sports

For their pilot study on how images of women athletes affect fan interest, Mary Jo Kane and Heather Maxwell focused on a range of common portrayals of women in sport. On one end stood the highly competent athlete. On the other lay the soft-core porn often found in men's magazines, while the center was occupied by the all-American girl.

They didn't include the "nappy-headed ho" on the continuum. Though the Rutgers women's basketball team exposed that characterization as the ugly lie that it is, Don Imus' now-famous slur does prove an uncomfortable truth: that women athletes, no matter how accomplished, still are judged largely on their looks.

The blather that got Imus fired began as a commentary on the NCAA title game between Rutgers and Tennessee. Imus and crew had not even mentioned the score when they weighed in on the players' appearance. The Rutgers women, Imus said, were "rough" and "got tattoos." The Tennessee "girls," he added, "all look cute."

Most of the torrential media coverage and public outrage has centered on the racist nature of Imus' remarks. The sexism, though, is no less repugnant. The remarkable gains made by female athletes over the past 40 years continue to be marginalized by a culture that classifies women according to mass standards of beauty and femininity. And, Kane and Maxwell said, some women's sports might be sabotaging themselves by trying to play along.

The researchers will present data from their ongoing study tonight on the University of Minnesota campus. Kane, director of the Tucker Center for Research on Girls & Women in Sport, and Maxwell, a doctoral student, are finding that using sex to sell women's sports doesn't draw more men to games -- and it offends the core audience.

"If those who promote women's sports go with the idea that sex sells, they alienate women as consumers, and they're not capturing more consumers," Kane said. "It's counterproductive. Men are interested in gazing upon sexy bodies, but that doesn't translate into attending games or buying tickets."

Kane and Maxwell undertook the study, funded in part by the Women's Sports Foundation, to determine whether evidence supported the long-held "sex sells" theory. Thus far, they have studied men and women in the 18-34 age range.

They showed the groups photos of sportswomen covering the spectrum from highly athletic to highly sexualized. Their initial findings showed that none of those images motivated men to attend games or buy tickets. Kane and Maxwell's research suggests that selling out women to sexist stereotypes does nothing to advance the cause of women's sports, nor does it serve their bottom line.

It does feed into the ignorance of blowhards like Imus, who is the real "ho" in this story. With CBS as his corporate pimp -- and a well-heeled one at that, making an estimated $20 million per year from Imus' show -- he built a career on denigrating others for money. When the dollars dried up, as advertisers jumped ship, the Imus/CBS moral compass suddenly found true north.

Imus stepped into quicksand this time because of two things: the racism and sexism in his comments, and the personal nature of his unprovoked venom. He didn't gore a powerful public figure or a faceless group. He made tasteless remarks about sisters and daughters, students and athletes, music prodigies and aspiring lawyers.

And they, in turn, got the best revenge of all. The Rutgers players showed their real faces to the nation, demonstrating what makes so many female athletes so attractive. It isn't their hair color or their fitness. It's the poise, the presence, the character they weave through the games they play.

During a time in our culture when we simultaneously worship sports and decry its lack of role models, the Rutgers women should be celebrated. Those who market female athletes based solely on sex appeal are missing the real beauty of women's sports. By emphasizing the superficial, they overlook the soul, just as Don Imus did.

Imus certainly will get a chance to reclaim his. Perhaps when the furor dies down, he will surrender it again to the highest bidder. If he is truly repentant, his best hope is that the public will give him a chance to show who he really is -- a courtesy he did not afford the female athletes he insulted.

And, if Imus is sincere, he will respond as the Rutgers players and coaches did: by transforming a moment of darkness into a beacon of grace.

Rachel Blount rblount@startribune.com