for average AF. Some people or guys said that being taller makes them feel better or more masculine or stronger? If this is how you feel, I kinda have somewhat different perspective, I've only heard this from some people, a guy who is not too tall has more balance physically and he could fight better, this is not everyone I'm talking about, and some guys who are skinny or slender and tall, he could have less balance than the shorter guy, because if those two were to get into a fight, the short guy could kick the tall guy's leg and the tall one would fall down hard and it's harder and longer for him to get back up. and also probably height(long leg) is an disadvantage in wrestling also, because the long leg guy could get his leg wrap all over his body, and it's easier and lock or seize someone that way. Ah well, that's just my opinion, that doesn't mean that all tall guys and short guys are like that, but mostly. But I do prefer taller guys because I think they look good, and in sense because I want a guy who's taller than me. If I was really shortie, then I'd rather be with the shorter guys, hehehe.
tall or short Monday, April 22, 2002 at 16:53:02 (PDT)

Beijing Angelique,

Depends on what you mean by "ideal".

"Ideal height" will vary from person to person, but should be a function of health and well-being. Just as each person has their own individual "ideal" nose, eyes, face, weight and body/fat ratio (not everyone was meant to be thin), each person will have their own "ideal height".

However, there is such a thing as an idealized "attractive" height, as dictated by the particular society/culture one lives. Generally (but not necessarily always), this height will probably be a bit taller than the average, but not overly tall.

In the US, this height is probably somehwere around 6' for men, and around 5'6 for women.

Have you ever wondered why being "tall" is an attractive trait generally?

Well, probably because being tall is associated with "adulthood" (eg size difference between child vs. adult), sexual virility (again, the child vs. adult analogy), health (normal vs. midget, or stunted growth as a result of poor diet) and lastly, power (bigger usually means stronger, and again, the child vs. adult analogy).

But it should be kept in mind that these are mostly symbolic notions, not "real". Bigger does not mean better athletic performance, needless to say; bigger does not mean greater virility; and bigger does not mean better health (as the diseased US population testifies).

However, as society has moved from hunter/gatherer to agriculture to industrialization to the information economy, the "symbolic" notions of strength, virility and power have taken on greater meaning. Since it is no longer possible for most people to "prove" their actual physical talents in the battlefield or in the hunt -- it can only be "displayed" symbolically (like peacock plumes). Hence, it is a mistake to confuse the symbolic with the real (for example, many petite women "feel" they are safe with a "tall" guy, when in actuality, this tall guy may be quite qawky and unathletic and hardly able to defend her or himself).

A corollary to men and height is women and thinness. The underlying basis for female attractiveness is fertility expressed symbolically. Although being thin is considered an attractive trait these days, very thin women are actually less fertile than average or even a bit chubbier women, contradicting the underlying basis on which the beauty standard is based.

Breast size is also associated with fertility (child vs. adult analogy again), but in actuality, having bigger breasts does not make a woman more fertile (or able to provide more milk for her child).
po Monday, April 22, 2002 at 11:32:58 (PDT)

I agree with Po, 5'6 and 6'2 may be ideal, but hardly attainable for most. The average woman in the US is I believe 5'4, and I'm not sure but I would imagine the average AAF is around 5'2 or 5'3, so that statement would make them feel undesirable. And I see very few AM's that are over 5'10.
curious Monday, April 22, 2002 at 11:27:58 (PDT)

Po- are you a man? And yes I mean curvy in terms of a woman that looks like a woman, with curvy hips, thighs, butt, chest, as opposed to a person that looks more like a stick, like most models do and a lot of AF's do. I didn't mean it in the way that some people use it to say "fat" in a polite way.
curious Monday, April 22, 2002 at 11:21:58 (PDT)

NEWEST COMMENTS | EARLIER COMMENTS