>It says, I like you because you're attractive, not because you deserve it.
I don't think so. What if, instead of commenting about her physical appearance, the introducer commented about her sense of humor. Is that saying "I like you because you're funny, not because you deserve it"? Equally, no. It is simply a noticeable quality about the person.
To me, it's more like saying "I like this person, and just one of the things that make this person unique and remarkable is his/her appearance/humor/whatever." There is no "...not because you deserve it" part to that.
That said, it does seem out of place in a professional setting to remark on someone's appearance when there are more relevant things to comment on. That is, unless you don't know that parson particularly well; in that case, appearance may be the only thing you know how to comment on.
The point is relevance to the situation and context.
If someone is about to give a talk, then (depending on the venue) it may be appropriate to say "Stacy is very funny," because it has a clear implication for the situation at hand.
But imagine this. A woman walks by - your colleague Bob knows her and waves. You say, "Bob, who was that?" He says, "That's Stacy from Accounting. She has a great sense of humor." Do we think Stacy is great at her job? Probably not.
The point is that in a professional context (certain professions excluded), it is never relevant to comment on someone's appearance or sexualize them. Like many things related to sexual harassment, the waters can be murky, and many people don't realize they are undermining their colleagues (often people they do in fact greatly respect) by their words and behaviors.
And there is just no excuse for commenting on someone's appearance or sexualizing them in a professional context. Even if you don't know them well.
"But imagine this. A woman walks by - your colleague Bob knows her and waves. You say, "Bob, who was that?" He says, "That's Stacy from Accounting. She has a great sense of humor." Do we think Stacy is great at her job? Probably not."
I don't think that's quite fair. If I'm not in accounting, chances are I don't care if she's good at her job or not (hell, chances are Bob doesn't even have the knowledge to say if she is or is not). On the other hand, her personality is much more relevant.
If I'm in the same department, her boss or coworker, this of course changes.
I think the point is, we are in the same department, so to speak, and in the context we were specifically interested in her professional qualifications. But I agree that in the personal scenario above, when you just ask "who was that?", you likely don't know or care much about her professional qualifications. It was a bad analogy.
I don't think so. What if, instead of commenting about her physical appearance, the introducer commented about her sense of humor. Is that saying "I like you because you're funny, not because you deserve it"? Equally, no. It is simply a noticeable quality about the person.
To me, it's more like saying "I like this person, and just one of the things that make this person unique and remarkable is his/her appearance/humor/whatever." There is no "...not because you deserve it" part to that.
That said, it does seem out of place in a professional setting to remark on someone's appearance when there are more relevant things to comment on. That is, unless you don't know that parson particularly well; in that case, appearance may be the only thing you know how to comment on.