The classes were inspired by research that shows one in four teenage girls are hurt by a partner, and a third of girls in relationships are victims of unwanted sexual activity. Despite these statistics, only half of girls receive any sort of education about domestic violence. To remedy this, beginning in 2011 schools will teach students about healthy relationships and the unacceptability of abuse. An unnamed contributor to the plan says that the classes would be separate from sex education:

It's nothing to do with teaching them how to put a condom on. It's about teaching boys not to be violent and girls that being a sex object isn't the only way to be validated.

Schools minister Vernon Coaker says the classes will be "age appropriate." Rather than being taught about romantic relationships, younger children might learn not to bully or call names. Christine Barter, a researcher in the area of teen violence, says what's especially scary is that teenage girls keep this violence to themselves. Classes starting at a young age might encourage them to seek help when they need it — and might teach them that violence is unacceptable and should be reported. But not all parents are behind the measure.

Margaret Morrissey, of the group Parents Outloud, says, "This political correctness is turning our children into confused mini-adults from the age of five to nine." Nick Seaton, of the Campaign for Real Education, concurs:

Youngsters should naturally know not to do these sort of things and must be called to account if they do. But teachers have enough to do in teaching English, maths and science to a reasonable level without addressing issues that parents should be dealing with.

Teaching young girls to report abuse and rape — and teaching boys not to commit these acts — is hardly mere "political correctness." But Seaton's criticism echoes an age-old debate about education that goes beyond "English, maths and science" — what should schools teach, and what is the province of parents? In this case, it's unfortunately untrue that "youngsters naturally know" not to abuse each other. And since violence is still so widespread, it doesn't appear that parents "naturally know" how to deal with it either. Parent-child relationships are complicated by a lot of emotions and expectations — parents may feel, for instance, that their son would never hurt a girl, or that their daughter would never stay in an abusive relationship. Teachers may be able to take a more dispassionate approach, especially since they will undergo special training before teaching the new classes. Ideally, all parents would teach their kids never to commit domestic violence, and to speak out immediately if they suffer it. But teenagers aren't getting this message, and school may be a good place to fix that.

Classroom Drive To Curb Violence In Relationships [Guardian]
School Lessons To Tackle Domestic Violence Outlined [BBC News]
Lessons On Equality And Domestic Abuse For Children Of Five [Daily Mail]

On a side note, anchor Robin Roberts telling the interpreter he can stop signing right after Matlin explains that she's never let being deaf hold her back is a nice touch. Clip at left.

The wrongness begins with the title, "Teenage Girls Stand By Their Man," which, in itself, sets the tone for the entire article, which seems to paint "teenage girls" as immature, uneducated, and clueless when it comes to dealing with potential violence inflicted upon them by their "men." The "men," by the way, are barely spoken of at all, as if they have no place in this story, as if they are not a piece of this increasingly difficult puzzle.

The piece, by Jan Hoffman, centers around the reaction many young women are having toward the Rihanna/Chris Brown incident, wherein many high school girls are blaming Rihanna for her actions and defending Brown, something we've discussed before. Oh, and it's published in the "Fashion and Style" section of the Times, because nothing says "Fashion and Style" like violence against women, right?

"On blogs and social networking sites, teenagers are having an e-shouting match about this highly publicized episode - perhaps the first time their generation has been compelled to think aloud about dating violence, Hoffman writes, "And what may be surprising is the level of support for Mr. Brown. While thousands of teenagers have certainly turned on Mr. Brown, many others - regardless of race or gender - defend him, often at Rihanna's expense."

While this is a true and horrifying phenomenon, the notion that girls are perpetuating this cycle by being so quick to forgive is a bit unfair. Marcyliena Morgan, director of Harvard's hip-hop archive, claims that she's not surprised that boys are quick to forgive Chris Brown, "But it's the girls! Where have we gone wrong here?"

Perhaps "we've gone wrong" by being so apathetic towards the reaction of young men here. If it's not surprising that boys are quick to forgive Brown, doesn't that signal a problem? Why is it only the girls who are expected to be outraged, horrified, and willing to take a stand against dating violence?

As Melissa McEwan of Shakesville writes, "Where have we gone wrong with girls? The same place we've gone wrong with boys: Not providing them alternative narratives, that's where. It doesn't do girls any fucking good if we just throw up our hands and say, "Well, of course boys excuse rape and violence against women," and take that as read, so we can move on and wonder what's wrong with the girls. Talk about victim-blaming."

Jill at Feministe, however, points out that the article makes a good point about the way young girls tend to be blaming Rihanna as a means to continue their harmless crushes on Brown, who, prior to this incident, had a squeaky clean public image as the type of boyfriend who would never, ever hurt you. "The victim-blaming in high-profile intimate partner violence cases reads to me a lot like self-defensive victim-blaming in sexual assault cases: If you can pin the responsibility for the violence on something the woman did, you can live without the fear that someone might harm you in a similar way." As Hoffman writes, "After all, sweet Chris Breezy - his nickname - even appeared in a music video with Elmo of "Sesame Street." Acknowledging his attack would make them feel vulnerable: How could they have a crush on someone who could do that? It was less terrifying to blame Rihanna."

Perhaps the fault lies in the fact that attempting to open girls' eyes to the true horrors of dating violence without expecting the same participation from boys is simply going to lead to a one-sided viewpoint that many young women will have a difficult time sticking to, especially when the society that surrounds them seems to agree that boys, as always, will be boys. It's a bit difficult to stand up for one's self when the system in place argues that girls should be appalled by violence, and boys should be forgiven for it.

Teenage Girls Stand By Their Man [NYTimes]
Teenage Girls And Dating Violence [Feministe]
What's Wrong With The Girls? [Shakesville]

Earlier: Teenagers Claim It's Rihanna's Fault

In the video at left, actors depict what happened inside Chris Brown's car as the police report is read in a voiceover (interestingly both "Chris" and "Rihanna" are white). Last week the group began offering free bracelets on their website to promote dating abuse awareness by "wearing the statistics." The bracelets come in packs of three: one blue, two black to represent that one in three teens are abused in a relationship. The group reports that they've had 25,000 requests for the bracelets so far. [DoSomething.org]