Michael Moore: Q+A

The documentary-maker on capitalism, Obama and why Britain is about to get punished

This weekend, I've been watching films at Sheffield's Doc/Fest. One of the highlights so far has been Michael Moore's Capitalism: a Love Story, which Jonathan has already blogged about here. After the screening, Moore answered questions from the audience (via Skype, no less). Below are a few choice excerpts.

Your film outlines the human impact of last year's financial crash. Do you have much hope that Obama can fix these problems?

You can't expect things to change overnight and there's not time in nine months to fix catastrophes left by the Bush administration. But I don't believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus, and he might not be able to fix the problems left by Bush and Cheney.

In the UK there seemed to be more protection against the banking collapse. Why do you think the US doesn't have that protection?

For some reason as Americans we want you to be punished if you lose your job or get an illness. If you hit hard times it's at that moment that we want to be exceptionally cruel. People in America are good on an individual basis, but collectively we get angry at the world. Why do we want to punish people when they get ill? I've never really understood it.

Perhaps it's also because Americans don't know what's happening in the rest of the world. Why don't Americans travel more?

Why should we care about the rest of the world? People here aren't given a reason to care. And it's this attitude that kills creativity, kills curiosity. We don't want to know what's going on in France, Ireland, Finland; that's not surprising, really, seeing as we don't even care about ourselves.

I believe there is a basic goodness in people, but they've been made stupid. There are 44 million illiterate adults in the US. The media reinforces the stupidity and ignorance, which makes it very easy to manipulate people with fear. That's my country, anyway, I don't know how it is in the UK when you have a prime minister who tells you that Iraq could fire a missile on you within 45 minutes [laughs].

What is capitalism?

Well, I can only define it as it exists today -- the same as these days you wouldn't answer the question "What is marriage?" by saying: "Well, it's something that happens when the groom visits the bride's father to ask permission . . ." In 2009 capitalism is a system of legalised greed, organised to protect the 1 per cent who own most of the wealth.

Is the "American Dream" -- the idea that anyone can become rich if they work hard enough -- a good thing?

I think that's what it is: a dream, not a reality for most people. These days it's more of a nightmare. In the old days you could work hard and if your boss prospered, then you would prosper. Now you work hard, your boss prospers, then you get sick and you lose your job.

But there are a lot of reasons people all around the world like America. There is something about our get-up-and-go. Sometimes we're full of ideas -- sometimes they're not very good ideas, sometimes they're great. My frustration is our capacity to do so much good for the world, the fact we don't do it is criminal.

You were midway through making the film when Obama was elected president. How did that impact on the project?

Well, I can tell you how it impacted on us as a team: 4 November 2008 was one of the happiest days we've had in decades. We could not believe our fellow citizens came through and did this. There is a lot of racism around, so just the fact that people pushed through that and chose the better person, the smarter person.

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected in the 1930s, suddenly you had John Steinbeck, all this art, cinema, all these books -- we felt we were one of the first films of a new era, out of the darkness of the last 30 years. Kind of an enlightenment, that's how it feels.

I would like Roosevelt's dream of a second Bill of Rights [which would guarantee the right to a job, to education and to health care] to live on. When I say [in the film] that Europe has all these things, I don't mean you shouldn't have them. No system is perfect -- not even the NHS is perfect -- but you have at your core a belief that if someone gets sick they should be able to go to a doctor. So Obama gave us the feeling that maybe he will be the Roosevelt of the 21st century. We still have that hope, even after a year.

What practical advice would you give to everyday people who want to act on what they've seen in your film?

What you in the UK can do is stop being like us. All the consumption, the way we eat, the way we treat each other. What you've done in the UK, first during the Thatcher years, then during the Thatcher-lite years -- and especially your last prime minister -- you have copied the US and made it easier for the rich to get away with murder. You once had a system based on social democracy and you need to make sure that people still have a say.

Now you're going to have a Conservative prime minister, because people who supported Labour didn't rise up and say "enough". The UK provided a cover for Bush. Now you're going to get punished for it with a Conservative prime minister and I'm so sorry about that.

Daniel Trilling is the Editor of New Humanist magazine. He was formerly an Assistant Editor at the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

A new German law wants to force mothers to reveal their child’s biological father

The so-called “milkmen’s kids law” would seek protection for men who feel they have been duped into raising children they believe are not biologically theirs – at the expense of women’s rights.

The German press call them “Kuckuckskinder”, which translates literally as “cuckoo children” – parasite offspring being raised by an unsuspecting innocent, alien creatures growing fat at the expense of the host species’ own kind. The British press have opted for the more Benny Hill-esque “milkmen’s kids”, prompting images of bored Seventies housewives answering the door in negligées before inviting Robin Asquith lookalikes up to their suburban boudoirs. Nine months later their henpecked husbands are presented with bawling brats and the poor sods remain none the wiser.

Neither image is particularly flattering to the children involved, but then who cares about them? This is a story about men, women and the redressing of a legal – or is it biological? – injustice. The children are incidental.

This week German Justice Minister Heiko Maas introduced a proposal aimed at to providing greater legal protection for “Scheinväter” – men who are duped into raising children whom they falsely believe to be biologically theirs. This is in response to a 2015 case in which Germany’s highest court ruled that a woman who had told her ex-husband that her child may have been conceived with another man could not be compelled to name the latter. This would, the court decided, be an infringement of the woman’s right to privacy. Nonetheless, the decision was seen to highlight the need for further legislation to clarify and strengthen the position of the Scheinvater.

Maas’ proposal, announced on Monday, examines the problem carefully and sensitively before merrily throwing a woman’s right to privacy out of the window. It would compel a woman to name every man she had sexual intercourse with during the time when her child may have been conceived. She would only have the right to remain silent in cases should there be serious reasons for her not to name the biological father (it would be for the court to decide whether a woman’s reasons were serious enough). It is not yet clear what form of punishment a woman would face were she not to name names (I’m thinking a scarlet letter would be in keeping with the classy, retro “man who was present at the moment of conception” wording). In cases where it did transpire that another man was a child’s biological father, he would be obliged to pay compensation to the man “duped” into supporting the child for up to two years.

It is not clear what happens thereafter. Perhaps the two men shake hands, pat each other on the back, maybe even share a beer or two. It is, after all, a kind of gentlemen’s agreement, a transaction which takes place over the heads of both mother and child once the latter’s paternity has been established. The “true” father compensates the “false” one for having maintained his property in his absence. In some cases there may be bitterness and resentment but perhaps in others one will witness a kind of honourable partnership. You can’t trust women, but DNA tests, money and your fellow man won’t let you down.

Even if it achieves nothing else, this proposal brings us right back to the heart of what patriarchy is all about: paternity and ownership. In April this year a German court ruled that men cannot be forced to take paternity tests by children who suspect them of being their fathers. It has to be their decision. Women, meanwhile, can only access abortion on demand in the first trimester of pregnancy, and even then counselling is mandatory (thereafter the approval of two doctors is required, similar to in the UK). One class of people can be forced to gestate and give birth; another can’t even be forced to take a DNA test. One class of people can be compelled to name any man whose sperm may have ventured beyond their cervix; another is allowed to have a body whose business is entirely its own. And yes, one can argue that forcing men to pay money for the raising of children evens up the score. Men have always argued that, but they’re wrong.

Individual men (sometimes) pay for the raising of individual children because the system we call patriarchy has chosen to make fatherhood about individual ownership. Women have little choice but to go along with this as long as men exploit our labour, restrict our access to material resources and threaten us with violence. We live in a world in which it is almost universally assumed that women “owe” individual men the reassurance that it was their precious sperm that impregnated us, lest we put ourselves and our offspring at risk of poverty and isolation. Rarely do any of us dare to protest. We pretend it is a fair deal, even that reproductive differences barely affect our lives at all. But the sex binary – the fact that sperm is not egg and egg is not sperm – affects all of us.

The original 2015 ruling got it right. The male demand for reassurance regarding paternity is an infringement of a woman’s right to privacy. Moreover, it is important to see this in the context of all the other ways in which men have sought to limit women’s sexual activity, freedom of movement and financial independence in order to ensure that children are truly “theirs”.  Anxiety over paternity is fundamentally linked to anxiety over female sexuality and women’s access to public space. Yet unless all women are kept under lock and key at all times, men will never, ever have the reassurance they crave. Even then, the abstract knowledge that you are the only person to have had the opportunity to impregnate a particular woman cannot rival the physical knowledge of gestation.

We have had millennia of pandering to men’s existential anxieties and treating all matters related to human reproduction, from sex to childbirth, as exceptional cases meaning women cannot have full human rights. Isn’t it about time we tried something new? How about understanding fatherhood not as winning gold in an Olympic sperm race, but as a contract endlessly renewed?

What each of us receives when a child is born is not a biological entity to do with as we choose. It is a relationship, with all of its complexities and risks. It is something worth contributing to and fighting for. Truly, if a man cannot understand that, then any money wasted on a Kuckuckskind – a living, breathing child he could get to know – has got to be the least of his worries. 

Glosswitch is a feminist mother of three who works in publishing.