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 animation, had disappeared from the world map. The situation changed a few years ago, primarily thanks to the cartoon "Masha and the Bear", which became a worldwide hit. They look at him different countries people who are far from Russian folklore, with its eternal theme girls wandered among the bears.

"Just a couple of weeks ago in the States. We are sitting with relatives in a Japanese restaurant, eating sushi, talking... Then my daughter says, “I hear something familiar somewhere.” We listened - it seemed like there was something somewhere, but I couldn’t remember... My daughter went out for a walk, returned slightly confused: a couple of tables away there was a black woman with her daughter (the same one) and the daughter of “Masha and the Bear” on a tablet" - I read it on Facebook yesterday.

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 to 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 series. There are also critics who warn about the harm that Masha can cause to the child’s psyche, public consciousness, state ideology. About twenty years ago, one slightly hysterical head of a single-parent family (in common parlance: a single mother) told me:

- Why doesn’t anyone pay attention to the fact that the fairy tale “The Wolf and the Seven Little Goats” is about the problems of fatherlessness.

- Fatherlessness?!

There is no goat. The goat raises the children alone. No goat.

This woman could be understood. 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." After seeing this news on IzRus website , I didn’t believe it at first.

Rogel Alper, following the method of interpretation of my friend, discovered 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 paranoid existential fears of loneliness in a girl who is afraid that a bear will run away from her, since people have run away from her before (where are her parents?), to an unhealthy sense of guilt and unrealized debt in dreaming of escaping from a child predator. With animal seriousness, Alper analyzed the relationship between Masha and the animals, which are hampered by a hyperactive little girl poking her nose into everything. “Masha is a foreign body in this environment that accepts 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 hostile messages.

People who, having read the text, immediately began to brand “left-wing bastard” and “Russophobia”, began to mock “what are they smoking in this Haaretz,” I hasten to assure. Alper is not alone. Russian professor Lidiya 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 the "Psychological Newspaper" with his thoughts about the impact the series "Masha and the Bear" has on the child's psyche. Lidia Vladimirovna is a very serious person - professor of the Department of Psychology Methodology of the Faculty of Psychology of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov, Doctor of Psychology, head of the research group "Psychology of Mass Communications", studying the problem of the impact of the media on the human psyche and the problem of human psychological safety in information global space. She is a learned official authorized by the state to oversee content. And her sentence also does not sound childishly serious.

“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 is harmful to the children's psyche, moreover, with psychological point vision is an “information bomb” planted under Russian mentality", says Lidia Vladimirovna. Her sentence is so strict that it is completely unclear why she does not call for the cartoon to be banned and its creators to be sent 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, move too quickly, and therefore the child may develop logoneurosis. And there is also a “hierarchy discrepancy.” In the ancient folk tale, having come to the bears’ house, the girl does not sit at the table in the place of Papa Bear, but chooses the place of the bear cub that is appropriate for her age, that is, the place of the youngest, then Masha from the cartoon, to the great regret of the professor, behaves differently. “Showing disrespect towards the Bear (who simultaneously embodies 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 regarding her father and the Bear, then tomorrow, growing up, she will take aim at the “bearish” party “United Russia”, and even, scary to think, at the All-Russian father himself - President Putin!

And Masha’s emotional limitations: “Even not the most developed child experiences much more emotions than the heroine. In fact, all her emotions manifest themselves only in the area of ​​cognitive experiences - she is interested in something, something surprises her, amuses her and she wants something find out. That's all. She doesn't sympathize with anyone and even with her own pain, for example, when she falls, she doesn't take criticism, and is indifferent to the condition of others." Indeed, here we can agree with the professor. In the image of Masha, the theme of the fifth level of civil responsibility and the line of readiness to die for the Russian Spring near Lugansk are not revealed.

And belittlement of the status role Russian woman also reflected in the image of the little girl Masha. “Historically, it so happened that in Russia a woman is the one who supports a man, helps him in his work, feeds him emotionally and energetically, accepts, unselfishly 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 doesn't help with your work, it interferes and spoils it.

But in this note we are interested in the points in which the supervising professor is similar to the critic of a liberal newspaper. And the resemblance is striking. Matveeva also condemns the film for the fact that the girl in the forest is a foreign body, a destructive principle that all animals are afraid of: “In the first episode of the cartoon, we get to know the characters. We don’t see everyone yet, but as soon as the girl appears on the screen, we see the animals’ reaction “All the little animals are hiding more reliably, because a destructive force is coming, which 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 environment, a part of which a growing person should feel himself a part. 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: “How will this grown-up Masha treat her own children?” Professor Matveev’s interview is generally full of pearls. And I am making extraordinary efforts to stop quoting him, since I have already many times exceeded the size of the note recommended by the editors of the site.

I will not draw long-winded conclusions. I will not list the arguments of 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 the liberal author of the progressive newspaper Haaretz coincide so much with the opinion of the Russian reactionary government?

For many years in a row, people who (like me) grew up watching wonderful Soviet cartoons complained that Russia, as a country producing children's animation, had disappeared from the world map. The situation changed a few years ago, primarily thanks 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 wandering among bears.

"Just a couple of weeks ago in the States. We are sitting with relatives in a Japanese restaurant, eating sushi, talking... Then my daughter says, “I hear something familiar somewhere.” We listened - it seemed like there was something somewhere, but I couldn’t remember... My daughter went out for a walk, returned slightly confused: a couple of tables away there was a black woman with her daughter (the same one) and the daughter of “Masha and the Bear” on a tablet" - I read it on Facebook yesterday.

Something similar can be seen today in many countries: from France to South Korea. Moreover, the general opinion, which can be read in 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 series. 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, one slightly hysterical head of a single-parent family (in common parlance: a single mother) told me:

- Why doesn’t anyone pay attention to the fact that the fairy tale “The Wolf and the Seven Little Goats” is about the problems of fatherlessness.

- Fatherlessness?!

There is no goat. The goat raises the children alone. No goat.

This woman could be understood. 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." After seeing this news on IzRus website , I didn’t believe it at first.

Rogel Alper, following my friend’s method of interpretation, 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 paranoid existential fears of loneliness in a girl who is afraid that a bear will run away from her, since people have run away from her before (where are her parents?), to an unhealthy sense of guilt and unrealized debt in dreaming of escaping from a child predator. With animal seriousness, Alper analyzed the relationship between Masha and the animals, which are hampered by a hyperactive little girl poking her nose into everything. “Masha is a foreign body in this environment that accepts 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 hostile messages.

People who, having read the text, immediately began to brand “left-wing bastard” and “Russophobia”, began to mock “what are they smoking in this Haaretz,” I hasten to assure. Alper is not alone. Russian professor Lidiya 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 the "Psychological Newspaper" with his thoughts about the impact the series "Masha and the Bear" has on the child's psyche. Lidia Vladimirovna is a very serious person - professor of the Department of Psychology Methodology of the Faculty of Psychology of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov, Doctor of Psychology, head of the research group "Psychology of Mass Communications", studying the problem of the impact of the media on the human psyche and the problem of human psychological safety in information global space. She is a learned official authorized by the state to oversee content. And her sentence also does not sound childishly serious.

“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 is harmful to the children’s psyche, moreover, from a psychological point of view, it is an “information bomb” planted under the Russian mentality,” says Lidiya Vladimirovna. Her sentence is so strict that it is completely incomprehensible why she does not call for the cartoon to be banned and its creators to be sent 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, move too quickly, and therefore the child may develop logoneurosis. And there is also a “hierarchy discrepancy.” In an old folk tale, having come to the bears' house, the girl does not sit at the table in the place of Papa Bear, but chooses the place of the bear cub that is appropriate for her age, that is, the place of the youngest, then Masha from the cartoon, to the great professor's regret, behaves differently. “Showing disrespect towards the Bear (who simultaneously embodies 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 regarding her father and the Bear, then tomorrow, growing up, she will take aim at the “bearish” party “United Russia”, and even, scary to think, at the All-Russian father himself - President Putin!

And Masha’s emotional limitations: “Even not the most developed child experiences much more emotions than the heroine. In fact, all her emotions manifest themselves only in the area of ​​cognitive experiences - she is interested in something, something surprises her, amuses her and she wants something find out. That's all. She doesn't sympathize with anyone and even with her own pain, for example, when she falls, she doesn't take criticism, and is indifferent to the condition of others." Indeed, here we can agree with the professor. In the image of Masha, the theme of the fifth level of civil responsibility and the line of readiness to die for the Russian Spring near Lugansk are not revealed.

And the belittling status role of the Russian woman was also reflected in the image of the little girl Masha. “Historically, it so happened that in Russia a woman is the one who supports a man, helps him in his work, feeds him emotionally and energetically, accepts, unselfishly 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 doesn't help with your work, it interferes and spoils it.

But in this note we are interested in the points in which the supervising professor is similar to the critic of a liberal newspaper. And the resemblance is striking. Matveeva also condemns the film for the fact that the girl in the forest is a foreign body, a destructive principle that all animals are afraid of: “In the first episode of the cartoon, we get to know the characters. We don’t see everyone yet, but as soon as the girl appears on the screen, we see the animals’ reaction “All the little animals are hiding more reliably, because a destructive force is coming, which 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 a growing person should feel part of. . 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: “How will this grown-up Masha treat her own children?” Professor Matveev’s interview is generally full of pearls. And I am making extraordinary efforts to stop quoting him, since I have already many times exceeded the size of the note recommended by the editors of the site.

I will not draw long-winded conclusions. I will not list the aesthetic, ethical, and psychological arguments in defense of Masha and the Bear. This masterpiece does not need my protection. I have only one question: why does the opinion of the liberal author of the progressive newspaper Haaretz coincide so much with the opinion of the Russian reactionary government?

Do your children watch the cartoon "Masha and the Bear"? Yes? And our children too! And then it turned out that this cartoon, according to psychologists, is the most harmful. Experts suddenly (five years after the appearance of the cartoon) started talking about the danger of Masha and the Bear. “Monster High” and “SpongeBob” were also blacklisted square Pants", "Tom and Jerry". Why exactly these cartoons were considered dangerous for the children's psyche, which ones can then be watched, we tell in our "Question and Answer" section.

Why is the cartoon "Masha and the Bear" dangerous for children?

Psychologists have found out that in this cartoon Masha demonstrates bad behavior and bad character. At the same time, the girl always gets away with far from childish pranks (by the way, I did this even without the cartoon as a child).

Young children tend to believe everything that happens and also copy the behavior of the main characters. Thus, the child initially develops an incorrect model of behavior, and subsequently parents may experience great difficulties in raising him.

The bear appears in the cartoon as kind and gentle. In the cartoon, Masha systematically mocks him. But, in fact, behind the appearance of a bear there is an image of an adult, a little inhibited, but adequate person. He can only be offended. Experts believe that the child takes an example from Maria and forms his own model of behavior in communicating with adults: they must be mocked!

But you know what... Yesterday we tried to stop the daughter of the deputy editor-in-chief from watching the next episode of the cartoon, so she screamed all evening. And at that moment, the absence of Masha and her Bear from children’s lives seemed more dangerous to us than their presence. Although this is our subjective opinion and it apparently disagrees with the opinion of psychologists.

Let's say I agree about Masha, but what's wrong with Tom and Jerry?

We all grew up watching this cartoon, and nothing bad happened to us (we, according to at least, this was not noticed). But psychologists say that in “Tom and Jerry” the mouse mocks the cat, and this also affects the child’s psyche.

The cartoon "Monster High", which ended up in second place in the anti-rating, is, to put it mildly, bad lexicon in children. The main characters in it speak slang and also show bad example for skipping classes. Here the experts are probably right. "SpongeBob SquarePants" teaches a child to conflict, argue with friends and scold adults (bad Bob!).

What kind of cartoons should you watch if they only show monsters and Pokemon?

It is not at all necessary to watch what is shown on TV. Almost every home has the Internet or a DVD player. Parents can choose their own repertoire of cartoons and fairy tales for their children.

Psychologists from the Center for Psychological and Pedagogical Expertise of Games and Toys recommend giving preference to old cartoons and fairy tales. Older children will enjoy adventure cartoons. Well, remember these wonderful "12 months", "Geese and Swans", " The Snow Queen", "Thumbelina", " Winnie the Pooh"These cartoons instill in children kindness, justice and mercy. We grew up with them, and they still evoke the warmest memories.

So why not watch new cartoons at all?

Of course, you can watch it, but you need to approach the repertoire very seriously. In many modern cartoons There is a rapid change of episodes, because of this the child does not remember the plot and cannot retell the content. Such cartoons will definitely not do any good. You should also beware computer games, where fights occur, since the child can subsequently transfer some episodes into real life.

At what age can children be shown cartoons?

Psychologists recommend not turning on the TV for children under two years of age. Watching any, even the kindest, cartoons can cause irreversible mental changes in them. So until this time, you shouldn’t sit your child in front of the TV, even if you really don’t have time and you need to keep your child occupied with something. It is better to give the baby a toy.

If your child has already blown out three candles on the cake, then he can watch cartoons. But the session should not last more than 15-20 minutes. At the same time, parents are recommended to be present during the viewing and, as the cartoon progresses, to give their explanations of what is happening on the screen and why the hero acted this way and not otherwise.

Tuesday, July 09

Day of the reddish sheep, 9 red menge, element - sky. A favorable day for going on a journey, cultivating land, carrying out 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 your hair lending things, beginning to treat an illness, laying the foundation for a house, bringing a bride into the house and playing a wedding, moving, doing bloodletting and cauterization, making 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 producing goods, learning astrology, entering friendly relations, trade, going on the road, returning debts, artistic treatment gland. Hair cutting - for longevity. A lucky 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 a bride into the house and play a wedding, dance and celebrate, or 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. A favorable 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 a house. Hair cutting - to strengthen the senses. A lucky 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.

Are you aware that starting this year (without announcement to the general public) a policy is being introduced - secondary schools are not required to admit into the tenth grade those who have C grades in their certificates and who have passed the OGE poorly. That is, by the fall, students who did not enter other educational establishments, can go... through the forest... through the field... through the meadow... Look for work. The job prospects are, of course, the brightest...
So what happens is we secretly move from compulsory high school to junior high school? I will, of course, try to find documentary and legal evidence of this trend. But maybe some of you already know them?

261

Lexy

I've been thinking about this. Everyone used to carry pictures of their children/husbands/loved ones in their wallet.
Nowadays these photos and photos of their animals are often put on display. I never understood why. Well, it’s okay if you live far away, but when you see each other every day?
How are you?)

175

Basilisk

Forgive me for the difficult topic. I can’t watch the video about the baby myself: I immediately start crying. Poor little cat, how she tries to hug all the doctors in a row simply because they praise her and smile at her. How he asks for chocolate in a whisper. How obediently he turns, raises his hand, how he tolerates all manipulations. How he asks the Ingush ombudsman to become her mother (here I cried out loud). The videos are all on the Internet if anyone can find them. Although this has already been shown on TV a hundred times.
And now everyone is screaming in unison about the girl’s aunt and her mother - to shoot the creatures, tear them into pieces, amputate all the arms and legs without anesthesia, etc. 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 cruel treatment with kids. But why is the barbaric custom left out of the equation when, after a divorce, children are taken away from their mother and handed over to be raised by their father’s relatives? Where the hell is the father himself? Oh yes, he works in Chechnya at a construction site, while his daughter is beaten, bitten, breaks her ribs, put in boiling water, etc. He knew that his sister had a criminal record! How could he entrust what was taken from him? ex-wife a girl for such an inadequate woman?!

Why did the girl’s uncle, a policeman, remain in the shadow of the accusers? Did he not see what was being done to the child under his nose? Didn’t you see any injuries, burns, fractures or bites?! The policeman didn’t notice all this, okay? Will it 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 put in prison? previous episode? why didn’t they deprive her of parental rights to her own children and find out why the hell a girl without documents lives with her?) Ahhh, who’s going to find out, her husband is a policeman, right?

And one more thing: where were the neighbors looking?! After all, in Ingushetia everything is in plain sight, everyone knows EVERYTHING about their neighbor? No one cared that the baby walked around like that?? Covered in cuts, bruises and bites?

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

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

P.S. I just read in the news that the baby will most likely not be able to save her right hand. That she had been tied with something like a tourniquet for too long, and the blood flow was irreversibly impaired.

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

123

Svetlaneys

Hello!

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

So that's exactly what the problem is. I don’t really like the fact that she drags my son with her everywhere, she went to sell scrap metal, she dragged her grandson with her, to transport something to the dacha, he’s with her again, and he goes shopping with him too. Nobody asks me for any permission. I went and picked up the guy. Even my son doesn’t tell me anything (that is, he probably tells his grandson; mom doesn’t need to know where we went). Well, it’s customary behind the scenes to at least tell the mother, I’ll go to the store and pick up the child, but what if something happens? Sick child ( mental illness), she can’t cope with the boy, what will happen then?

How can I have conversations with my mother on this topic? To teach my son to ask is at least not possible; today he remembers what he needed to say, but tomorrow he forgot. In general, my mother does not want to take me into account. I don’t want to go into conflict.

111

Zhenya Matrosova

There is a lot of text, but in short I don’t know, maybe this will help someone in the future or someone will tell me how to stop the outrage that happened to me.
There was a loss in my family, my dad died. I think this will either happen or has already happened to everyone who came here. Let's face it! We will also leave this world someday. I think everyone wants to be able to see off 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 a 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 family and friends say goodbye to you. Of course, this is sometimes impossible and then the dead are in closed coffins.
My dad lost consciousness on the street, he was without documents, he was 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 didn't look dead at all. Apparently this is a peculiarity between us and him, we are dark-skinned, and he returned from the south, so tanned and fresh. There were no bruises or injuries on him. I couldn’t even believe that he was dead and there was a morgue, a policeman and morgue employees around us. He was a little disheveled, apparently from the sheet, but his hair could have been smoothed down a little and he would have become the same as he was in life. I so wanted to spend a little time with him, at least a couple of minutes, but in the conditions of the morgue, when everyone is in a hurry, everyone has work, when there are tons of people and a conveyor belt of the dead and their relatives, this is of course not possible. I thought that I would be able to say goodbye to him on the day of the funeral.
The morgue very kindly gave advice on what and how would happen next. Everything went fine, a little rushed, but overall no problems.
In the window where they sign up for the release of the body and farewell, the consultant girl said that it would be necessary to do embalming and preservation of the body, and in order for the deceased to look normal in the coffin (not to scare the rest of his loved ones), he needed to be combed (washed and styled), put on 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’s impossible that he would look normal after that. It seemed that it had happened, but she continued to insist that before the day of the funeral everything could get very bad. And she even drew my attention to the camera where both sound and image are recorded, saying that I am officially warning you that if your relatives are frightened by the sight of the deceased and someone is in shock, then it is not her fault.
Of course, I don’t understand anything at all about this topic; I don’t know how badly the appearance of the deceased in a morgue refrigerator can deteriorate in four days. And of course I didn’t want to scare anyone, neither my mother nor other people who would come to say goodbye, because they would see him last time, and then they will remember him, including that moment of farewell. We gave in, ordered and paid for a complete body preparation package for goodbye.
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, etc. We were very surprised (pleasantly) that so many people liked it. Everything went well and with dignity.
On the day of the funeral, everyone came to say goodbye and see off dad to last way, we were invited to go to the funeral hall. There was someone lying in a coffin in the middle of the hall and they said it was my dad.
His body was so “prepared and made up” that it can only be called mutilated and violated.
A huge pouty face generously covered in beige paint. To say that I was shocked by what I saw would be an understatement. It would be better to do nothing at all. There was no talk of any makeup there, just everything was thickly smeared with an even thick layer, including 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 suggested calling the orderlies, they say, ask them, the mother was already sobbing loudly, everyone pulled me back, saying that there was no need for a showdown, now there’s no which can't be fixed.
I didn’t look into it right away, maybe in vain.
Good people, those who at least understand something, tell me is this normal at all?
Is everyone so disfigured by the faces of their deceased relatives or are we just so lucky?
Is there any standard or quality standard that regulates this so-called makeup or makeup service for the dead?
I just don’t want anyone else to be mutilated and I can’t help but do nothing?
I will definitely complain, just until I understand where and to whom.
If anyone knows how to correctly identify and punish the perpetrators, please write an approximate algorithm of actions.
Those who work in morgues, please write what profession/position people prepare the bodies of the deceased.
And lastly, think a hundred times before doing/ordering such a “service” for your deceased loved ones.

109