Gotta look back at the historical backdrop. Loosely speaking, a woman’s social and economic status depended substantially on her ability to couple with a man. Feminism, the social movement that most vocally raised the objections to this, is the source of the vocal objections to assessing women primarily as sexual property (i…e, perceiving her as only being useful for that along with, perhaps, ancillary wifely or girlfriendish activities).
The partial corollary would be men getting pissed at being assessed by women solely on the basis of their wallets or other aspects of social & economic status, since that behavior stems from the same arrangement (women’s status depending on being able to couple with a male, and therefore on the specific socioeconomic clout of the male she does couple with) — but a feminist would point out that it’s not mirror-image reciprocal since his social and economic status does not depend on getting a woman (cute or otherwise), and that (historically at least) we’re talking about the difference between being just able to survive and being able to live in moderate comfort or better — it made that much difference to a female to be able to acquire a male provider.
Stirred into the mixture, and not particularly feminist, are the attitudes and assumptions that a male is interested in abbreviated sexual contact and therefore cares mostly about the body, the fuckabilitiy quotient if you will, whereas the female is not interested in abbreviated sexual contact and instead wants an oingoing relationship and therefore is looking for mutual affection — and that therefore there’s an ongoing generic female gripe about males assessing females according to their body, whereas males are not being reciprocally demeaned and insulted by females assessing them only according to theirs. Now, in light of the previous paragraph, it’s easy to see economic and pragmatic reasons why women would be assessing males for long-term relationships rather than fuckability quotient — reasons other than simply “it’s in their nature”. The very existence of the personal ads cited in the OP indicate that women, given the social and economic freedom to do so, are a bit more inclined to make such assessments than these old notions give them credit (or blame) for. Another component in the mixture is the Looking for Mister Goodbar problem: given a dozen horny women and a dozen horny men, the women are likely to be a lot more cautious about toddling off to bed with guys simply because they look yummy to them because of the risk of physical violence. The men are not at appreciable risk from getting raped or killed as a consequence of their pursuit of casual sexual contact.
Does any of this excuse the inequity complained about in the OP? Absolutely not. There’s not much in life that a woman needs protection from that a man is more likely to be able to provide to her as a consequence of being tall. You run across any woman inisistiing on a tall guy, but who then turns around and berates one or more guys for insisting on a skinny chick, by all means let her have it, bust her chops for it.