Normal People shows a terrible relationship - and is painfully traditional

[stumbledin]

"And they say porn is damaging our young minds"

Woman writing in the Independent thinks lockdown has addled people's brains!

" ... On the pro side, Connell is very clever, he cares – about finding himself. He reads books. He asks for Marianne’s consent when they have sex.

The cons: he’s a mummy’s boy. (That can spell trouble.) Connell starts having sex with Marianne and asks her to keep it a secret. He doesn’t stick up for her when his friend calls her a “flat-chested b**ch”. He sleeps with another girl, Rachel, but doesn’t appear to have much respect for her and tells her to F off at the disco. He’s so emotionally distant that the most expression we ever get from him is via his orgasm face.

Their relationship is also painfully traditional. He plays sport, while Marianne dances seductively at the disco as he watches. He rescues her (physically) when Marianne’s brother gets violent, while Marianne rescues Connell (emotionally) when his friend from home dies. Marianne makes the food, washes the dishes and plays hostess at her Italian villa, and she forgives him readily for being kept a dirty secret.

I’m almost surprised that after the #MeToo movement there hasn’t been more conversation about not only the toxicity of their relationship but the unfair power dynamic between them. ... "

www.independent.co.uk/voices/normal-people-marianne-connell-relationship-paul-mescal-rooney-a9551506.html

Yes, completely dysfunctional I thought. But then, wasn't that kind of the point of the book. If it hadn't been screwed up, there wouldn't really have been a story.

I was relieved though that she had actual pubes.

And what? The show is called Normal People, not Adults That Have Learnt What A Brilliant Relationship Is And Have It All Figured Out Etc Etc. They're literally teen-agers both from disfunctional backgrounds with plenty of issues to work out, that they still haven't worked out by the end of the series.. like, er, plenty of normal people

Jesus. It's a great portrayal of a Normal relationship ie one where both parties have flaws. And sexy as all hell. Hth.

I get your points but wasn't written to promote feminism it was written about vulnerable young people with issues, making mistakes, fucking up, growing up. That's the whole point of it.

It's something considered very very relatable by many people. That's why it's been such a popular success. Alot of people watching can see part of their young selves in the characters or certainly relate to aspects of them.

I think that was the point.
I didn't like that he never stuck up for her when it came to his friends, but then I remembered they are only supposed to be about 17, so that would be pretty accurate.

I think she is saying that on first viewing that's what it is "Normal People" but that in fact what it is peddling is that "Normal People" means that women are still deminished.

ie by making them vulnerable and having a pretext for on screen sex is just part of reinforcing that what is normal is for women to always be lesser however inadequate the male.

I haven’t watched it yet but I found State of Happiness so refreshing exactly because although it portrays “normal” people and youngsters (compare to me) it does so in a way that it is not along those cliched lines. I found it so refreshing and yet real.

I thought the first 3-4 eps were intriguing but the further it went on, the more I just wanted to give both of them a slap. They were meant to be 18/19 at uni / college- not 13 year olds for gods sake. Do 21. / 22 year olds really act like this? So self obsessed and immature- if this is normal people then god help us! The sex scenes for me were too much, went on for too long and showed too much. It’s more sexy when it’s subtler IMO. Excellent acting though and can’t fault the music

It's a dysfunctional relationship for sure at the beginning. I thought he was the weaker character, she had an Inner strength and resilience the whole way through.

I agree that it is trying to show dysfunctional relationships. The abuse and lack of love Marianne has from her family makes her vulnerable to allowing herself to be treated badly during relationships.

Although Connell treats her badly when they are at school, he realises and apologises for it, and treats her a lot better after that. He doesn't exploit her when she starts asking to be hurt during sex.

From a feminist point of view, I found it refreshing that (a) she wasn't portrayed as shaving off all her pubic hair, and (b) that his genitals were shown about as often as hers. Usually in films, there is less male nudity than female nudity.

I don't think her cooking at the Italian villa is sexist - it's her family's villa and she is hosting for the first night Connell arrives. I assumed it was more shared at the villa after the first night.

By the end of the film, I think that they are less dysfunctional and have learnt that happiness needs to come from them living their own lives rather than living for someone else. So when their paths start to diverge due to Connell's job offer, they make the right decision to split up but acknowledge that they have both benefited from each other's love and friendship and are stronger, happier people as a result.

That was my take on it all, anyway!

I haven't seen or read it, but agree that most young people's relationships are disfunctional in some way - we all learn huge amounts in our teens and twenties. There is always that tension though, isn't there, in film/TV/books between showing life as we would like it to be and showing life as it actually is. It is a particularly difficult line to tread for those working in children's TV and literature.

I am thought it was a pretty accurate portrayal of young, flawed, self obsessed (as we all are at that age) people. Lack of communication and peer pressure taking its toll.

I saw it, and I cringed the times she was into rough sex. I really cringed and I wish that had been addressed more thoroughly.

I thought the last couple episodes were pretty flat. The beginning was better imo.
(I watched the series, have not read the book.)

A) how's mummy's boy?

B) how is that a problem?

FFS that attitude is drenched in far more problems than any of the other cons you've listed. It's bloody sexist to allow mothers and daughters a relationship but not mothers and sons.

I agree. I have a fantastic relationship with my son. He often asks my advice and acts accordingly. He is 35 and has very strong opinions, and we disagree often (but not on gender issues! ) , yet can talk it out and still get on fine.
Oh, and he has moved back in with me as he spent six years in my home country looking after his grandmother, my mother, until she died. So we share a home, and he does most of the housework.
And spends hours a day talking to his daughter (10 years old) who unfortunately lives in a different country.
Connor's relationship with his mum was one of the good things about Normal People.

FFS that attitude is drenched in far more problems than any of the other cons you've listed. It's bloody sexist to allow mothers and daughters a relationship but not mothers and sons.

Absolutely. It's been my experience that men who have an excellent relationship with their mothers tend to be more rounded, emotionally available and mature men. Whereas men who have a slightly dismissive contempt for their perfectly normal mothers have that in spades for their partners when their masks slip. That's not to say men can't disagree with their mothers or that it's not a good thing for men to have low/no contact with their mothers if the situation warrants it. Or that men who are close to their mothers because their mother babied them and held them up as perfect when they weren't don't make poor partners.

But men learn how to treat women by their relationship with their mother. A mother is in many ways a boy's first love and if that love is close and healthy, open and respectful, that is more often than not the template that a man will take into his future relationships.

I don't know if it has a happier ending but I couldn't watch after the first two. I found the idea that the young woman should be happy really uncomfortable. Colleagues were telling me it was a heartwarming "sweet" story.

I loved Connells relationship with his mum.

I found it quite horrible to watch I just kept thinking about the shark cage analogy & how her’s was damaged.

Haven't watched Normal People so I can't speak to any of the rest of the thread, but I think I know what the OP may have intended when using "Mummy's boy" as a criticism.

It goes without saying that boys should be encouraged to develop a bond with their mother, and be proud of that bond. Mother and son relationships should be afforded as much respect as father and son relationships, not belittled and used as proof the son is "not a real man".

That said, I've known an awful lot of men in my life, including my own brothers, who idealize their mother but don't give any other woman in their life such care and consideration.

These relationships almost always arise because the mother has given special or preferential treatment to the son his entire life. She does all his household chores for him, cooks for him, cleans for him, and never questions or criticizes him in any way. He's her little prince. In return he shows her the best side of himself - keeps his manners around her, carries her shopping, is generally said to "think the world of his old mum".

But she only gets this special status because she devotes her entire life to his happiness. His sisters, girlfriends, and co-workers aren't treated the same way. Men like this tend to believe women in the above group ought to prioritize them the same way dear old mum did. They try to replicate that dynamic, and get annoyed if they can't. Men like this almost never have independent female friends either - any woman he describes as a "friend" is almost always an ex girlfriend, a male friend's current partner, or a co-worker. These men love women only for how easy women make their lives, and how we stoke their egos.

If you've grown up around this, you can spot it in a flash, but I've seen a lot of other women be fooled by it. He must be a good guy if he treats his mum so well, right?

Connell's relationship with his mother was the book's only saving grace. They clearly loved each other and got on well but Connell's mother did not treat him as her little prince.

She was very much aware of his failings and was furious at his treatment of Marianne over the school dance.

In my opinion it would be more damaging if the metoo movement led to a whitewashing of drama.

The movement didn't eradicate this behaviour, and in my experience it can be really prevalent amongst young people, so pretending that isn't happening by not portraying it on screen, is not doing anyone any favours.

I appreciated the attention given to consent, the fact that Connell refused to abuse Marianne, and the way that Connell apologised for his treatment of Marianne. Not to mention Connell's mum's reaction to him inviting Rachel to the Debs.

So yes the relationship was dysfunctional, but there was balance there too, calling it out, highlighting the flaws and showing how people can grow and change.

I also liked a line Marianne said in the conversation about a threesome, about men being more interested in restricting women's freedoms than exercising their own.

Still wanted to give them both a good shake at times.

@DidoLamenting

Connell's relationship with his mother was the book's only saving grace. They clearly loved each other and got on well but Connell's mother did not treat him as her little prince.

She was very much aware of his failings and was furious at his treatment of Marianne over the school dance.

Glad to hear it - as stated, I haven't watched the show and can't speak to what was depicted. My comments were based on the conversation upthread, about the term "mummy's boy" undermining mother/son relationships.

I'm pleased for mothers who do have a genuinely good relationship with their sons, and I do believe that bond deserves every respect. But for many women "mummy's boys" are a symptom of the patriarchy in action. Criticizing them and the women who enable them shouldn't be construed as belittling women in general.

I'm sure there are a lot of women here on Mumsnet who are frustrated by "mummy's boy" brothers in adulthood. Or who had the misfortune to have a "mummy's boy" partner turn into a cocklodger.

@contactusdeletus as stated that wasn't the relationship at all. And while I've no doubt there are dysfunctional mother son relationships that have created men with poor respect for other women, I despise the term "mummy's boy" as it's used to mock men who have good relationships with their mothers, too many insecure women use it when they feel they should be the only woman in their partner's lives. There is no equivalent term for mothers and daughters, and daddy's girl is rarely used with the same denigration.

The OP is a prime example of diminishing a healthy mother son relationship with the term "mummy's boy".