Bob Sansevere: Questions with Mary Jo Kane, University of Minne...

This is a great example of why we love the U but have great problems with some of the "research" produced by these tenured professors. It is no wonder the U has trouble getting funding.

I'd love to see the actual results of the "study". From the article all we received was a bunch of politically correct rhetoric. Next time have some academic integrity professor, show us the data. Please

At the risk of being branded sexist I'll submit this thought. Maybe the executives in charge of marketing for these very successful companies are no idiots either. I may be off base but it seems as if Ms. Kane is suggesting that if female sexuality were no longer marketed, and in it's place was an emphasis on devotion, athletic skills, and intelligence that ticket sales would go up or at least stay the same. I seems that she is suggesting marketers are taking the easiest route to the money by selling sex, and that there is a reasonable, equal alternative. I would submit that these people know exactly what they are doing. They are in it for the money and that is where the money is. You sell what sells. If you sell an inferior product, your sales lag. It's not rocket science. While these woman may be very good athletes as compared to other woman athletes, they are, as you say, very smart and are selling what they know will sell best. It's not as if there is a equal choice that exists and they choose to sell sex. And that is not to say that no one would offer them another alternative if one existed. If there were an equal alternative, someone would offer it. Speaking of which, how's the WNBA working out? It's promoted strictly on athletic ability. If it weren't subsidized by the NBA, it wouldn't exist. And, as for women's college basketball, while there are pockets near very successful teams such as Tennessee, I would suggest it's more about band wagon jumping than any kind of love for the quality of women's backetball. I think what bothers me the most is this attempt by some (and I am not suggesting that Ms. Kane is one, determine that for yourself) to eliminate sexuality between women and men as if it is a choice, and we're being shallow by choosing sex. Please. The simple fact of the matter is that men and women are wired the way we are wired. Men will always look. Women know that and naturally play to that. It's what makes the world go around. Trying to downplay that or deny it is insane. It's sacriledge to approach the subject, but when did it become a bad thing to use the assests that God provided you? A great woman athlete is no more admireable than a gorgeous woman. God provided both with assests they can use. One asset is no better or important than the other. While the athlete may groom her body and mind for sports, the gorgeous female takes care of her self, eats right, stays in shape and uses the assest provided her. It's no more insensitive to portray women athletes as sexual, then it is to protray beautiful women as less intelligent, or somehow less accomplished simply because they are playing upon natures realities, and using different God given assest, the very same way athletes do. The athlete did nothing more to gain their basic athletic ability than the beautiful woman did to gain her beauty. They were born with it. What they did with it after is what counts in both cases. A beautiful athlete is doubly fortunate, and were I her, I play on both assets and market them to the best of my ability. Doing so would prove to me how smart she actually is.

Ms. Kane makes the blanket statement "they're heterosexual" when referring to female athletes. Most of they are, but from my experiences their are more homosexual females in womens athletics than in the general population as a whole. I have no quarrel with that, but simply wanted to point out Ms. Kane's comment may not be accurate.

You're not only sexist you also give credence to Ms. Kane's position/study.

Here are your options - an attractive woman is:

1. physically fit with muscles, graceful and self confident.

2. very thin, adept at applying makeup and into partying.

Which one do you choose if you are a smart guy?

I would pick number 1, because athletic women are sexy, while supermodels are just walking clothes hangers (sorry - that was a bit harsh).

If you don't show athletic women as sexy, you leave the field wide open to supermodels - bad choice.

And let's not forget about male athletes - when haven't they also been marketed for their sex appeal?

Old time feminists need to rethink this and get with the 21st century.

Very well put govikes. The truth hurts and some can't admit it..

govikes wrote:

At the risk of being branded sexist I'll submit this thought. Maybe the executives in charge of marketing for these very successful companies are no idiots either. I may be off base but it seems as if Ms. Kane is suggesting that if female sexuality were no longer marketed, and in it's place was an emphasis on devotion, athletic skills, and intelligence that ticket sales would go up or at least stay the same. I seems that she is suggesting marketers are taking the easiest route to the money by selling sex, and that there is a reasonable, equal alternative. I would submit that these people know exactly what they are doing. They are in it for the money and that is where the money is. You sell what sells. If you sell an inferior product, your sales lag. It's not rocket science. While these woman may be very good athletes as compared to other woman athletes, they are, as you say, very smart and are selling what they know will sell best. It's not as if there is a equal choice that exists and they choose to sell sex. And that is not to say that no one would offer them another alternative if one existed. If there were an equal alternative, someone would offer it. Speaking of which, how's the WNBA working out? It's promoted strictly on athletic ability. If it weren't subsidized by the NBA, it wouldn't exist. And, as for women's college basketball, while there are pockets near very successful teams such as Tennessee, I would suggest it's more about band wagon jumping than any kind of love for the quality of women's backetball. I think what bothers me the most is this attempt by some (and I am not suggesting that Ms. Kane is one, determine that for yourself) to eliminate sexuality between women and men as if it is a choice, and we're being shallow by choosing sex. Please. The simple fact of the matter is that men and women are wired the way we are wired. Men will always look. Women know that and naturally play to that. It's what makes the world go around. Trying to downplay that or deny it is insane. It's sacriledge to approach the subject, but when did it become a bad thing to use the assests that God provided you? A great woman athlete is no more admireable than a gorgeous woman. God provided both with assests they can use. One asset is no better or important than the other. While the athlete may groom her body and mind for sports, the gorgeous female takes care of her self, eats right, stays in shape and uses the assest provided her. It's no more insensitive to portray women athletes as sexual, then it is to protray beautiful women as less intelligent, or somehow less accomplished simply because they are playing upon natures realities, and using different God given assest, the very same way athletes do. The athlete did nothing more to gain their basic athletic ability than the beautiful woman did to gain her beauty. They were born with it. What they did with it after is what counts in both cases. A beautiful athlete is doubly fortunate, and were I her, I play on both assets and market them to the best of my ability. Doing so would prove to me how smart she actually is.

I wanted to post here as well, but you've stolen my thunder. Well put and I agree 100%. No doubt some of the women's libbers will blast you for the comment, but as another poster said...the truth hurts.

They didn't play a random high school team. They played the Warroad varsity squad that went onto the state tourney that year. Have you heard of a player named T.J. Oshie? He just signed a pro contract... they weren't exactly a pushover team.

MK.....While I understand some of your arguments...tell me a few things....In you're study, do the females, Older males & Dads with Daughters you speak of fall into the demos that the advertisers are looking for in the magazines you are referring too?# 2 If you were a fan of the LPGA you wouldn't have made your ponytail comment...look back & tell me they were selling sex with Laura Davies & Nancy Lopez...they were great Golfers period. & #3 One year eh? is that really a proper amount of time or are you looking to rush it?

"Tucker Center for Research on Girls & Women in Sport at the University of Minnesota"?!?!?!

My tax dollars go to support this nonsense?

nota sheep wrote:

"Tucker Center for Research on Girls & Women in Sport at the University of Minnesota"?!?!?!
My tax dollars go to support this nonsense?

LOL

Well of course I watch women's tennis and college cheerleading because they are attractive. And?

Sex sells women's sports as it did this article.

More tax dollars well spent!!!!!!!!!!

Oh BARF!!!!!!!!!!

Political correctness means only lesbians may get turned on looking at women athletes. If men do, its the end of civilization as we know it.

Anyway, a pathetic attempt to get 15 minutes of fame by saying something provocative. Its the same old feminist fantasies--yawn.

Where are these softcore pictures? I'll judge for myself.

this is crazy if the female allows this then this is what they deserve

TJ Oshie played at ND this year. Clueless mindless friend.

They could have saved a hell of a lot of time and money by making a simple phone call to myself or any other lifelong male athlete, that has participated in (and/or still does) sports and still enjoys watching after the "prime playing days" are over. This article comes under the heading of DUH! I can stomach watching Womens Fastpitch Softball, or Womens College Volleyball, that's about it for the female sports world. That said, the difference with the males in the same sports are phenomenal. Once again - DUH! Men and Sports are the market target for anything being sold. How many females do you know with several jerseys of various sport teams throughout the house? The fact is they look a hell of a lot better with a flashy blouse, and that's the way the typical female wishes to be perceived IMO. Pretty comes long before Tomboy. While women are athletic in there own right, they pale in comparison to males. Blame God if you wish,(or in Minnesota - Allah I suppose) but that's the way it is and it ain't changing anytime soon. THANK GOD!
It's literally like watching a Secretariat against Mr. Ed!

Next thing ya know The U will have a 5 year study claiming Men like beer. Probably in the works or already done. God help us all.

I totally agree with a lot of the posters that say "so what" to this story. I personally don't think the bulk of women's sports are particularly entertaining. That's my opinion, sorry if you don't like it, but I would be a liar if I said otherwise.
However, I think some missed the point here: marketers use the sex sells thing to appeal to men, and as many of us have stated, they have to because we aren't really that interested in the sports. The thing the athletes should note, though, is that they may be alienating the few people that actually DO enjoy watching women's sports. So the takeaway isn't that it's horrible that sex is used to market these women (although Mary-Jo Kane sure seems to send that vibe), it's that doing so may hurt the sports with the few fans they've got.

So professional male athletes that are flexing the muscles in ads on TV are NOT selling sex appeal? Sex appeal is used by men and women to sell products. Get over it or turn off the TV.

Vote Conservative
http://www.wilgeno.com