Mobster Masculinity

In the last few days there's been a story about between Chris Cuomo and a conservative YouTuber who called him "Fredo." Cuomo responded with pretty standard tough guy talk. All of it was caught on camera, and the internet lit up over it. Vox has a pretty good breakdown on the blow by blow. If you haven't followed it, I'd suggest you go read through it quickly before continuing. This story has a very specific relationship to toxic masculinity and traditional gender roles which has been largely ignored. This specific story presents an opportunity to look at how toxic masculinity functions in a few different sectors of society, including media representation. 

Of course, with video of Cuomo threatening to throw someone down a flight of stairs being beamed across the internet, he was asked to comment. Cuomo, just went on to make things worse by making the claim that referring to someone of Italian descent as "Fredo" was the equivalent of calling them the "n-word." Before we get into the rest of how this is related to toxic masculinity much more directly, let's get this out of the way. In the context of US society definitely, and possibly in the English language as a whole, there is no equivalent to the "n-word." There a number of slurs which could be used against someone of Italian descent. None of them are Fredo. If you want to argue this point with me, please stop for a second and read my last name again. If you're attempting to reach for an ethnic slur against Italians, and Fredo is what you land on, you failed, and even if you did happen to use an ethnic slur that is associated with people of Italian descent, it would still not be the equivalent of "the n-word" in current or historical power and harm. 

It was ignorant and insensitive (to put it most generously) for Cuomo to even suggest there was an equivalence. There's no excuse for someone in his position to make that kind of mistake. It's still worth taking a look at what Cuomo was reacting to though, and why he might not just come out and say it. Somehow, in all of the things printed, posted and said about this whole affair, I haven't seen anyone else reference the fact that the Fredo reference is a slight to Cuomo's masculinity, not his ethnicity. 

The chances are very good that Cuomo reached for the comparison to the "n-word" because he isn't even fully aware of why "Fredo" happened to strike such a chord in him. It clearly offended him pretty seriously. Men are programmed not to be able to specifically identify and express when an attack against ones masculinity is made. To identify it is to suggest one is aware of their masculinity, which means how other people perceive us matters, and that's not masculine. To not respond to an attack on ones masculinity is also to invite more, by the norms of toxic masculinity. It's one of those terrible double standards of gender. 

 This incident had very little to do with Chris being Italian, except that there's a significant relational reality to the Godfather films portrayal of the dynamics in a traditional Italian American family where gender expectations are concerned. It's part of what makes the film so compelling. Outside of the "gangster" storyline, anyone whose grown up around a strict patriarchal environment would recognize a certain reality in many of the relationships and approaches to family, business and each other individually.  "Fredo" also probably carries a certain amount of weight for Cuomo because he's not just from a traditional Italian American family, but also one that has achieved significant notoriety, like the Corleone's in the film. To say traditional Italian American are heavily laden with patriarchal norms would be an understatement.  

Let's unpack this a little bit, by going into exactly what Fredo's role is in the first two Godfather films. I'm only going to acknowledge the first two films, because the third film doesn't have anything near the cultural caché or impact as the first two. It's entertaining, sure, but it's not a masterpiece of dramatic cinema, which the first two films have a genuine claim at being. Extensive spoiling of the plots of The Godfather and The Godfather II ahead. If you're over 18 and haven't seen these films yet, do yourself a favor and remedy that situation immediately. They are great films, in the long history of great dramatic cinema and the even longer history of the tragedy as a narrative form.  

The order of birth is important to a family as traditional as the Corleone's. Fredo was the middle son, having been born after Santino "Sonny" Corleone and before Michael Corleone. Sonny gets himself killed in the first film. Fredo doesn't have much of a role in the first film, other than being sent away for his own protection. He's there, and it's acknowledged that he doesn't have constitution to be too deeply involved in the decision making for the crime family's business as the patriarch Vito Corleone is recovering from an attempt on his life and Sonny is killed. Sonny had been acting head of the family as his father was recovering, even as Sonny was clearly an extremely poor replacement. Up to the attempt on the patriarch's life, Michael, the youngest son, had indicated he wanted little to do with "the family business." 

If we look at the presentation of what being "unfit" for leadership is, as the films narrative is concerned, that Sonny is unfit for leadership is very clear. It's not something the film ever seems to be putting into question. Sonny and  Fredo represent two opposite poles in the ways they are unfit for leadership though. Sonny is hyper masculine, prone to violent outbursts, cheating on his wife, swaggering around with a loud mouth, and doesn't have much of a grasp on strategic thought unless a problem can be shot at. His hyper masculine persona is established more or less immediately in the film. As the attempt on Vito Corleone's life comes, the film is not taking the perspective that Sonny is going to be a good "Don." It's absolutely clear, the narrative isn't interested in even suggesting Sonny could possibly be a good leader. He's still expected to inherit the leadership role in the family, in spite of how clear it is that he's not capable of fulfilling the necessities the role dictates.  

It's clear in the film that there's never any consideration that Fredo might step into the role of Don either, even after Sonny's death is caused in part by his hyper masculinity. The patriarchal standard would suggest Fredo would be next in line. Despite the patriarchal norm being what it is, Fredo is so never even given an opportunity for leadership because he doesn't fit the kind of masculine norms a patriarchal standard demands. Sonny, even being obviously unfit for leadership, was slavishly adhering to those standards, so he was acceptable. even as it was clear he wasn't capable of being a good leader. 

Fredo is sent to Vegas, under the protection of an ally because no one in the Corleone family even sees use for Fredo. He needs to be protected and can't even provide any kind of positive contribution. The climax of Godfather finds Michael now Don of the Corleone crime family, having skipped over Fredo in the patriarchal order. 

Let's not forget. There is a Corleone sister. There's a parallel between how she and Fredo are treated  from the films point of view. They are both weaknesses which need to be protected, even though their sister Connie demonstrates a better grasp for strategic thought than Fredo or Sonny. Because of the dedication to the patriarchal norms in this way, Connie isn't allowed to be involved in decision making for the family business at all. 

The second film explores these patriarchal standards much more clearly. With the focus on the parallel storylines of Vito Corleone's earliest exploits and rise in creating The Corleone Crime Family, and Michael Corleone's trials and tribulations in trying to take The Family into only legal businesses, the patriarchal aspects weigh heavily on the rest of the story, and not just by giving the Vito's beginnings as a backdrop, but in the continued relationship between Fredo, Michael and Connie. 

Michael, his father dead and without a mentor to turn to, tries to begin a partnership with Hyman Roth, an elderly Jewish gangster involved in the very beginnings of turning Las Vegas into a destination and gambling city. Michael sees an opportunity for the Corleone family to go legit if they can get controlling shares in a few casinos. 

It's these same patriarchal values which Roth ends up exploiting when he uses Fredo's hurt pride at being skipped over in the expected line of succession to gain information used in an assassination attempt on Michael. The scenes between Fredo and Michael are among the more iconic scenes in the film. The very famous and oft quoted "I know it was you Fredo," and the final scene between the brothers where Fredo basically lays out the fact that it was his emasculation which drove him to try to make a deal behind Michaels back are scenes which weigh heavy in the cinematic history and the cultural lexicon. People remember these scenes, because they have emotional weight, and they have emotional weight because there is some degree of realism in the way the relationships are treated. 

Let's also be clear here, this person is who approached Cuomo is a YouTube personality who specializes in conservative content, and it was apparently Rush Limbaugh who has made a habit of referring to Chris Cuomo as "Fredo."  This wasn't just some off the cuff remark. Whoever the guy was, he recognized Cuomo and specifically decided to try to antagonize him. Obviously, it worked. 

Consider this, would referring to someone as Michael Corleone be an insult because they are Italian? Would most men consider it an insult at all? Ask the same thing about being called Santino or Sonny? Chances are good the majority would see being called Michael as a compliment, because Michael turns out to be the one who most embodies the masculine ideals of patriarchal society. He's not averse to violence, and adept at employing it when he wants to. He's intelligent, strategically minded, and his families protector. Sonny, well, he's not so good at being a Don, but Sonny was a "man's man." Chances are it wouldn't even be taken as an insult to most men, especially of Italian descent if they were called "Luca Brazi." Brazi is a hitman who comes to a bad end as the result of warring between the mafia families in The Godfather. Here's where the paradox in the film lies, Michael ends up being the one who most well embodies a balance of all the traits we understand are related to toxic masculinity, and he's utterly alone because of it. 

Calling a male of Italian descent Vito, Sonny, Michael, any of the other men in the story of the Coreleone's wouldn't be at all as insulting as calling them Fredo, and that's because in the eyes of patriarchal standards, and in the perspective the narrative of the films supports, Fredo is emasculated. He's portrayed as having his ability to reason overthrown by his emotions, as being without the killer instinct to run the family, being someone in need of protection (like sister Connie), and finally, as being manipulated to be disloyal to his family, specifically by exploiting those failures of manhood. These things are all in direct contrast to the the traditional masculinity which breeds toxic masculinity. In the tradition of Italian American families, it's very clear. Be a Vito or a Michael. If you can't be a Vito or Michael, be a Sonny. Never be a Fredo. 

This is why Cuomo is so provoked, but it's also why Rush Limbaugh and this YouTuber who approached Cuomo reach for it as well. It's clear they factored in the idea that it might have a more significant impact because of Cuomo's Italian background. One can't be over the age of 25, from New York and Italian and not have had a The Godfather be a significantly referenced part of their childhood. What's more interesting is the fact that Cuomo obviously understood that he felt insulted, but it didn't occur to him he was feeling his masculinity was slighted. Either he couldn't bring himself to admit to himself that he was reacting to his masculinity being attacked or he couldn't publicly admit it. Instead he reaches for the idea that he was reacting as if it were an ethnic slur. 

It highlights this interesting piece of toxic masculinity which is to never admit to feeling your masculinity has been insulted. We pick this up as kids. Among boys, emasculating each other is the go to insult. We have probably all had those conversations with authority figures before. "Why don't you just ignore ______ when he insults you?" As children, we phrased as "I can't let someone disrespect me like that" or "I can't let everyone see him punk me" or what's really at the heart of it, "Nobody is going to play me like a bitch." 

We tell them it doesn't matter, and that they just need to ignore it. The thing is, it does matter, at the least to them emotionally, and for many, it matters for their physical safety. Fredo is Michael's brother, and Michael has him killed, because Fredo violated the standards of masculinity. For boys, they've already learned from social experience and media representation that "being a punk" or getting "played like a bitch" is also going to come with some kind of punishment for existing outside the bounds of traditional masculinity. It often gets put into the "boys being boys" category, but this is what it really is, the use of violence to police gender norms, and instilling the fear of violence as a repercussion very early on. 

The interesting parallel this has to racism is the degree to which both racism and toxic masculinity can be broadly recognized as negative, but the instinct is still to hide them or to not shine the light so directly on them for so many. To publicly call out an instance of someone acting in way consistent with toxic masculinity is going to provoke a very similar response to that of calling out someone for doing something racist. The other thing they have broadly in common is that the environment in which something like this is pointed out, has a whole lot to do with whether or not the person pointing it out is going to be supported. Whether or not the person is given support, be it a man, women, gender non-conforming or non-binary person, may be the difference between whether or not that person is going to be the victim of an attempt at violent enforcement of those norms. That we are so unused to having any discussion about it makes most of us uncomfortable, so we say or do nothing. The chances of someone retaliating physically because those norms of masculinity have been violated go up as a result. 

Cuomo could certainly have handled all of this much better. Something good is coming from this though. As a result of considering the connection between toxic masculinity and The Godfather, I got to thinking about the fact that in many ways, the world of gangster/mobster cinema may be one of the both most beloved and most glaring representations of the ideas which make up what we've come to think of as toxic masculinity, that there could be something actually instructive, constructive and overall useful in going through some of these films and talking about how they portray it, and what may be some underlying assumptions or ideas we as an audience might just be accepting as part of the "normal" but are also contributing to causing destructive gender norms to take root and be enforced. 

In the coming weeks, I'll be trying to put up one of these pieces a week. I'll b going through and rewatching some old favorites, as well as some suggestions I've gotten from friends, and coming back here to dissect the way they portray the norms of masculinity, and the ways the films perspective on it's characters supports or critiques toxic masculinity. Feedback would be appreciated.