In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, comes down on the side of Tim Hardaway and a conservative female pundit to whom we don’t give publicity — who have proclaimed loudly that they don’t want gay men and women in their America:

Pace said the military should not “condone” immoral behavior by allowing gay soldiers to serve openly. He said his views were based on his “upbringing,” in which certain types of conduct were thought to be immoral.

“I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts…,” Pace said, while also calling it immoral for military members to commit adultery with another service member’s spouse. “I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is okay to be immoral in anyway.”

The Tribune and the president of the Human Rights Campaign both point to the dangerous consequences — both real and symbolic — of his view:

Pace did not address concerns raised by a 2005 government audit that showed some 10,000 troops have been discharged because of the policy. Among those discharged were more than 322 linguists, including 54 Arabic specialists, according to the Government Accountability Office report.

“The real question is: what is moral about discharging qualified linguists during a time of war simply for being gay or lesbian?” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group. “Our military needs the best qualified men and women who are willing to serve in the military, protect our freedoms and preserve our American values of equality.”

Pace’s mentality puts in perspective why conservatives still feel they can get political mileage out of the tried-and-true masculinity narrative they have been trotting out for decades.

Glenn Greenwald of Salon, reflecting on Rush Limbaugh’s cooptation of a New York Sun article that asked: “Could Edwards Become First Woman President?” (that’s a photo from Limbaugh’s website on the right), attempts to explain this overdetermined right-wing homophobia:

It is critical to keep in mind why so many right-wing followers have this compulsive need to feminize Democrats and liberals while (both explicitly and by effect) masculinizing themselves. It is virtually always revealing, whenever this pathetic feminizing tactic is used, to examine the individuals who are using it. In virtually every case, the motivation behind this tactic — the personal need that it fulfills — becomes painfully obvious. It is always about the Feminizer, never about the target.

Greenwald then proceeds to show what are supposed to be “girly” pictures of James Taranto (a Wall Street Journal writer who, in his own article, mocked what he sees as Edwards’ feminine charms) and Rush Limbaugh himself.

This ad hominem attack in response to an ad hominem attack is not only unproductive — it actually reinforces the conservative masculinity narrative. We’re laughing at these “feminine” photos, not considering how conservatives have once again won the rhetorical “high ground” by establishing what it means to be a man — and now, it appears, what it means to be a woman as well.