In this article, Stark indicates there is a great deal of research that has been done regarding the correlation between gender expectations and the treatment of others. In this article he asserts there has been little investigation as to the harm or consequences to the "traditional minded" individuals themselves for these beliefs. Stark, with this particular study, attempts to address this issue.

Stark organizes the study by observing three distinct variables in traditional gender role beliefs, homophobia, and same-sex intimacy. He attempts, through a survey conducted, to support his hypotheses that these three variables are strongly correlated. Thus, Stark uses a standard sociological research pattern of developing theory, hypothesizing, constructing the study, collecting data, analysis, and presenting the data. Stark outlines his article to assist the reader in following him through his presentation of hypotheses and supporting data.

He begins with the idea that homophobia has a negative impact on all involved. He asserts that homophobia has negative consequences for both Gays and Lesbians and the Homophobics. He states, "those holding negative attitudes toward Gays and Lesbians are likely to be authoritarian, status conscious, and sexually rigid. Interestingly he indicates this is the case for both males and females. He also adds that one function of homophobia is to "maintain" traditional gender roles between the sexes. The author does not make mention of the idea of patriarchy in this article. However, one may make a strong connection with his language and the ideology of patriarchy in our culture.

Secondly, he examines the relationship between gender roles and same-sex intimacy where he actually introduces his three specific relationships between gender role beliefs, homophobia, and same-sex intimacy, or his three hypotheses:  

High level belief in traditional male and female roles will be correlated with high levels of homophobia

Inverse relationships between traditional gender role beliefs and same-sex intimate behavior

Inverse relationships between homophobia and same-sex intimacy

As stated above, Stark demonstrates the relationship between these variables via data collected and analyzed to ascertain whether his hypotheses were correct. He also relies on previous data collected which is considered both valid and reliable regarding the issues of homophobia, gender roles, and same-sex intimacy. The conclusions drawn by Stark are also both reliable and valid. We define reliable as, "a technique used repeatedly that yields the same results" and validity as, "the extent to which an empirical measure adequately reflects the real meaning of the concept under consideration" (124, Babbie).¹ Initially we can consider Stark’s study as reliable because of process of selection, construction, etc. All of these methods can be repeated and should provide the same or nearly the same results. We may also consider this to be a valid study as it does reflect the meaning of the issue being observed. The construction of the survey was done in a manner that consistently reflects and supports the author’s hypotheses. The questions asked in the survey appear to have been able to ascertain how an individual felt about traditional gender roles, homophobia, and same-sex intimacy – thus, it allows the author to directly correlate these variables.

It appears there are two Social Science paradigms operating in this particular article -- 1) Feminist Theory, and 2) Structural Functionalism. The ideology regarding the relationship between the variables can be attributed to a feminist paradigm, i.e., the belief in rigid gender roles for males and females is directly related to high levels of homophobia -- specifically to feed and support sexism. However, one can also see the influence of Structural Functionalism as it seems the author insinuates a symbiotic relationship between these variables. In other words they would not be able to maintain their function or power without the other variables in place.

My personal reaction to this article was a basic level of interest because of the topic. The information presented was not surprising to me as I am familiar with other data and studies that support the same types of hypotheses. I was surprised because of the specific focus of this study. As a member of the gay community, I am fully aware of the ramifications of rigid gender roles, homophobia, and same sex intimacy. I had really not thought about the impact on the person who holds these rigid belief systems. However once I began to think about this issue, I began to understand that this type of belief structure might generate problems for the individual just as the person who is receiving the discriminatory practices as a result of those beliefs.

I found the study to be amazingly objective even though I do not subscribe to the positivistic approach to Social Science. The author was able, for the most part, to remain neutral in the information presented. The author does note that he relied on outside data to construct the questions for his survey; therefore, I cannot speak for the specific construction of the survey. If there is a hint of bias it may been in the actual selection of the topic. It is my belief that one automatically includes bias because of the selection of the topic. When the author selected his topic he inserted some bias into the study, but as mentioned above the work seemed to be as objective as possible.

I was not amazingly moved by this particular study. As I mentioned, I am aware of this data regarding these particular correlations. I was somewhat disappointed with myself for not having thought of the negative impacts on those who hold these rigid beliefs. I do not agree with the Structuralist idea that one cannot survive without the other. I believe that the patriarchal structure relies on sexism and the enforcement of strict gender roles for survival. However, I believe that if homophobia were removed the system would find something else to use to enforce and threaten people into line. I do believe this article provides good data and would recommend it to those who are interested in this topic.

Endnotes:

¹ Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research (California: Wadsworth Publishing, 1995).