Last Thursday, The Atlantic published an essay of mine called “How I Talk to My Daughter About Climate Change.” It was about, well, exactly that, but it was also about how parents talk to their kids about all kinds of scary things—from climate change to terrorism to our current global politics. I hoped it made some points that would be new to people, but I didn’t see it as particularly provocative or controversial, especially because at its core, it was about something almost every parent faces.
So I was surprised to discover, later that day, a post on the right-wing site The Daily Caller headlined “Science Journalist Considered Not Having Children Due to Climate Change.” (I won’t link to it here, but it’s easy to find.)
Gabrielle Okun, the site’s “Wacky/Offbeat/Strange News Reporter,” apparently thought my essay had buried the lead. To her, the news was my almost offhand comment that I had thought about climate change when deciding whether or not to become a parent. Here’s how Okun’s post starts:
A science journalist considered not having children because of climate change, according to an essay she wrote for The Atlantic Thursday.
Michelle Nijhuis, an environmental journalist and a current project editor for The Atlantic, claimed that she debated whether or not to have a child with her husband since parenting in the wake of climate change is a “carbon-intensive activity.”
The post goes on to say that I had lived “‘off the grid’ in rural Colorado in a low-carbon environment due to fearing worsening global climate forecasts” and that I had written “previous articles regarding climate change for The Atlantic.”
These revelations prompted more than 100 comments from readers. A representative sampling:
“This is why parody and satire are becoming impossible. It’s just too difficult to imagine anything more absurd than people who think like this.”
“I am 100% for HER DNA not being carried forward.”
“Don’t worry, my wife and I made extras to make up for liberal infertility.”
“She is a brain dead fool.”
“Thanks for sharing. You self centered, self important and poor excuse for a human.”
“I bet she wears hair shirts and has a barbed wire crucifix up her snatch too.”
I’m well aware that some people doubt that climate change is caused by humans, and that some don’t think it’s happening at all. (I hear from them a lot, and they’re rarely polite.) I’m also aware that some people might think living in a house with solar panels is a bit odd—though in my experience, support for saving energy crosses political lines. Because of what I do and where I live, I often meet people with views and life experiences very different from mine; like everyone else, I spend some of my time in a bubble of my own making, but I have daily opportunities to pop it.
I’m also no stranger to having ugly language directed at me, or at distorted representations of me: I’m a woman, and I express my opinions on the Internet. And I know that others—women, men, even kids—have been much more seriously dragged, dehumanized, and threatened online than I have.
The Daily Caller post was disconcerting because to me, it read like an article from The Onion: “Science Journalist Has Complete Thought About Procreation.” This is news? (“I can’t wait for the followup coverage,” my friend Emma said. “‘Science Journalist Plans Camping Trip.’ ‘Science Journalist Selects Bagel for Lunch.'” )
What I’d considered to be perfectly ordinary—or at best mildly interesting—thoughts and actions had been enclosed in scare quotes and tossed to the commenters, who reacted right on cue. Instead of the real person who wrote the original essay, a person with complicated feelings and concerns much like their own, “Michelle Nijhuis” became a stock villain (a science journalist! a climate communicator!)—and the crowd roared for her downfall.
It’s a cliché that in this country, we’ve come to disagree about the nature of truth, and it follows that we disagree about the nature of news. What I didn’t quite realize, until the commenters at the The Daily Caller showed me, was just how deeply these disagreements—and the media practices that exploit them—affect how we see one another. To some people, it seems, the bare facts about my most basic life choices aren’t just unfamiliar, or puzzling, or even upsetting; they’re revolting. And revulsion isn’t something I know how to overcome.
Top photo: “Good Sized Eggs,” by Flickr user Mark Robinson. Creative Commons.
I watch the reactions in these fora about things like climate change, and I’m reminded of the Kübler-Ross model, and we have progressed from denial to anger. I’m curious what the bargaining and depression phases are going to look like.
Interesting, Brett – seems like the online outrage machine traps some people in the anger stage, keeping them from progressing to acceptance. Or maybe it’s just that those in the anger stage are more likely to comment!
Just wanted to say that you are a wonderful writer, the Atlantic piece was excellent, and I’m sorry this happened to you. For the fiftieth time today (and it’s literally 8:21 am), I am left to wonder, what’s wrong with people? Keep doing what you do.
Huh. You mean to tell me there are parents and prospective parents who DON’T consider what kind of world they are bringing children into? I learn something new everyday. My kids are almost 30, I wondered if I should bring children into the world then. Glad I did, but worth thinking about.
The commenters couldn’t decide whether to be happy that I’d thought about not reproducing, angry that I had reproduced, or appalled that I had factored climate into my decision. There did seem to be something offensive about any kind of long-term thinking re: reproduction — maybe they were triggered by the idea of a woman having that much choice?
You have my sympathy! Some of these responses are indicative of the writer’s level of intelligence, or more directly, the lack thereof. I have come to the conclusion that “civilization” and natural selection work in opposition to each other. Our so called “civilization” has resulted in a flourishment of morons.
Try not to take their comments personally: their words reveal them to be they are. They simply cannot respond to you with any intelligent argument.
good grief. Some People are so quick to criticize. poor things.
This reaction just sounds like a bunch of paid trolls to me. What person of their world view persuasion would read an article in the Atlantic anyway? I’m pretty sure they were directed there by $$ to write whatever nonsense they could come up with, and since they practice their craft every day across a wide swath of media that would not have been a difficult task.