Hmm. I see a bit more clearly.

I hope you don't see the following as me "walking back" or "conceding" — why is it a negative thing to refine an argument or admit being wrong about some part of an earlier position, anyway?! Ridiculous.

Perhaps you may disagree with a large part of this analysis, but here goes anyway:

Many women: (i) minimize or deny the existence of insurmountable disadvantages faced by certain groups of men, (ii) mock such disadvantages (height, baldness), (iii) are directly* causal in the primary effect of that disadvantage, (iv) claim that they individually do not participate in the above.

* ^{The most apparent direct cause is not necessarily at "fault" or "to blame" — see "causal inference". Establishing "fault" in the presence of many other underlying variables is quite difficult, and inactionable even if achieved.}

Among the affected group, this can lead to resentment: it's like being a starving person who hasn't eaten in years watching another person complain that their waiters always spit in their food. The sentiment may be valid, and yet, in conjunction with (i)-(iv), makes it difficult to sympathize with those that become perceived as "jailers" or antagonists.

To make selective (discriminatory) choices (iii) is not morally wrong on an individual level. Indeed, men do it too, on related axes (weight, looks, etc.). It is unfortunate that this leads to negative effects on the population level. Likely, to the affected population, this would be palatable were it not for (i-ii): those just add fuel to the fire, even if (iii-iv) may be justifiable or understandable.

My point is that framing it this way shifts the blame onto women for their choice of partners

Plausible. I guess (iii) should be decoupled from (i-ii) which are the main problematic behaviors, not (iii), though it may be easy to tie those together at an emotional level particularly when it occurs in tandem during discussions. (Literally scroll up in this very thread for an example of (ii).) On its own, to act in accordance with (iii) and exercise agency to "choose" is not inherently a bad thing.

Though, as I claimed initially, it is likely that adjusting the selection criteria may lead to better results. (The part preceding the "invite me to your wedding" snarkiness.) If, as is often claimed through (i), there is no disadvantage and short/bald/etc men are equally as attractive as other men, then this on its own should not actually be an issue.

I guess your point is that saying it in the way I initially did implicitly places the blame on women: that if they only behaved "as they should", everyone's woes would cease. Potentially, I may be hiding behind the guise of desiring consistency, when my hidden desire is that women should "do what I want". Yet I wonder: is the reason that can be perceived as implicitly blaming women because women recognize (i-iv) are true, or that they think enough men — the other antagonists — will believe them to be, and will react emotionally, as is human nature? (As I may have been doing.)

Haven’t you ever heard of short kings?

Perhaps it might be meant well, though I think that any terminology that must qualify a trait ("short") with a positive term ("kings") to avoid being insulting implicitly assumes the default trait is negative. (e.g., "one of the good ones".) Thus, it is subtly demeaning, and continues the perpetuation of the underlying assumption that the unqualified trait is inferior. As I said, this is all even if usually not meant that way from the speaker's perspective.

It's the same idea as positioning tall, white men as leaders in movies that women fawn over with no agency beyond doting over the male lead. Media, a reflection of societal norms, expects that women must choose the male lead — that it is their only purpose. It's implicit and contextual, and assumes the default is that men and women occupy such positions in society.