Cartoon "Masha and the Bear" was recognized as the most dangerous for children. Why? "Masha and the Bear" is recognized as the most dangerous cartoon for children The opinion of the doctor of psychological sciences L.V. Matveeva about the cartoon "Masha and the Bear"

For many years in a row, people who (like me) grew up on wonderful Soviet cartoons complained that Russia, as a country producing children's cartoons, disappeared from the world map. The situation changed a few years ago, primarily due to the cartoon "Masha and the Bear", which became a worldwide hit. It is watched in different countries by people who are far from Russian folklore, with its eternal theme of a girl who wandered into bears.

"Just a couple of weeks ago in the States. We are sitting with relatives in a Japanese restaurant, making sushi, talking ... Then my daughter says "something familiar sounds somewhere." They listened - it seemed like something somewhere but didn’t remember at all ... My daughter went out for a walk, she comes back slightly incomprehensible: a black woman sits with her daughter (the same) in a couple of tables and her daughter Masha and the Bear is on a tablet"- read yesterday on Facebook.

Something similar can be seen today in many countries: from France to South Korea. Moreover, the general opinion, which can be read in the reactions in different languages: this series belongs to that rare category that adults can watch with children. And burst into laughter together.

But not everyone is happy with the show. There are also critics who warn about the harm that Masha can cause to the child's psyche, public consciousness, and state ideology. About twenty years ago, a slightly hysterical head of an incomplete family (colloquially: a single mother) told me:

- And why does no one pay attention to the fact that the fairy tale "The Wolf and the Seven Kids" is about the problems of fatherlessness.

- Fatherlessness?!

There is no goat. The goat is raising children alone. No goat.

This woman was understandable. I didn't argue.

But it was precisely with this method of interpretation that the critic approached the cartoon "Masha and the Bear""Haaretz" Rogel Alper, seeing in the popular Russian cartoon "an annoying and gloomy sediment hidden in a double bottom". Seeing this news IzRus website I didn't believe at first.

Rogel Alper, following the method of interpretation of my friend, discovered the main problem in the absence of parents: "Girl, where are your mom and dad?" He was able to diagnose a whole bunch of unhealthy and ideologically harmful complexes in the cartoon: from the paranoid existential fears of loneliness in a girl who is afraid that the bear will run away from her, because they had run away from her before (where are her parents?), to an unhealthy sense of guilt and unfulfilled debt in dreaming of escaping from a child predator. With bestial seriousness, Alper analyzed the relationship between Masha and animals, which are hindered by a hyperactive little girl sticking her nose into everything. "Masha is a foreign body in this environment, reconciled with her existence," Alper concluded, urging parents to pay attention to the frightening essential content of the Russian cartoon. After all, children can unwittingly absorb these psychologically unhealthy, ideologically harmful and environmentally repugnant messages.

People who, after reading the text, immediately began to stigmatize "left bastard" and "Russophobia", they began to mock "what they are smoking in this Haaretz," I hasten to assure. Alper is not alone. Russian professor Lidia Vladimirovna Matveeva, who heads the Commission for Monitoring the Implementation of Federal Law 436 "On the Protection of Children from Information Harmful to Their Health and Development" under the Commissioner for Children's Rights under the President of Russia for Children's Rights shared with "Psychological Newspaper" with his reflections on the impact of the TV series "Masha and the Bear" on the psyche of the child. Lidia Vladimirovna is a very serious person - Professor of the Department of Methodology of Psychology of the Faculty of Psychology of Moscow State University named after M.V. global space. She is a scholarly official authorized by the state to oversee content. And her sentence does not sound childishly serious either.

"Let's, for example, consider how the animated series "Masha and the Bear" affects children. It is made according to the laws of children's perception and therefore children like it. But, as we know, not everything that a child likes is useful for him. As a specialist, I believe that this animated series harms the children's psyche, moreover, from a psychological point of view, it is an "information bomb" planted under the Russian mentality," says Lidia Vladimirovna. Her sentence is so strict that it is completely incomprehensible why she does not call for a ban on the cartoon, and send its creators to places not so remote.

She has a lot of accusations against the cartoon. And the pictures in the cartoon, as it seems to the professor, are moving too fast, and therefore the child may develop logoneurosis. And it also has a "hierarchy inconsistency". In an old folk tale, having come to the house of the bears, the girl does not sit down at the table in the place of the father-bear, but chooses the place of the bear cub adequate for her age, that is, the place of the youngest, then Masha from the cartoon, to the great professor's regret, behaves differently. "Showing irreverence towards the Bear (who simultaneously embodies both the image of an animal sacred to our country and the image of a father) and constantly violates social norms with impunity, receiving positive reinforcement for this. That is, the father is not an authority ...". And if today a girl is allowed to break the taboo against her father and the Bear, then tomorrow, growing up, she will take a swing at the "bear" party "United Russia", or even, it's scary to think, at the All-Russian father himself - President Putin!

And Masha’s emotional limitations: “Even a child who is not the most developed experiences much more emotions than the heroine. In fact, all her emotions are manifested only in the field of cognitive experiences - she is interested in something, something surprises her, amuses her, and she wants something know. That's all. She doesn't sympathize with anyone, and even her own pain, for example, when she falls, she doesn't worry. Like a biorobot, she doesn't take criticism, she is indifferent to the condition of those around her." Indeed, here we can agree with the professor. In the image of Masha, the theme of the fifth dimension of civil liability is not disclosed in any way, and the line of readiness to die for the Russian spring near Lugansk.

And the belittling of the status role of the Russian woman was also reflected in the image of the little girl Masha. "Historically, in Russia, a woman is the one who supports a man, helps him in his work, emotionally and energetically nourishes, accepts, disinterestedly regrets, sympathizes." And little Masha, as we see in the cartoon, is far from meeting this high standard. She gets the bear, but does not support it. It does not help in work, but interferes and spoils.

But we are interested in the points in this note in which the supervising professor is similar to the critic of the liberal newspaper. And the resemblance is striking. Matveeva also condemns the film because the girl in the forest is a foreign body, a destructive principle that all animals are afraid of: “In the first series of the cartoon, the characters are introduced. We don’t see everyone yet, but as soon as the girl appears on the screen, we see the reaction of the animals - all the little animals are hiding more securely, as there is a destructive force that is dangerous."

The head of the Commission for Monitoring the Implementation of the Law "On the Protection of Children from Information Harmful to Their Health and Development" also believes that the cartoon is harmful from an environmental point of view, since it destroys the child's connection with nature, with the environment, a part of which the growing man should feel himself to be. . The professor stigmatizes the emotionally limited Masha for her inability to love, irresponsibility, etc.

And the topic of the relationship between children and parents, which are absent in the cartoon, also worries Professor Matveeva: "And how will this grown-up Masha treat her own children?" The interview of Professor Matveev is generally full of gems. And I am making remarkable efforts on myself to stop quoting him, since I have already many times exceeded the size of the note recommended by the editors of the site.

I won't draw any conclusions. I will not enumerate the arguments of the aesthetic, ethical, psychological plan in defense of "Masha and the Bear". This masterpiece does not need my protection. I have only one question: why does the opinion of a liberal author of the progressive newspaper Haaretz coincide so much with the opinion of the Russian reactionary bullshit?

For many years in a row, people who (like me) grew up on wonderful Soviet cartoons complained that Russia, as a country producing children's cartoons, disappeared from the world map. The situation changed a few years ago, primarily due to the cartoon "Masha and the Bear", which became a worldwide hit. It is watched in different countries by people who are far from Russian folklore, with its eternal theme of a girl who wandered into bears.

"Just a couple of weeks ago in the States. We are sitting with relatives in a Japanese restaurant, making sushi, talking ... Then my daughter says "something familiar sounds somewhere." They listened - it seemed like something somewhere but didn’t remember at all ... My daughter went out for a walk, she comes back slightly incomprehensible: a black woman sits with her daughter (the same) in a couple of tables and her daughter Masha and the Bear is on a tablet"- read yesterday on Facebook.

Something similar can be seen today in many countries: from France to South Korea. Moreover, the general opinion, which can be read in the reactions in different languages: this series belongs to that rare category that adults can watch with children. And burst into laughter together.

But not everyone is happy with the show. There are also critics who warn about the harm that Masha can cause to the child's psyche, public consciousness, and state ideology. About twenty years ago, a slightly hysterical head of an incomplete family (colloquially: a single mother) told me:

- And why does no one pay attention to the fact that the fairy tale "The Wolf and the Seven Kids" is about the problems of fatherlessness.

- Fatherlessness?!

There is no goat. The goat is raising children alone. No goat.

This woman was understandable. I didn't argue.

But it was precisely with this method of interpretation that the critic approached the cartoon "Masha and the Bear""Haaretz" Rogel Alper, seeing in the popular Russian cartoon "an annoying and gloomy sediment hidden in a double bottom". Seeing this news IzRus website I didn't believe at first.

Rogel Alper, following the method of interpretation of my friend, discovered the main problem in the absence of parents: "Girl, where are your mom and dad?" He was able to diagnose a whole bunch of unhealthy and ideologically harmful complexes in the cartoon: from the paranoid existential fears of loneliness in a girl who is afraid that the bear will run away from her, because they had run away from her before (where are her parents?), to an unhealthy sense of guilt and unfulfilled debt in dreaming of escaping from a child predator. With bestial seriousness, Alper analyzed the relationship between Masha and animals, which are hindered by a hyperactive little girl sticking her nose into everything. "Masha is a foreign body in this environment, reconciled with her existence," Alper concluded, urging parents to pay attention to the frightening essential content of the Russian cartoon. After all, children can unwittingly absorb these psychologically unhealthy, ideologically harmful and environmentally repugnant messages.

People who, after reading the text, immediately began to stigmatize "left bastard" and "Russophobia", they began to mock "what they are smoking in this Haaretz," I hasten to assure. Alper is not alone. Russian professor Lidia Vladimirovna Matveeva, who heads the Commission for Monitoring the Implementation of Federal Law 436 "On the Protection of Children from Information Harmful to Their Health and Development" under the Commissioner for Children's Rights under the President of Russia for Children's Rights shared with "Psychological Newspaper" with his reflections on the impact of the TV series "Masha and the Bear" on the psyche of the child. Lidia Vladimirovna is a very serious person - Professor of the Department of Methodology of Psychology of the Faculty of Psychology of Moscow State University named after M.V. global space. She is a scholarly official authorized by the state to oversee content. And her sentence does not sound childishly serious either.

"Let's, for example, consider how the animated series "Masha and the Bear" affects children. It is made according to the laws of children's perception and therefore children like it. But, as we know, not everything that a child likes is useful for him. As a specialist, I believe that this animated series harms the children's psyche, moreover, from a psychological point of view, it is an "information bomb" planted under the Russian mentality," says Lidia Vladimirovna. Her sentence is so strict that it is completely incomprehensible why she does not call for a ban on the cartoon, and send its creators to places not so remote.

She has a lot of accusations against the cartoon. And the pictures in the cartoon, as it seems to the professor, are moving too fast, and therefore the child may develop logoneurosis. And it also has a "hierarchy inconsistency". In an old folk tale, having come to the house of the bears, the girl does not sit down at the table in the place of the father-bear, but chooses the place of the bear cub adequate for her age, that is, the place of the youngest, then Masha from the cartoon, to the great professor's regret, behaves differently. "Showing irreverence towards the Bear (who simultaneously embodies both the image of an animal sacred to our country and the image of a father) and constantly violates social norms with impunity, receiving positive reinforcement for this. That is, the father is not an authority ...". And if today a girl is allowed to break the taboo against her father and the Bear, then tomorrow, growing up, she will take a swing at the "bear" party "United Russia", or even, it's scary to think, at the All-Russian father himself - President Putin!

And Masha’s emotional limitations: “Even a child who is not the most developed experiences much more emotions than the heroine. In fact, all her emotions are manifested only in the field of cognitive experiences - she is interested in something, something surprises her, amuses her, and she wants something know. That's all. She doesn't sympathize with anyone, and even her own pain, for example, when she falls, she doesn't worry. Like a biorobot, she doesn't take criticism, she is indifferent to the condition of those around her." Indeed, here we can agree with the professor. In the image of Masha, the theme of the fifth dimension of civil liability is not disclosed in any way, and the line of readiness to die for the Russian spring near Lugansk.

And the belittling of the status role of the Russian woman was also reflected in the image of the little girl Masha. "Historically, in Russia, a woman is the one who supports a man, helps him in his work, emotionally and energetically nourishes, accepts, disinterestedly regrets, sympathizes." And little Masha, as we see in the cartoon, is far from meeting this high standard. She gets the bear, but does not support it. It does not help in work, but interferes and spoils.

But we are interested in the points in this note in which the supervising professor is similar to the critic of the liberal newspaper. And the resemblance is striking. Matveeva also condemns the film because the girl in the forest is a foreign body, a destructive principle that all animals are afraid of: “In the first series of the cartoon, the characters are introduced. We don’t see everyone yet, but as soon as the girl appears on the screen, we see the reaction of the animals - all the little animals are hiding more securely, as there is a destructive force that is dangerous."

The head of the Commission for Monitoring the Implementation of the Law "On the Protection of Children from Information Harmful to Their Health and Development" also believes that the cartoon is harmful from an environmental point of view, since it destroys the child's connection with nature, with the environment, a part of which the growing man should feel himself to be. . The professor stigmatizes the emotionally limited Masha for her inability to love, irresponsibility, etc.

And the topic of the relationship between children and parents, which are absent in the cartoon, also worries Professor Matveeva: "And how will this grown-up Masha treat her own children?" The interview of Professor Matveev is generally full of gems. And I am making remarkable efforts on myself to stop quoting him, since I have already many times exceeded the size of the note recommended by the editors of the site.

I won't draw any conclusions. I will not enumerate the arguments of the aesthetic, ethical, psychological plan in defense of "Masha and the Bear". This masterpiece does not need my protection. I have only one question: why does the opinion of a liberal author of the progressive newspaper Haaretz coincide so much with the opinion of the Russian reactionary bullshit?

But are you aware that from this year (without an announcement to the general public), an installation is being introduced - secondary schools are not required to admit to the tenth grade those who have triples in their certificates and who have passed the OGE unimportantly. That is, by autumn, students who have not entered other educational institutions can go ... through the forest ... into the field ... into the meadow ... Look for work. The prospect of a job, of course, is the most rosy...
So what happens is we secretly move from a required average to an incomplete average? Of course, I will try to find documentary and legal evidence for this trend. But maybe some of you already know them?

Lexy

I've been thinking here. Previously, everyone carried pictures of children / husbands / loved ones in their wallets.
Now often these pictures and pictures of their animals are put on the screens. I never understood why. Well, okay, if you live far away, but when do you see each other every day?
How are you?)

basilisk

Forgive me for the heavy topic. I can’t watch the video about the baby myself: I immediately roar. Poor kitty, how she tries to hug all the doctors in a row simply because they praise her and smile at her. As a whisper asks for a chocolate bar. How obediently he turns, raises the handle, how he endures all manipulations. As she asks the Ingush ombudswoman to become her mother (here I sobbed right out of my voice). The videos are all on the Internet if anything, those who wish will find it. Although on TV this has already been shown a hundred times.
And now everyone yells in unison about the girl's aunt and her mother - shoot the creatures, tear them to pieces, amputate all the arms and legs without anesthesia, and so on. And I ask everyone to stop and THINK!!

Now it is very convenient to pin everything on the aunt, especially since she has already been convicted of child abuse. But why is the barbaric custom left out of the equation, when, after a divorce, children are taken away from their mother and transferred to the upbringing of their father's relatives? Where the hell is the father? Oh yes, he works in Chechnya at a construction site, while his daughter is beaten, bitten, her ribs are broken, she is put in boiling water, and so on. He knew that his sister was on trial! How could he entrust a girl taken from his ex-wife to such an inadequate woman?!

Why did the uncle of the girl, a policeman, remain in the shadow of the accusers? Did he not see what they were doing to the child under his nose? Didn't see injuries, burns, fractures and bites?! The cop didn't notice it all, huh? Will it not turn out that now they will blame the inadequate aunt for everything (why, by the way, is she not in a hospital? Why wasn’t she imprisoned in the previous episode? Why weren’t they deprived of parental rights to her own children and didn’t find out what the hell a girl lives with her without documents? ) Ahhh, who will find out, the husband is a policeman there, right?

And one more thing: where did the neighbors look?! After all, in Ingushetia everything is in plain sight, everyone knows EVERYTHING about their neighbor? Did everyone care that the baby walked in this form ?? All cuts, bruises and bites?

If a woman, this aunt, is inadequate, she must be isolated and treated. And then to deprive of parental rights and to ban a cannon shot from approaching children. But it would also be nice to find out whether it was her aunt who caused all the injuries to the girl, and whether there was any complicity of her uncle, a policeman.

And before you blame the girl's mother, think: HOW could she resist her ex-husband's relatives, when women after divorces in this republic are completely powerless, and the police are practically gods?

P.S. I just read in the news that the right hand of the baby most likely will not be saved. That for too long she had been tied up with some kind of tourniquet, and the blood flow was irreversibly disrupted.

And that there is already a whole Republic of Ingushetia who wants to adopt her.
If only the girl could now find a good family, she is not at all afraid of people and hugs everyone, despite everything she has experienced.

Svetlaneys

Hello!

I have two children. My mother helped me a lot with them and helps. But again and again I am worried about her condition - the clothes are dirty, dragged around everywhere, things are brought home from everywhere. In general, I wrote about this already in my topics. I came to the conclusion that we need to move, there is where to move, but we haven’t moved yet. There is no repair, but there is a lot of work. Everything is moving slowly, so for now we continue to coexist with our mother.

So here's the real problem. I don’t really like the fact that she drags my son around with her, she went to hand over scrap metal - she dragged her grandson with her, to transport something to the dacha, again he is with her, shopping is also with him. Nobody asks me for permission. I went and got the guy. Even my son doesn't say anything to me (i.e. he probably says to his grandson, mom doesn't have to know where we went). Well, it’s customary behind the scenes, at least to tell the mother, I’ll go to the store there and take the child, but what if something happens? The child is sick (mental illness), she can’t cope with the kid, what will happen next?

Here's how to build conversations with my mother on this topic? To teach his son to ask at least it is not possible, today he remembers what he had to say, tomorrow he forgot. In general, my mother does not want to reckon with me. I don't want to go into conflict.

Zhenya Matrosova

A lot of text, but in short I don’t know, maybe it will help someone in the future or someone will tell you how to stop the arbitrariness that happened to me.
There was a loss in my family, my father died. I think this will either happen or has already happened to everyone who came here. Let's face the truth! We will also leave this world at some point. I think everyone wants to have the opportunity to spend a loved one with dignity, while maintaining in their souls understanding and agreement with themselves that you did everything right and did not desecrate the memory of your loved one. Also, I think every person, and if not everyone, then many would like to maintain a normal human appearance after their death at the moment of farewell being in a coffin, when relatives and friends say goodbye to you. Of course, this is sometimes impossible, and then the dead are in closed coffins.
My dad passed out on the street, he was without documents, taken by ambulance to the hospital, where he died. Therefore, I had to go through the identification procedure in the morgue, and of all the relatives, only I could do this, apparently my nerves in my large family are considered the strongest. I think it’s clear that this is not easy, but (I write and cry) I went there and saw my dad. He looked exactly the same as in life, he did not look dead at all. Apparently this is our feature with him, we are swarthy, and he returned from the south, so tanned, fresh. There were no bruises or injuries on him. I could not even believe that he was dead and that the morgue, the policeman and the morgue staff were around us. He was a little disheveled, apparently from the sheets, but his hair could be smoothed a little and he would have become what he was in life. I so wanted to be with him a little, even for a couple of minutes, but in the conditions of the morgue, when everyone is in a hurry, everyone has work, when there are a lot of people and a conveyor belt of the dead and their relatives, this is certainly not possible. I thought I could say goodbye to him on the day of the funeral.
In the morgue, they very kindly gave advice on what and how will happen next. Everything went well, a little in a hurry, but in general without problems.
In the window where they register for the issuance of the body and farewell, the consultant girl said that it would be necessary to do the embalming and preservation of the body, and in order for the deceased to look normal in the coffin (do not scare the rest of his relatives), he needs to be combed (washing and styling), apply makeup, etc. .to. after opening, there may be terrible damage and other horrors. I said that my father looks good and I would like to see him exactly the same, only dressed and combed. She ran to find out if there was an autopsy, because. It can't be that he looked normal after that. It seemed that it was, but she continued to insist that before the day of the funeral, everything could go badly. And she even drew my attention to the camera where both the sound and the image are written, saying that I officially warn you that if your relatives are frightened by the sight of the deceased and someone will have a shock, then she is not to blame.
Of course, I don’t understand anything at all in this topic, I don’t know how much the view of the deceased in the mortuary refrigerator can deteriorate in four days. And in the end, I didn’t want to scare anyone, neither my mother, nor other people who would come to say goodbye, because they would see him for the last time, and then they would remember him, including that moment of farewell. We gave up, ordered and paid for a full package of body preparation for parting.
All other standard ritual attributes were also ordered and paid for.
By the day of the funeral, it turned out that relatives living in other cities would be able to come, that his colleagues would come, and so on. We were very surprised (pleasantly) that so many people cared about him. Everything went well and worthy.
On the day of the funeral, everyone came to say goodbye and see off dad on his last journey, we were invited to go to the funeral hall. There, in the middle of the hall, someone was lying in a coffin and they said that it was my dad.
His body was so "prepared and made up" that it can only be called mutilated and abused.
A huge pouty face generously covered in beige paint. To say that I was shocked by what I saw is an understatement. It would be better to do nothing at all. There was no talk of any make-up there, just everything was thickly smeared with an even thick layer and lips and eyes and eyebrows. Nothing was visible. Just a ball of the same color in place of the face, I began to ask the workers what was the matter, and people were already standing around, they offered to call the orderlies, they say, ask them, my mother was already sobbing out loud, everyone pulled me up, they say there is no need for a showdown, now there is no what you can't fix.
I did not begin to understand right away, maybe in vain.
Good people, those who at least understand something, tell me is this normal at all?
Does everyone disfigure the faces of deceased relatives like that, or are we so lucky?
Is there any norm or quality standard that regulates this so-called make-up or make-up service for the dead?
I just don’t want someone else to be disfigured and I can’t do anything?
I will definitely complain, only until I understand where and to whom.
If someone knows how to correctly identify and punish the perpetrators, please write an approximate algorithm of actions.
Those who work in morgues, please write the people of what profession / position prepare the bodies of the deceased.
And lastly, think a hundred times before doing / ordering such a "service" to your deceased loved ones.

Tuesday, 09 July

Day of the reddish sheep, 9 red menge, element - the sky. An auspicious day for traveling, cultivating the land, conducting water supply, trade and exchange, meeting with an eminent scientist or dignitary. A lucky day for those born in the year of the snake, horse, pig and mouse. It is not recommended to cut hair to lend things, a beginner to cure a disease, to lay a foundation for a house, to bring a bride into the house and play a wedding, to move, to perform bloodletting and cauterization, to make medicine. An unfavorable day for those born in the year of the monkey and chicken.

Wednesday, July 10

Day of the yellow monkey, 8 white menge, element - water. The day is good for the production of goods, learning astrology, making friends, trading, setting off on a journey, returning debts, artistic processing of iron. Haircut - for longevity. A good day for those born in the year of the pig, mouse, cow and dragon. It is forbidden to fish, take an oath, dig a well, bring the bride to the house and play a wedding, dance and celebrate, cut clothes. An unfavorable day for those born in the year of the snake and horse.

Thursday, July 11

Day of the yellowish chicken, 7 red menge, element - mountains. An auspicious day for learning the alphabet, reading books, bringing the bride to the house and wedding, making medicine, sowing seeds, planting trees, trading, laying the foundation of the house. Hair cutting - to enhance the senses. A good day for those born in the year of the tiger, hare, monkey and chicken. It is not recommended to slaughter livestock and hunt, start a big business, do bloodletting and cauterization. An unfavorable day for those born in the year of the cow, dog, sheep and dragon.