Sad to hear this. I followed her blog from 2004 until last year, when her it became clear that her writing was hurting both her own health and that of her family’s. She may not be well known, but she was one of the original bloggers and influencers. For awhile at least, before the rise of Instagram and sponcon, she was able to make a living off insightful, funny blog posts and selling calendars with pictures of her dog. She served as an inspiration to young women struggling with first jobs, romances, careers, and eventually families.
Interestingly, this article glosses over some of the struggles she had in recent years (according to her blog) with drugs and an eating disorder. From her writing it was clear that she was in a lot of pain, and was trying desperately (including undergoing electroshock therapy) to find relief. I’m sorry that, after so many years of struggle, it ended like this.
Dooce may not be as ubiquitous as it once was, but as I type this her death is front-page news on the NYT, The Guardian[1], and CNN. She was truly, uniquely influential and her voice will be missed.
Few things do I read day-to-day that prompt me to physically say aloud "oh fuck."
Heather was an amazing writer, always humorous in the face of adversity. Sometimes, over the years, I feel fortunate that we had a few e-mail exchanges too. She was always so open and honest, and appreciated random readers of her blog writing in and appreciating her pictures of putting objects on top of her dog, her other more artistic photography, and her ability to share an honest and strong approach to the world. My thoughts are with her family. Depression is such a silent, damaging disease. Such brilliant minds lost way too early.
I started reading her in 2001, just when I was founding my first startup. When she got fired in 2002 she _was_ the zeitgeist.
Public service announcement — dealing with childhood trauma is a monster. She covered it with alcohol, like many people do. If you’re struggling with trauma, get help. It’s not cognitive. You can’t solve it on your own.
I feel for her family, and wish them well. So it goes.
RIP. This sucks so hard. I was in my early 20s when I started reading blogs regularly and Dooce was just on the peripheral of bloggers I followed. Even tho I wasn’t into her subject matter, her style was hugely influential. (Edit for clarity)
I had never heard of her, but decided to take a look at her content to try to tease together some part of her story. I sensed from the coverage that something was being elided here, and I was right.
It's clear she struggled with depression and some sort of compulsion to live in public in a painful, raw way, pretty much all her adult life. Like many people in her circumstances, she had a love-hate relationship with an audience that often abused her, but was also the source of her income. It's also clear that all of this took a turn for the worse recently. Less than a year ago she posted this rambling, semi-coherent rant that has since been scrubbed from her blog:
In it, she speaks about her history of mental illness, body dysphoria and attempted suicide. She also says some things about gender dysphoria: she objects to the fact that affirmation is the only treatment offered, is scornful of neo-pronouns, hints that she feels her non-binary children have been swept up in a social contagion, and praises the bravery of de-transitioners. Needless to say, people did not take this kindly, as the comments on her Instagram around this time shoes:
She was subjected to an enormous torrent of self-righteous abuse by her fanbase in the wake of this. Podcasts were made, Reddit threads savaged her, Twitter did its sociopathic thing, and it dragged on for weeks and weeks.
I'm not saying her fanbase bullied her to death. But I am saying that the way she was treated surely didn't help.
One reason my own blogging has so little traction is that I have long had a personal policy of trying to weed out and actively ditch the kinds of negative attention women so frequently attract online. I want attention on my work, not on me per se.
I've spent a lot of years trying to sort out how to post good info without it going like it seems to have gone for her. Sure, she made good money, but at what price?
She sounds like she was miserable the entire time and ultimately died by her own hand rather than being able to use financial success to resolve her problems.
I'm resolving my problems. Maybe that means I'm too boring or something to ever be a commercially successful blogger or whatever. But it's a conscious choice and longstanding personal policy that my mental health and quality of life matter more than some kind of commercial success.
And I personally feel that when someone so unable to effectively address their personal problems makes "most influential" lists, it's likely not a good thing overall for the health of the world as a whole.
People who are so much drama tend to attract drama and promote drama without meaning to. They vent about a bad day and it ends up being some shitshow that comes back to bite them, not relief from their pain.
I don't say that as criticism of her. I say that as firsthand experience. People often like me but expect me to be at my best at all times and few people are compassionate or supportive when I'm the one in need of support.
A relationship to the public is not like private relationships and I think some people have trouble sorting that out and that fact can contribute to both popularity and an excess of negative and unwanted side effects accompanying their popularity.
I'm sorry she suffered so much and ultimately killed herself. Ideally, the world uses this story as a means to find better answers -- though I'm not holding my breath, frankly. The world often actively promotes such patterns and seems to punish people for trying to sort their problems.
A lot of people show up for the drama. It does something for them. And what it does to the author -- eh, "not my problem."
...But it could be interpreted a different way, I think.
In that archived post, she writes "last year on August 31st, 2021, I attempted suicide" and "imagine experiencing suicidal ideation all day every day for the rest of your time on Earth. That's me."
Clearly the death-impulse long predates any bullying she might have received on account of that post.
And the post strikes a combative tone, doesn't it? It almost seems as though she were looking to generate controversy, intentionally. (Not that I disagree with her, but it should be obvious how the Reddit hivemind would react.) Sometimes picking a good fight can make you feel _alive._
There's a sort of "tragedy of the commons" that happens with Internet criticism, I think. Many people see a tweet that they find objectionable. Some of those send a reply or quote-tweet voicing criticism. Each of those replies publishes that original tweet to more and more people, some of whom will ALSO be compelled to put in their opinion.
The whole thing reaches an apparent fever pitch simply due to the volume of posts. The original poster is simply beset with negativity. The human mind is simply not psychologically capable of dealing with that kind of onslaught in a healthy way. Such a simple, innocuous phenomenon is at the root of it: I see something I disagree with and am compelled to respond. Nothing sinister is happening in the minds of those involved (at least for the vast majority).
But regardless of how odious the original tweet/post was, this is just not a productive way for us to conduct discourse. But how do you combat it? I don't have an answer.
How should we treat people who have chosen to post their political opinions on the Internet, when we strongly disagree with them?
Isn't responding or critiquing the ideas in a podcast, Reddit thread or a tweet exactly how a) the Internet, b) free speech, and c) liberal civil society are supposed to work?
Not sure I agree with "most of the time", but anyway, isn't my friend's critique of ideas somewhat similar to my enemy's invective-filled ad hominem attack? Don't these all fall within perfectly ok behavior between adults who have chosen to spend time reading each others' thoughts?
I don't think so at all. Civilized debate over ideas? Great. Middle-school-tier name-calling, shaming tactics, and attempts to get someone fired from their job because you disagree with them? Completely unacceptable. Are we all in middle school now because we don't have to look at each other face to face?
You'd think she would have been more sympathetic to trans people and understanding of the anger underlying a lot of the response, given all that.
It's true that not enough space is given to de-transitioners, but much of the discourse focuses on the very, very, very tiny number of people who did it because they didn't have dysphoria rather than the vast majority who did it because the social stigma and difficulty with employment turned out to be worse than the dysphoria. Detransition is turned into a weapon against trans people when it should be something that exists at peace with the majority who transition and are happy with it.
To me, NY Times' article lacks empathy. Andy Baio's farewell blog post is much more reflective of her personality and life, and so is her 2015 XOXO talk.
Yeah, that was my thought too. It felt far too direct and oddly intimate in what it cited and quoted. I asked ChatGPT to write a generic obituary in an NYT style and it came back with things like, “As news of [Name]'s untimely death spread, fans and colleagues flooded social media with tributes and messages of condolences. Many praised [Name]'s kindness, generosity, and unique voice, and expressed their shock and sadness at the loss of such a talented and beloved figure.” And “[Name] will be deeply missed by their family, friends, and countless fans, who will always remember them as a bright and inspiring presence in the online community.” Which feels like the right way to approach the topic. This, on the other hand… focuses far too much on written word and research instead of impact and legacy. It felt tone deaf.
I'm gutted. Heather was a friend. I've never known anyone who had to work so hard to just feel "ok", and I thought she'd finally made it. I hope she can finally rest.
I need a source for "lapsed mormon". It doesn't seem like something that the author should just be coming up with to describe her. Google turns up little.
It is a common term in religion for "not very active/practicing" or "lapsed the expectations of the church(such as tithings)". Sometimes used to even describe ex-Mormons.
That's how I view the term. It seems personal, like many other parts of a person's identity. I myself am an ex-mormon and don't like the term lapsed mormon for myself because I had issues with the faith and tried to work through them before willfully breaking the rules. There's nothing wrong with people doing it in a way that is better characterized by lapsed but it would be a bit misleading to portray how I left this way. That said, there are people who are less lapsed and left more deliberately than me.
People can call me whatever they want, betrayed would be the best way of putting it. Learning all the lies hidden by the church, and all the doctrine that was told one way but happened another, etc...that's what made me leave. I can't take bullshit, and I'm ashamed it took me so long to see. One read of the CESLetter and I was over on quitmormon.org sending in my resignation.
I'm fascinated by CESLetter. I myself don't get it because each time I start reading it my eyes glaze over because I learned the most salient things years ago. Seeing others get into it though, it seems to be an example of drinking from the proverbial firehose.
I did quitmormon as well, back in 2017. I actually regretted it and was even mad at quitmormon for a time for making it so easy, but I've been at a place where I no longer regret it for a couple of years. And I guess that is where I feel betrayed by the church. If not for Prop 8 and the 2015 policy and the more extreme tax dodges I could have a more relaxed take on it. I still do have a relaxed take on Mormonism.
Agreed, it has the connotation that one can’t really leave entirely, they’re always in some dormant state. I think it probably reflects what families (especially parents) wish to be true.
> Armstrong was raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but left the religion years ago.
I suppose my question is, why is it relevant to mention at all? Is it because Mormonism is less of a "mainstream" religion, so it deserves more mention than "former Catholic" or "lapsed Protestant"?
She used to write a lot about leaving Mormonism and was very critical of it. I believe she deleted critical writing of the church to reconcile with her family.
Ok, that makes sense. I never saw much of the critical stuff, so if it was a big part of her writing identity then I understand why they said it. I just often think that these identifiers (like "lapsed Mormon" or "former member of...") are lazy journalistic shortcuts. The picture they portray in different people's minds may be far from accurate.
> She used to write a lot about leaving Mormonism and was very critical of it.
What you wrote is clearer, simpler and gives me a more accurate image.
Leaving Brighamite Mormonism typically doesn't let you keep your dignity intact, especially with close friends and family that are adherent.
At a basic level, you have to send a notarized letter to the corporation that owns the trademark "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (a virtual theocracy in Utah) demanding they remove you from their records. (cf: quitmormon.com)
At a human level, the congregations are geographically based with intense community defined within a geography and effectively-dead treatment to people outside the geography.
My parent's area has been a growth area for Utah Mormon transplants for years, so their congregation has split and moved several times. At a recent funeral for an old Boy Scout leader of mine, they remarked on how many people they hadn't seen in over a decade due to the congregation splits. I was frankly amazed -- dozens of these folks they were pointing out had been regular visitors to our home during my school years! To me it seemed strange that folks lived 10 minutes down the road, were great friends, camped together, shopped together, etc. but as soon as an imaginary line changed their friendship came to an end.
Now, when someone _willingly_ leaves Mormonism, it's often the case that their family shuns them, mistreats them, and otherwise reacts in fear and loathing, because it both signals to the intense social group that the family has failed to stay Mormon together and is a threat that makes people wonder why someone might leave. Source: personal experience, spouse experience, observed experience, reddit's mormon and exmormon subreddits.
When I left Mormonism, as a courtesy I let people know in a social media post. I received about 500 personal messages from people I knew. 90% were vilifying -- my own mother calling me "so smart it made me stupid", a uniquely East Texan insult I've come to learn -- 9% were interested, of which 8 out of 10 of those people eventually left themselves and with their families.
At the funeral I mentioned earlier, I was effectively a persona non grata. That's okay. I wasn't there for me. I was there to remember and honor a sweet man, one of the few who reached out then and later with compassion and tolerance despite not agreeing with my choice.
I believe there are a few other high-demand religions with similar institutional failings preventing freedom of thought and association, but I'll not call those out here, simply note that this isn't a unique phenomenon to Mormonism nor is it ubiquitous to religion generally.
"My friend Ashley was in charge of organizing the event and asked if I’d speak knowing that I had my name removed from the church rolls earlier this year."
An additional nuance is that I've often seen "lapsed" used as a self description of people who are somewhat regretful about no longer practicing their faith.
Whether as a self description or used by others, it generally carries a connotation that having left the faith is a negative thing.
Just because they disagree at least partially with me doesn't mean they agree completely with each other.
GP seems to be making an argument for linguistic neutrality, that any term that means something is as good as any other term that means the same thing. The reply I linked expands on how the term "lapsed" is used, which shows that there are subtle differences in what it communicates...
You're not indicating what you think the problem is. It's frustrating for other people seeking to communicate with you. You're not even indicating what part of those sources that you believe supports your view-- which as far as I can tell they don't.
"Lapsed" in my experience has a friendlier connotation than most other words we would to describe someone who no longer practices a religion.
Here we have someone who has not just stopped attending the church, but has chose to speak at events for others leaving the church, and took action to have her name removed from the rolls, etc.
So while some use "lapsed" to say "no longer actively practicing," and others reserve it for "having deliberately left"-- the nuances are immaterial. She fit all of these labels.
It might have been better to just say that directly... it would have saved everyone some time and energy, including you.
Unfortunately, we don't have an adjective for someone who is deliberately opposed to a religion in English that doesn't have an extremely negative connotation.
I'd agree that "former mormon" would be a better descriptor. However, "lapsed" does not seem technically incorrect to me, even though it may be more nuanced, and could possibly lead to an incorrect idea of the situation.
I'm not even objecting to it. I just was asking for context around the use of that term. I've found sufficient context. It's a combination of the fact that most people don't see a (big) distinction between lapsed mormon and other terms like ex-mormon and there being previous articles using the term lapsed mormon about her.
But yes, that is precisely why I don't use that term for myself. I didn't just drift away from the church, at first. Later on I drifted away from the lifestyle, but that was after I stopped going to church, and I stopped going to church because even after asking clergy and my family I couldn't resolve issues with my faith.
I think you might just have to accept that when a lot of people use the term "lapsed mormon," they are using it as a synonym for "former mormon" and that challenging the terminology isn't really very productive.
I find the distinction interesting as someone who spent time around many Mormons and former Mormons. I knew some who rejected everything and said they were ex mormon, there were a couple who said they were no longer practicing Mormons, and others described themselves as raised mormon, or previously mormon. There were a few who were 'no longer tithing' but there was some nuance to that declaration that I think I missed as an outsider.
I don't doubt that analyzing the distinction is interesting, but it seems pointless to object to common usage by asking justifying sources to be cited.
This is a catchy trope designed to shut people down. I've seen it a handful of times in these types of conversations.
The statement itself is riddled with irony if you consider it. The statement is meant to criticize a sense of entitlement. The rub is that the person saying it believes (or is unwittingly misrepresenting themself) that they're entitled to speak authoritatively into someone elses life about what they "need" or are "owed".
What you're doing feels like breaking the fourth wall. It's like when people commented on Paul Graham's use of the phrase "it turns out". https://jsomers.net/blog/it-turns-out
If anyone is at the end of their rope, feel free to email me. I do emotional philosophy and would be happy to help if you've exhausted all other options.
Sounds like a synonym for untrained unlicensed psychotherapy.
If you read around the malpractice that happens with regulated therapists that have oversight and reporting requirements, you will be deeply sceptical about the absolute weapons that sell themselves as "coaches" and such. It's a great way for scammer to access incredibly vulnerable people and create exploitative relationships. Please seek help through reputable medically endorsed regulated providers.
I'd be way more popular if I were a scammer. Scammers tell people what they want to hear. I'm the worst person in the world at that. I really am just trying to help people failed by the medically endorsed regulated providers. If you're curious about my book, I can email you a copy. It's basically cut down to the length of a long blog post by now (just under 10k words). I'd appreciate a skeptical eye.
It's any philosophy that describes emotion. Mine in particular describes emotions as arguments. If you're still curious, contact me through my profile here and I will send you a copy of my book.
Thank you for putting this out there. I do a thursday zoom "TED talk" on the topic of mental health, and when I read an article like this it makes me feel like I missed someone. My biggest goal is to give people tools so they do not get to the point where everything seems so dark that escape is the only option.
#1 tool is gratitude-and then action to show it.
Generally it's low. I say the "exhausted other options" bit because the personality archetype prevalent in tech will generally view the institutional approach as the ultimate method (which is just fine, please get help where you need it). The problem is if that doesn't work, they don't see other options as viable. To them, suggesting philosophy is like suggesting herbal tea after the strongest antibiotic failed. In a sense that's right, but there are problems that herbal tea solves that antibiotics do not.
I’m sad to say that I had never heard of her, but it sounds like she was influential and made her mark and had a way with words. One thing that struck me is how she was suffering from depression for years and committed suicide, leaving her partner and children behind. I’ve only met one other person who was facing this kind of scenario and it has left me endlessly questioning how they could do this and if there is a known etiology that could lead to such decisions like this, such as the much talked about and popularized parasitic fungus that hijacks insect brains and causes them to kill themselves.
I've dealt with many folks like this. Some have found treatment and support, and others have Gone And Done It.
When we reach that point, it's pretty much impossible to escape the singularity of self-centeredness, and we sometimes delude ourselves into thinking that "we're doing them a favor, because they are better off without us."
I have never encountered anyone close to someone that has killed themselves, that has ever thought they were "better off" without their friend/partner/parent/child.
It's completely devastating, and often triggers a corrosion of families and communities.
My heart breaks for her, and for those she left behind.
I can only imagine that struggling daily, the burden feels overwhelming. We're an evolved, tuned and balanced creature and out-of-kilter can be tough to regain composure. Especially when alcoholism is in the mix, people in this situation can become somewhat distanced from family (and children) and feel they are a risk/weight? It is a rough combination, and it's unlikely to be abrupt but something that builds over years. An in-law took her life late last year, leaving her young children behind with her estranged partner and family. In the years prior, it felt very difficult to support or address a combination of alcohol and depression.
Imagine how must pain they must be in to act in this way, to dismiss or not realize how much harm they will cause.
Imagine how much pain they must be in to demonstrate such extreme selfishness. To behave in a way that seems so out of character, so different from how they'd treated their loved ones prior to that act.
And consider how selfless they must have been to have held off as long as they did. To have endured the immense pain and struggled to resist the escape of suicide, until that time when they were finally overcome and capitulated.
Beautifully put. To add to that, they need to win against the darkness every time. The darkness only needs to win once.
I lost my brother in law to suicide. He left behind three young children and the harm he caused to his family is immense. He was also one of the more motivated men I have met and a devoted father. For this to make any sense I either have to conceive of a completely altered state of mind, or a pain and struggle that I can't imagine.
Hi. This is a common but incorrect opinion, so you're going to get down voted. You are using your frame of reference to imagine how somebody with severe mental health difficulties was thinking at the worst time of their life. Empathy is trying to understand the feelings of another based on their life situation and who they are, not your own.
Another way to look at this is that their brains are so broken chemically that they actually believe the world, including their family, is better off without them.
I just want to underscore your response to the parent.
For most of my life I've prided myself on my psychological resilience. But a while back I experienced a brief period where all the mindfulness, CBT, journaling, exercise, therapy, what-have-you were powerless to combat what was going on in my head. I got lucky and eventually it seemed to just pass. Who knows if it will rear its head again.
The whole episode increased my empathy for people like Heather.
I guess there could be multiple things going on then, one is irrationality (like what you mentioned) and the other is self-centered behavior. I am guessing it could also result from loneliness or not having good relationships with people.
Nobody disputes that they have a troubled mind and are feeling various forms of depression or pain, but that doesn’t necessitate ending their life.
Just more broadly speaking, any animal that opts to kill itself has a severe mental issue. It just doesn’t make sense from an evolutionary psychology point of view. The priority should be in seeking treatment. But I don’t expect irrational/self-centered/depressed people to all reach this conclusion.
Edit: I also personally have had a very troubled mind from time to time. I was diagnosed with bipolar in 2009, but went off meds on my own will a couple years after (not sure whether it was an accurate diagnosis). I now am happily married and expecting our first child. But I can relate a bit to these sorts of feelings.
In the end your mind is just your mind, thoughts are just in your head, and you can have a happier life once you realize this. You don’t have to identify with what goes on in your head. It’s like a radio channel that won’t turn off but you don’t have to give too much importance to negativity.
You are confused about depression. They are suffering and they want it to end. Would you be this judgemental if someone was experiencing continual, debilitating gut pain day in and day out for years where nothing worked to relieve it?
After about 24 hours of serious pain everyone is thinking suicide. Your existence becomes pain. No fun projects, no relationships, no hobbies, nothing but pain and pain management. Everything else sinks below the surface and disappears.
