The following is the seventh, and last installment in a series based on a two-year, non-participant observation study of more than 20 officials’ organizations in basketball and baseball. The work is theoretical and abstract and resulted in a 400-page report, from which this information has been obtained
__The first six articles (Nov. and Dec. ‘78, Jan., Feb., Mar. and Apr. ‘79) covered such topics as. how and why officials make mistakes; crowd influences on objectivity; do officials have slumps; why people officiate; balancing calls; the effects of praise on an official’s calls; are certain personality types more suited to officiating than others; different styles exhibited, mannerisms used to help "sell" calls, tricks used to help increase credibility, the official’s relationship with coaches, players and fans; the relationship between success and experience level, and the official and his association.

Part seven deals with questions relating to the female official and her special problems. We hope you will enjoy it.
__Question: Will women ever be accepted as equals among officials?
__Answer: The question is a little premature at this time. A more immediate question would be: will women ever be accepted as officials? At the present time it seems to be the view of most male officials that women just cannot do the job - especially under the more strained conditions. There has been some mild acceptance in certain areas, but such acceptance is usually reserved for low-priority assignments and almost invariably limited to women’s contests. Even here, to see an all-female officiating crew is the exception rather than the rule. More often than not a female official will be assigned with male partners. (The implication here being that the male will act as a crutch for his partner should she get into difficulty.)
__Nevertheless, organizations, particularly large ones, have in recent years been inclined toward recruiting and using more female officials than in the past. This, however, seems to be more of a concern for fairness than one of acceptance. The growth of women’s sports in both school-sponsored events and recreation department play has increased the use of female officials for three reasons:
____• More interest and growth in female sports has tended to underscore male predominance in officiating;
____• Women’s sporting events are invariably viewed as low-level assignments requiring much less expertise than those of males;
____• With more women participating in organized sports, there are more women who understand sports and, like their male counterparts, what to maintain contact with sports in some capacity. Virtually every female official has had some previous experience as a player.
__There are two advantages to assigning female officials to women’s games:
____1. Assignment directors now have a new resource with which to fill their "garbage games"
____2. It tends to undermine criticisms of sex discrimination – justified or not. Such tokenism is quite widespread.
__It should be pointed out that what is often taken as tokenism by female officials is generally seen as special consideration by males. Given the predominant male view of women officials, any assignment is seen as something of a favor, especially when it comes to working men’s contests. So when assignments are given female officials, it is believed to be a sign of fairness and tolerance.
__With regard to the broader question of female officials being accepted a sequels, it seems doubtful in the near future. At issue her is the fundamental question of prejudice. Most behavioral scientists have long since given up the notion that prejudice is simply a matter of ignorance or parochialism. Prejudice has at least two qualities which makes it resistant to change (1) It performs some valuable function for the prejudiced person; (2) It is crucial to the way a person interprets his world.
__To provide every bigoted official with a means of fulfilling his psychological and social needs in another way, as would be suggested in the first case, is difficult enough, but to change his entire interpretive style, which would be required in the second instance, borders on the impossible.
__Question: What are some of the special problems of female officials?
__Answer: When women work women’s contests, the problems are not unlike those of any official though somewhat less stressful. The reason for this seems to be the approach that women’s teams and their spectators take toward such contests. Though at times highly competitive, both players and spectators appear to be less intense than in male contests. Spectators in particular seem to approach the women’s event in a milder frame of mind (at least at the present time).
The source of greatest strain for female officials working women’s contests is male coaches. Many of them seem unable to accept the subordinate position created when a woman has been put in a position of control. Virtually every female official contacted made reference to this. Many believed their behavior was "just their way of showing off in front of their girls."
__When it comes to women working all-male contests, however, there is a different set of principles in operation. Reports by females as well as personal observations suggest that harassment under these circumstances often takes the form of sanctioning for not knowing their place." Any minority group individual who attempts to transcend traditional stereotypes and venture into a previously exclusive group or activity faces this problem. It’s hardly surprising that men are reluctant to give up this privileged position, especially when admittance of women is seen as lowering the prestige of that activity. "If the men of the tribe make pottery, the potter’s art is important. If the pottery is made by women, however…" It is, nevertheless, a little discouraging.
__Question: Are female officials naturally more excitable than males?
__Answer: Not naturally. It may seem this way to many observers because female officials, as a group, are relatively new to the officiating business. As a result, a larger percentage of them fall in the category of new officials. Consequently, the excitability often attributed to femaleness is instead the result of newness.
__It may be too that the tendency of our society to permit women more freedom in expressing their emotions may result in their appearing more excitable than men who are taught to hide their feelings.
__Another reason for the assumption that female officials are excitable is the additional pressure put upon them by this very assumption. Male officials can work without the feeling that each audience is eagerly anticipating their emotional collapse. Indeed, new male officials can often pass themselves off as veterans. Female officials do not have either of these luxuries. Not only are they generally viewed as novices, but with the first instance of a questionable decision they are accused of not being emotionally stable enough to perform such work. So the audience’s previous assumption becomes something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. In all probability, once a larger number of women become veterans, this image will begin to change, though grudgingly.
__Question: What are some of the other disadvantages to being a female official?
__Answer: Being a female can be both a disadvantage and an advantage. One disadvantage is that those who believe officiating to be either a male skill or an unladylike endeavor resent her.
__This resentment tends to be of two kinds. First, many male officials see the encroachment of females as detracting from the assumed macho character of the activity. This is not necessarily a case of male chauvinism or misogyny. It is simply that female participation is seen as undermining an activity previously granted esteem because of its assumed difficulty. Rather than assume that female participation will produce greater esteem for women, many male officials fear that officiating will be looked upon as a less difficult task because women participate.
__Female officials are often the target of resentment by coaches, players and crowds because their presence constitutes something of a psychological double-bind to these audiences. Most such groups believe it is not only their privilege to hassle officials but an important part of their roles to do so. Yet, in our culture, the mores do not sanction such behavior toward women. So, many audiences continue to ridicule female officials anyway and justify their behavior by questioning the femininity of the official. In this way, the ridiculing individual does not violate any of his basic values.
__One of the advantages to being a female official is the convenient disclaimer provided by her sex. Many female officials readily dismiss all criticisms and failures as being the result of sexism. Such explanations are easily justified because most derogatory comments directed at an official utilize some overt symbol of the official’s character or qualifications. An official who is either fat, bald, elderly, has a limp, or wears glasses is almost certain to hear comments about those features. In the case of female officials, their most obvious trait is that they are female. Therefore, comments regarding their sexual preferences or their hormone make-up are to be expected from audiences seeking to hurt the person whom they believe has wronged them. As long as female officials view such comments as sexist in nature they have a ready means of discrediting their detractors.
__Question: But are women capable of dealing with the vulgar and insulting nature of most criticisms?
__Answer: It works two ways. Women are not expected to defend their "manliness" as are men, and therefore, are not as personally threatened by some verbal abuses. The need to maintain one’s social esteem along such lines is not as great for women. Their principal measures of self-respect lie in other directions (at least at this time). In this regard they are better able to cope with such criticism than most males.
__On the other hand, women in our society have had considerably less experience in such encounters and this is a definite drawback. Keeping one’s cool is a learned skill which is instilled in some males at an early age. Among many minority groups and underprivileged teenagers there are informal social skills games which foster this ability. Among Black youths of New York one such activity is called "dozens," in the barrio of Los Angeles it is called "cutting," and among other groups it goes by the name "ranking out" or some other expression. The purpose of these games is the same. Participants will insult each other until one is "topped" or loses emotional control. In almost every major culture of the world, males participate in this form of non-physical combat. Seldom, however, are women provided such early experiences; but such is the nature of most situations in which female officials find themselves while officiating. With more experience there is no reason to believe that they will not overcome this handicap.
__Unfortunately, we are aware of no organizations that include stressful experiences in their training program. Such activities, if directed properly, would help both male and female officials learn to deal with this type of encounter.
__Question: Do female officials display all of the officiating styles that men use?
__Answer: To some degree. The results, however, are somewhat different. I have noticed that female officials utilizing the authoritarian style have considerably more difficulty than their male counterparts. It appears that this "hard-nosed" behavior contradicts our cultural expectations regarding femaleness. It is just not accepted with the same legitimacy when displayed by women as when it is used by men. One surprise is that it seems to be resented as much by female audiences as it is by male observers. It is not unusual for female players and coaches to request a male official who may use the same style as the authoritarian female they wish to replace, simply because they find such behavior in a woman offensive. When a male assumes such a role it is taken as normal male behavior, when exhibited by a woman it is because "They hate women."
__Question: Aren’t there physical problems encountered be female officials?
__Answer: There are physical problems such as stamina, mobility, visual acuity, etc. encountered by all officials. Shortness is a problem which has been overcome by some male officials who do quite well in many sports. In women, in addition to the obvious physical handicap of shortness, there are some related social problems. At first the diminutive female official is likely to be granted an undeserved amount of sympathy and tolerance from audiences. They are seen as "cute," "spunky," and "vulnerable" by players and fans alike and thus benefit from their shortness. This benefit, however, is short lived once the novelty of a particular official has worn off. Indeed, it has distinct disadvantages. Just as femaleness inhibits many audiences from what they see as their right to ridicule officials, vulnerability acts in the same way. The frustration which comes from decisions perceived as unjust inevitably leads to criticism which is often extremely vicious. It is quite possible that the official’s small stature simply compounds the incongruity of being female and officiating men’s sports.
__Question: What can women do to foster their acceptance as officials?
__Answer: Rather than discuss all of the problems associated with attitude change we might simply consider how coaches bring about desirable responses from officials who are suspicious of them.
__The coach who passively watches the work of officials, though appreciated, is not likely to benefit his team as much as a coach who lets officials know that he will voice objection when he believes the occasion warrants. On the other hand, the coach who is overly hostile places the official in a defensive posture and is often the victim of calls that may best be termed as retaliatory. The best approach seems to apply enough pressure to warrant consideration but not enough to justify its disregard.
__This is probably also the best tactic for those women who wish to improve their chances of acceptance (individually or as a group). The use of some pressure upon those who are in a position to train and assign officials is necessary. At present, the mere threat of charging sexism is intimidating to some organizations.
__More effective, however, would be for female officials to work wherever and whenever they can. This would not only increase the pool of veteran female officials but eliminate the novelty of women working sports events as well. Also, the encouragement of more women to become officials would increase their numbers to the point where they could threaten to form organizations of their own. In all probability, assimilation into male organizations would follow, particularly if such women’s organizations threatened to attract some of the assignment schedules previously given only to men.

Observations (Referee 11/78-6/79): 11/78, 12/78, 1/79, 2/79, 3/79, 4/79, 6/79