But why do you think your wheels should be proportionate to your size?? Because of looks? The adoption of bigger wheels is because of the mechanics of the wheel, they roll better, they better grip and small bump/undulation/obstacle performance. Whilst its true in many things that if it looks right it is, I don't think it applies to this.
I agree that there's a lot of truth in this, but there are pros and cons about 29ers and it could be that the pros outweigh the cons for big powerful riders but not for smaller lighter riders.
Sticking with my son, he is 40% heavier as well as being 10% taller, and aside from being young and extremely athletic, you would expect him to be a lot more powerful in his legs than I am, but I am a lot closer in power to weight ratio. To maximise my performance I need a bike to be nimble, and a 29er is never going to be as nimble as a 26er. On the other hand, 29ers have rolling advantages which may outweigh the power-sapping effect of the longer chainstays. But the power you need to overcome the long chainstays may be in terms of absolute power rather than power to weight.
Another factor is the shape of the bike. The bigger front wheel, other things being equal, will tend to lead to higher handlebars. No problem for a tall rider with a high seat, but I don't want a high handlebar - hence smaller 29ers having to go to flat bars (yuk) and negative-rise stems (double yuk), and are still too high. Also as a small rider, I like a short wheelbase. All my favourite bikes have a short wheelbase and it is often overlooked how important this is for quick handling. 29ers either have a long wheelbase, which is bad, or as in the case of the S-Works they are made to look really stupid in order to avoid it, which is also bad.
So I'm not saying you're wrong, but I just think that some of the pros and cons are different, depending on size. And in a funny way, the looks right = is right principle may still have some validity methinks.