Another one bites the dust- Daniel Lockwood MERGE

[tabitha2]

What do you mean by that? Because of having Daniel for a father? Or having to participate in that sham of a photo shoot their parents were putting on? If so, that's not shallow, that's reality. The fact that the kids are forced to "put on a happy face!" is one of the things I hate most about fundiedom.

I am assuming you weren't referring to their looks, because who the hell makes fun of a bunch of teenagers over something they can't control, right? (They are a nice looking bunch of kids as far as I'm concerned). But like I said, I assume that's not what you were implying. I'm a little sensitive today...ignore me.

All of the above. But I've heard far worse things said about kids on here so people can't throw stones...I don't think they are attractive kids right now, all ears and teeth. They could improve with age.

[treemom]

I don't think koala has ever said anything like that, and has criticized others before. I don't think the word(s) you were looking for was throw stones, I think it was consistent.

[Firiel]

All of the above. But I've heard far worse things said about kids on here so people can't throw stones...I don't think they are attractive kids right now, all ears and teeth. They could improve with age.

Could you find some examples where Koala has snarked on teenagers' looks? If you find some examples of that, then you have the right to call her a hypocrite.

Member X saying something here doesn't mean that members A, B, and C are responsible for that comment.

[tabitha2]

Nope. I refuse to be drawn into a brawl for stating an opinion. I never meant to imply anything about her personally though it just came out wrong.

[Howl]

Ya know, when there are 12 (!) kids involved, the less information made public is better. Years from now, I'll the kids will appreciate that, at least publicly, Jaynee truthfully shared her personal pain, but then carried on, at least publicly, with grace and dignity. As we mature into adulthood, we all come to terms with our parents, for good or for ill. Parents bad mouthing or in any way alienating children from a parent is not good for kids, even if one parent (or both) is a total ass or worse. Kids will figure out things on their own in due time. I do sense that Jaynee is a gentle soul who truly loves her children.

On another note, there is as much possibility that kids read here as adults do.

I personally think that snarking on or negatively judging childrens' looks online is a truly awful practice -- the Lockwoods, the Rodrigues' or anyone else whose kids have been a target of comments.

In a sense, it strikes me as a form of adult bullying.

Just don't do it.

[tabitha2]

The problem I have is if they are seventeen they are considered still children to be handled with kid gloves and not to be snarked about but on their eighteenth Birthday all gloves come off and people can be as snarky and mean as they want and it's funny. Just sayin.

[Firiel]

The problem I have is if they are seventeen they are considered still children to be handled with kid gloves and not to be snarked about but on their eighteenth Birthday all gloves come off and people can be as snarky and mean as they want and it's funny. Just sayin.

Actually, not really true. There are plenty of people here who avoid snarking on looks in general. I, for one, try to avoid it (though if someone has made comments about being stronger than 99% of men or implied they are ridiculously attractive, I might just comment then *cough* Cabinetman *cough*). We are not a hive vagina. Some people are snarky about looks, and sometimes they get hand-slapped, and sometimes there are disagreements about what is "okay" to snark on.

I don't recall Koala being a poster who snarks on looks, so it makes sense that she would call someone out for snarking on the looks of a teen/young adult.

[treemom]

Nope. I refuse to be drawn into a brawl for stating an opinion. I never meant to imply anything about her personally though it just came out wrong.

Well you did more than just state an opinion, you said no one else could say you were wrong in what you said because OMG OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SAID WORSE THINGS.

[treemom]

The problem I have is if they are seventeen they are considered still children to be handled with kid gloves and not to be snarked about but on their eighteenth Birthday all gloves come off and people can be as snarky and mean as they want and it's funny. Just sayin.

That's not true. Sometimes, when it seems relevant snarking on looks gets allowed. But this is a pretty normal dividing point for FJ. Some of us are ok with snarking on looks all the time, some are ok with it in certain situations and some feel it should never happen.

There have been some pretty epic back and forths on this very thing. We aren't a hive vagina.

(I am not a fan of snarking on something that someone can't control, or that we should constantly point out the makeup and eyebrow plucking that might need to happen. I am completely comfortable in snarking on Jill R and the fact that we have concerns about the amount of food they have while she chooses the things she chooses. And snarking on the fact that she thinks women are trying to turn her husband's head. But there is an entire spectrum of what people find ok and not ok here. I just don't think you really had a right to get defensive towards Koala. Koala is pretty consistent in this area)

[Mama Mia]

It's been brought up before, but I want to bring it up again: the Lockwoods weren't just converting Catholics. They were also trying to undo the social programs and education provided by the Mexican government to combat poverty and other social ills because Jesus.

The Mexican Government was trying to promote family planning as a way to combat poverty. The Lockwoods were telling people to not worry about how they were going to feed their children and just keep having babies. Because Jesus.

The Mexican Government was trying to empower women, educate them about domestic abuse, and make sure they knew they had rights and support to provide for their own families and the right to leave any man who was dragging them down. The Lockwoods told women to stay in questionably abusive relationships and potentially let their children starve rather than going to work. Because Jesus.

The Lockwoods were not helping anyone. They did not set up any social services. They set up a Church and preached a set of rules that contained many things shown to exacerbate, not alleviate, poverty. They used tricks like free food and Christmas boxes to lure people in. Their family set an unattainable example to their congregation. They may be nice people, they may have good hearts, but what they did in Mexico was deplorable.

I just started reading this massive thread, so forgive me if this has already been discussed to death...but this jumped out and I didn't want to forget.

I have to say, I find this attitude REALLY patronizing. You make it sound like the Mexican women ( and men) are so simple minded that they are incapable of hearing multiple opinions on a subject and come to their own conclusions. That if the Lockwoods come in with an alternate viewpoint that they will immediately have their heads turned because - " Look ! Shiny Boxes! With Food!"

Do I think that Protestants spending their lives going to far-away places to convert Catholics to the " right" brand of Christianity kind of silly? Well, yeah. I do. But there are a vast, vast number of jobs and careers that have virtually no redeeming social value - or are a social drain. Everything from "customer service" that isn't, to insurance company claims denier, to Walmart Employee to the maker of artificial favors for kids snacks...all could be argued as not particularly valuable to the world at large. Or, well, virtually ANY job will have someone ferverently believing it's useless or promoting the wrong values or worse.

I just don't get the idea that for some reason the Mexican population can't handle a diversity of views.

[It'sFunToRun]

I just started reading this massive thread, so forgive me if this has already been discussed to death...but this jumped out and I didn't want to forget.

I have to say, I find this attitude REALLY patronizing. You make it sound like the Mexican women ( and men) are so simple minded that they are incapable of hearing multiple opinions on a subject and come to their own conclusions. That if the Lockwoods come in with an alternate viewpoint that they will immediately have their heads turned because - " Look ! Shiny Boxes! With Food!"

Do I think that Protestants spending their lives going to far-away places to convert Catholics to the " right" brand of Christianity kind of silly? Well, yeah. I do. But there are a vast, vast number of jobs and careers that have virtually no redeeming social value - or are a social drain. Everything from "customer service" that isn't, to insurance company claims denier, to Walmart Employee to the maker of artificial favors for kids snacks...all could be argued as not particularly valuable to the world at large. Or, well, virtually ANY job will have someone ferverently believing it's useless or promoting the wrong values or worse.

I just don't get the idea that for some reason the Mexican population can't handle a diversity of views.

Depends; if they're going to places where people are well educated, then telling everyone that patriarchy is great is just exposing them to a new viewpoint. If they're going to places where most people aren't educated and they're telling them "birth control causes abortion", then that's really poopy.

I think Mexican (or any nationality) women would ignore them or smile and nod when they say things like "the man should be the leader" or "the woman should not work" or "give him sex on demand", because that is a lifestyle difference, but if they are saying "birth control causes abortion" or "abortion makes you infertile" that could cause harm where people don't have education because it's misinformation rather than a difference of opinion.

[Georgiana]

I just started reading this massive thread, so forgive me if this has already been discussed to death...but this jumped out and I didn't want to forget.

I have to say, I find this attitude REALLY patronizing. You make it sound like the Mexican women ( and men) are so simple minded that they are incapable of hearing multiple opinions on a subject and come to their own conclusions. That if the Lockwoods come in with an alternate viewpoint that they will immediately have their heads turned because - " Look ! Shiny Boxes! With Food!"

Do I think that Protestants spending their lives going to far-away places to convert Catholics to the " right" brand of Christianity kind of silly? Well, yeah. I do. But there are a vast, vast number of jobs and careers that have virtually no redeeming social value - or are a social drain. Everything from "customer service" that isn't, to insurance company claims denier, to Walmart Employee to the maker of artificial favors for kids snacks...all could be argued as not particularly valuable to the world at large. Or, well, virtually ANY job will have someone ferverently believing it's useless or promoting the wrong values or worse.

I just don't get the idea that for some reason the Mexican population can't handle a diversity of views.

There's a huge difference between the Mexico of Mexico City and the Mexico of rural Mexico. There's also a huge difference between presenting your view to informed individuals and allowing people to choose and coercion or bribery.

The Lockwoods were ministering to a rural population in Mexico. This population had very, very limited education; which means they had little or limited basis upon which to judge the worthiness of the positions presented to them. How do you make someone understand how birth control works without a basic grasp of human internal anatomy? One guy says this doesn't abort babies; one guy says it does and you'll go to hell as a baby killer if you do it. Without education, that's literally all that they have to go off to make a decision. HOW were these people to make a decision on who was right? They don't have the background knowledge necessary to do so.

However, the Lockwoods did not present their position in an open and equal environment. There was also coercion and bribery. If you chose their way, you got the resources of the Church. If you're struggling to feed your children and two rival positions come into town, you don't really have the personal resources to know who's right, but one party offers you food and clothes for your children, who are you going to choose? Most people would do far worse things than drink some kool-aid to feed their kids.

I believe that educated populations, no matter what their national background, do have the ability to handle a diversity of views. Do I think the Lockwoods would have made it in Mexico City? HA!

However, I think it is important to realize that exploitation of the poor and uneducated is a very real practice that is sometimes ENCOURAGED by missionary work. I DON'T believe the population that the Lockwoods were ministering to had the tools necessary to make informed decisions regarding the efficacy of the governmental programs vs the Lockwoods. I DO believe that the Lockwoods used their resources to "encourage" people to choose their way.

I DO believe that the poor and under-educated should be protected from predatory missions such as the Lockwoods that aim to just "collect souls" at whatever the human price.

[treemom]

I don't consider missionary work, work.

[Firiel]

I don't consider missionary work, work.

A lot of missionary organizations do very useful work and have job descriptions that include more humanitarian aid stuff than preaching the gospel stuff.

I would certain say that Kent Brantley and Nancy Writebol were working, despite the fact that their faith was an important impetus behind what they were doing, and the same is true of many of my co-workers.

[treemom]

A lot of missionary organizations do very useful work and have job descriptions that include more humanitarian aid stuff than preaching the gospel stuff.

I would certain say that Kent Brantley and Nancy Writebol were working, despite the fact that their faith was an important impetus behind what they were doing, and the same is true of many of my co-workers.

I understand that. I am saying, that is the work is an attempt to convert others, I do not consider it work. Perhaps they do other things, but I find missionary work incredibly distasteful.

[Firiel]

I understand that. I am saying, that is the work is an attempt to convert others, I do not consider it work. Perhaps they do other things, but I find missionary work incredibly distasteful.

That's fair, but I do want to reiterate that there is a huge difference between missionaries like the Lockwoods and Schraders who want to throw some tracts at folks and missionaries who are actually saving lives and working for the people they are there to serve instead of simply trying to convert them. I really believe most of the latter group would still be doing what they are doing even without the idea of saving souls. They don't treat an Ebola patient because of the chance that if the patient lives, he might become a Christian. They treat an Ebola patient because there is a human being in need, and they can help meet that need.

Sometimes the awful folks we talk about here give other missionaries a bad name.

[treemom]

I understand there is a difference.

[Mama Mia]

There's a huge difference between the Mexico of Mexico City and the Mexico of rural Mexico. There's also a huge difference between presenting your view to informed individuals and allowing people to choose and coercion or bribery.

The Lockwoods were ministering to a rural population in Mexico. This population had very, very limited education; which means they had little or limited basis upon which to judge the worthiness of the positions presented to them. How do you make someone understand how birth control works without a basic grasp of human internal anatomy? One guy says this doesn't abort babies; one guy says it does and you'll go to hell as a baby killer if you do it. Without education, that's literally all that they have to go off to make a decision. HOW were these people to make a decision on who was right? They don't have the background knowledge necessary to do so.

However, the Lockwoods did not present their position in an open and equal environment. There was also coercion and bribery. If you chose their way, you got the resources of the Church. If you're struggling to feed your children and two rival positions come into town, you don't really have the personal resources to know who's right, but one party offers you food and clothes for your children, who are you going to choose? Most people would do far worse things than drink some kool-aid to feed their kids.

I believe that educated populations, no matter what their national background, do have the ability to handle a diversity of views. Do I think the Lockwoods would have made it in Mexico City? HA!

However, I think it is important to realize that exploitation of the poor and uneducated is a very real practice that is sometimes ENCOURAGED by missionary work. I DON'T believe the population that the Lockwoods were ministering to had the tools necessary to make informed decisions regarding the efficacy of the governmental programs vs the Lockwoods. I DO believe that the Lockwoods used their resources to "encourage" people to choose their way.

I DO believe that the poor and under-educated should be protected from predatory missions such as the Lockwoods that aim to just "collect souls" at whatever the human price.

I think you are equating intelligence with education, when they are not remotely the same thing.

If the rural population that the missionaries were presenting their views to were completely isolated, I might agree, to an extent. But your initial complaint is that the people are already receiving information and classes from the government, that the missionaries are contradicting, so they do have multiple views and opinions to choose from. Not to mention, of course, whatever there own opinions and beliefs already are. I don't doubt, at all, that even an extremely rural and uneducated population could synthesize the various views and material offerings and form their own opinions. And it is not at all unusual for any group to pay lip service to the ideals or beliefs of the government or the church in order to utilize their resources - that doesn't mean the people necessarily actually believe everything they are being told.

[snarkopolis]

I think you are equating intelligence with education, when they are not remotely the same thing.

If the rural population that the missionaries were presenting their views to were completely isolated, I might agree, to an extent. But your initial complaint is that the people are already receiving information and classes from the government, that the missionaries are contradicting, so they do have multiple views and opinions to choose from. Not to mention, of course, whatever there own opinions and beliefs already are. I don't doubt, at all, that even an extremely rural and uneducated population could synthesize the various views and material offerings and form their own opinions. And it is not at all unusual for any group to pay lip service to the ideals or beliefs of the government or the church in order to utilize their resources - that doesn't mean the people necessarily actually believe everything they are being told.

But they do if they have been raised to respect and fear and follow authority. The fact that the Mexican government had to put together a program to say to women Hey, you do not have to be hit. It is not right and you can leave speaks volumes about the educational status of the population not to mention the ingrained religious (Catholic, have lots of kids) and dare I say superstitious customs of the area. Many of these people are illiterate and dirt poor. And the emphasis is on dirt. To suggest that they spend their evenings parsing the various facets of the different viewpoints is stupid. Food==good. No food==bad. Simple.

[Howl]

There is a vast difference between the culture of Mexico City and the rural or even indigenous populations, but they all suffer from the culture of machismo.

The the government is addressing family planning and domestic violence on any level is really quite amazing.

[Mama Mia]

But they do if they have been raised to respect and fear and follow authority. The fact that the Mexican government had to put together a program to say to women Hey, you do not have to be hit. It is not right and you can leave speaks volumes about the educational status of the population not to mention the ingrained religious (Catholic, have lots of kids) and dare I say superstitious customs of the area. Many of these people are illiterate and dirt poor. And the emphasis is on dirt. To suggest that they spend their evenings parsing the various facets of the different viewpoints is stupid. Food==good. No food==bad. Simple.

That may be one of the most patronizing and elitist statements I've ever read on the Internet.

Let's start with the assumption that these women are somehow extra brainwashed or easily led or ignorant or whatever it is you think they are -- because their government offers classes to educate them on domestic violence. Really??? Really?!? You do know that the U.S. Government, , and a huge number of non-profits, provide thousands of classes annually to educate women on the impacts of domestic violence and their rights. Maybe you think only poor and uneducated women are victims of domestic violence? Or is it only the extra superstitious? Guess what -- that's not how it works. Highly educated and wealth women also are victims of domestic violence.

Not quite sure how anyone's " superstitions" ( what people in their own cultures tend to just call "beliefs" or " customs" have anything to do with any of this? Perhaps you could explain the relevance?

And it's super awesome that you know about Maslows Heirarchy of needs -- but to assume that people who are illiterate and dirt poor never discuss intellectual or philosophical concepts is just flabbergasting in the utter lack of awareness.

[snarkopolis]

That may be one of the most patronizing and elitist statements I've ever read on the Internet.

Let's start with the assumption that these women are somehow extra brainwashed or easily led or ignorant or whatever it is you think they are -- because their government offers classes to educate them on domestic violence. Really??? Really?!? You do know that the U.S. Government, , and a huge number of non-profits, provide thousands of classes annually to educate women on the impacts of domestic violence and their rights. Maybe you think only poor and uneducated women are victims of domestic violence? Or is it only the extra superstitious? Guess what -- that's not how it works. Highly educated and wealth women also are victims of domestic violence.

Not quite sure how anyone's " superstitions" ( what people in their own cultures tend to just call "beliefs" or " customs" have anything to do with any of this? Perhaps you could explain the relevance?

And it's super awesome that you know about Maslows Heirarchy of needs -- but to assume that people who are illiterate and dirt poor never discuss intellectual or philosophical concepts is just flabbergasting in the utter lack of awareness.

Then we agree to disagree. As someone who deals with persons who are involved in domestic violence situations (and some happen to be of Hispanic origins from areas like the Lockwoods were in) I thought I might share some of my observations. How silly of me to think even those were illiterate, lived in poverty, and had trouble feeding their children would devote time and energy that could be better used to fix said issues discussing the Middle East situation, Global warming and Ebola. Cuz that's way more important than figuring out how to feed your kids. Some call it prioritizing.

As for customs, I've had women tell me that it was okay for their husband to beat them because in their country it was okay. My bad, you know so much more. NOT

Remember, there are no food allergies in Somalia.

[Mama Mia]

FYI, I have extensive work experience with working with very, very poor families who have immigrated here ( by one means or another) from rural Mexico. Both from Mainstream Mexican cultural background and from Indigenous groups. Who, by the way, don't tend to share much in common culturally.

More relevantly, I also have close friends, co-workers and family members who were born and raised dirt poor in rural Mexico. Which is why they came here. Some of whom have virtually 0 formal Education. Guess what? They are still quite capable of holding nuanced views on a wide variety of topics! And, remarkably, they will even talk about their families opinions on complex or controversial topics ( if it comes up) even though those family members and friends are still dirt poor in rural Mexico! In fact we can even converse on these topics despite their having English as a Second Language and my having ( to my chagrin) only a few limited words of Spanglish. So yeah, dirt poor, extremely limited/no education, speaking in a second language -- but yet able to have intelligent conversations on pretty much any topic.

And FYI, your original statement of these individuals topics of conversation and decision making process boiling down to "food=Good, no food= bad. Simple!" Is still massively condescending. Despite your attempt to refine and politically correct it.

A greater general cultural acceptance of domestic violence does not mean the women in that culture are particularly uneducated or superstitious. It means that their Culture and Country began implementing laws and campaigns against Domestic Violence about 20 years after the United States. And the United States still has to have these classes and counseling because people, of all socio-economic groups and backgrounds still need to learn tools and information on the subject.

You could look it at as similar to changing opinions and laws in the United States regarding beating children. You will still have a large number of people who will say " My parents beat me and I turned out great, it's fine to use corporeal punishment on my children" . You even have a large number of states where public schools beat children, legally. But that number is decreasing all the time. Because cultural practices and what is socially acceptable shifts. Does that mean it's only people who are superstitious or uneducated use corporeal punishment on children? No, of course not. The fact it's used in schools, by teachers and administrators kind of shows it's a fallacy to think only uneducated people would still approve that behavior.

Despite the discrepancy in cultures the overall lifetime rate of physical abuse by an intimate partner is very similar in both countries - between 20 -25% . However they do have much higher rates of overall violence and sexual assault on women. In addition to a culture that does glorify machismo -- there are some other recent factors that have made Mexico very dangerous for many women. Particularly poor women. One major issue is that after NAFTA, many rural villages had their economies decimated. Women went away to work in factories, where they often became victims of predators --- so when people make a blanket statement about women going to work in order to provide for their children , it's something that can mean jumping from the frying pan into the fire. Another huge source of violence against women. ( well, against everyone, but we are talking about women here) is the cartels and the drug war. Not just the random killings -- but a sub-culture that treats women as disposable chattel and sex toys. Including their wives and girl friends.

Also, when someone says " it's okay my husband beats me because in my country it's ok" is that really any different than the woman who says " it's okay my husband beats me because he's a police officer and he's under tremendous stress" or " it's okay my wife beats me, because I'm a man so I'm ashamed to admit it hurts" --- what would you assume about the people in those situations?

Just an interesting fun fact: when California was part of Mexico, women had the right to own their own property and sign contracts on their own, without their husbands names or permission. When The United States won California -- women lost those rights.

[WonderingInWA]

So, Jaynee Lockwood has updated her blog in response to an anonymous email she received asking if she was okay and why she was hiding. Her response is long, talks about her daily efforts to heal, how much she loves her husband (sigh) and children and the Lord. And that someday she might go into more detail about all the suffering, but only if the Lord tells her to.

Meanwhile, I'd love to know what her louse of a husband is doing and why he deserves her love. Her description of her emotions and daily struggles makes me really sad. He must have REALLY screwed her over.

Anyone have any thoughts?

lockwoodfamilytomexico.com

[teachergirl]

The usual woman blaming, stuck with 12 children and no way out....I have always disliked the Lockwoods for their "evangelizing" Catholics in Mexico but feel bad for Jaynee. I think he cheated on her but we have no proof. She is towing the party line and really what are her options? This is exactly what the movement wants, a woman with no options and Jaynee is it.