Police program for middle school boys aims stop domestic violence

Looks to me more like the idea is to teach boys who may be in danger of going down "the wrong path" some alternatives to violence or hostile behavior when dealing with annoyances. Perhaps some are like this due to dysfunctional home lives -- in which case the boys' problems are actually that they have lousy home lives/parent(s). But it seems rather than hold parents accountable for messing up their kids, it's more electorally expedient to let the parents screw up the kids and then try to counter the effects after the fact. Silly.

Anyway, it's too bad only boys are getting this kind of opportunity. After all, don't girls get violent/angry at times, too?

But I suppose that'd make both too much sense and be un-PC. After all, girls are *never* violent toward boys or each other, nor have anger issues -- right?

Sorry, but I don't see this as a good thing. Perhaps well intended, but this is more of schools intruding into your personal lives and taking over the parenting role. Remember the "never speak to the police" video?. Nothing could be worse than having your middle school aged child blabbing about what goes on in your home to a cop. The whole family could end up in the slammer over a misconception.

Schools, police, courts, child protective services are all morphing into the same agency and often have access to your child's medical records. Do not give them any reason to start looking into you! Also if these boys ever have a DV accusation against them in the future, you can bet records of these conversations will surface.

... with "sister" used the same way I would use "brother" in addressing a fellow MRA or work group teammates or in any other context aside from an actual family rel'p. Like "preach on, sister!" :)

I agree w/ what you're saying in that records kept of these boys' statements could some day be used vs. them even if they're falsely accused of something.

I am not sure how to address that except to change how courts, lawyers, juries, etc., may view these programs and records from them. If when age 21 a man is accused of a crime of person vs. a woman but his last year in this program was when he was 16, can what he said as a 16-YO be considered an accurate reflection of his values/beliefs abt women at age 21? A lot changes for and inside ppl betw. 16 and 21. Nonetheless, unless the legal and social srvcs systems change their attitudes around this topic, agreed it later can represent a danger for men who were in this kind of program, esp. when in their young adulthood.

Still, the positive aspects of such a program ought not be ignored. It 's a baby-and-bathwater issue. For example, see this recent story:

16-year-old Connecticut girl killed by jilted teen after she refused to go to junior prom with him

Clearly, this boy and his victim could have both been much-served if he had been ID'd earlier as potentially a danger to others (girls or boys) and given the right training/therapy. Now, the girl's dead and he's up for murder 1 (probably). "Life over before it started" count: 2.

The issue to me here is "the system's" willful blindnes to girls' and women's violence toward males of all ages *and* toward each other. If as a society we can acknowledge males' violence as a problem for those males displaying it and their victims (if even as such violent men are far less numerous than feminists want ppl to belive), at least they can be punished, given rehab opportunities (where possible), and when aware of their problem and willing to cooperate in finding a solution, get help. When females act violently, by ignoring their behavior, their victims don't get a chance to see justice done, nor do the violent females get a chance to address their problems. By being allowed to make excuses and get away w/ it, their cycle of using violence to force compliance from others or express anger can continue -- until one day, it catches up w/ them in a bad, bad way. So such programs in a sense may serve at-risk boys w/ a demonstrated tendency to express feelings via violent actions, but by leaving girls out of this kind of thing due to being in denial about it, the females are more likely than otherwise to become one day on the receiving end of the "bad karma payback" they've created, allowed to stack it up by adults who couldn't admit they had problems w/ violence.

Everyone loses. But that's what happens when parents don't do their damn jobs.

I need to correct myself a bit, as I am now realizing that when I made my comment above I forgot that most the sharing of information between these agencies occurs with juveniles. I'm not so sure if it would effect an adult. But I do speak from experience, and I believe that if a 17 year old was accused of something, the courts would look at ALL of his records from all of the mentioned agencies and might come to an unfair conclusion.

My experience stems from my brother and I being born into the foster child system (run by Child Protective Services), Being legally adopted by my parents when we were 3-4 years old. Together, we had multiple diagnosis of behavioral and social disorders and developmental delays. Luckily my parents could afford the best private treatment and kept us in private school. However, by high school some of my brothers antics were too much and we were kicked out and placed in public school. This was a rude awakening for us. We both did some things we shouldn't have (typical teenage stuff) and found ourselves in front of a judge. In both of our cases the judges had all or our case documents and history from way back when we were in the foster system - it was like we never left. My brother's case had nothing to do with school, did not even occur on school properly, but the judge just wanted to "just see" what type of help he could offer my brother (which is code for bureaucracy and all government employees getting paid), so he ordered all of his school records to help him make his ruling.

My dad, who I usually think of as being the most powerful person, especially when it came to his kids (and at that time we were still kids), had little authority. It was very clear that "the system" was the parental authority, not him. For example my case involved being caught smoking cigarettes at school (I know, I know). Instead of this being a parental discipline matter, I was ordered by a judge to attend a cease smoking workshop for teens because he felt cigarettes are a "gate way drug" - and he could see by having all my childhood records in front of him, that I was "at risk". The kicker was my dad was ordered to pay $300 for this cease teen smoking class! (I got punished more for that, then I did for the smoking. LOL)

I get what Matt is saying about if parents don't do their job then society has to step in and do it for them. But my point is that something these agencies are over-zealous and they take the parenting authority away from good parents - and is more about keeping government workers employed. And these agencies have very little accountability.

In the United States we had the DARE program which cost taxpayers millions and went on for about 20+ years (I think). It has finally come to an end because it has never been proven to be effective. (DARE = Drug Awareness and Resistance Education). But I am sure the developers who put it in place thought they were doing something good.

http://www.alcoholfacts.org/DARE.html

The program in the OP - about teaching boys how to avoid DV (and yes, it should include girls) reminds me too much of DARE, which was also taught by police officers in middle school. The intentions are good, but, IMO, schools should not take on the parenting role, and who knows if it is really money and time well spent (apparently DARE was not).

I agree with everything you are saying Matt, I am just pointing out why I would never support such a program to be taught in schools and by police officers.