>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin with an update of the tragic events in san bernardino, california, and we talk to esmée deprez of bloomberg news. >> i.s.i.s. has recently been focused on having people carry -- you know, having american recruits carry out attacks in the place they're living, in america, rather than traveling to syria and become radicalized and join the fight over there. so this threat of i.s.i.s.-directed attacks at home, i think the fear of that is growing with every bit of new information we learned today. >> rose: we continue this evening with a look at the cartoons of the "new yorker" magazine. there is a new documentary called "very semi-serious," directed by leah wolchok. it stars bob mankoff, david remnick and emily flake of the

"new yorker." >> i found that there is something special about the way that these cartoonist minds work that help them see the world in a different way and helps us as lovers of the cartoons see the world in a different way, and the only place they can publish their work is the "new yorker." >> we continue with a conversation with gloria steinem, her new book is called "my life on the road." >> the systems in which we call them patriarchal or whatever in which reproduction must be controlled and often doubly controlled in order to maintain racial separation or to maintain a particular religion, they control the body, they must control the bodies of women, and that means that, in our earliest years, we see a system in which it is assumed that one group is born to dominate the other, and

often this involves, since it's hard to dominate another adult, it often involves violence and it normalizes violence in other cases. it is the root cause of violence. we've always known this in smaller, older societies that the more polarized the gender roles, the more violent the society. >> rose: san bernardino, the cartoons of the "new yorker" and gloria steinem, when we continue. >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications

from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: there are growing links to this week's mass shooting in san bernardino. sayed farook was in communication with people in united states and abroad who have links of terrorism. his wife supposedly pledged allegiance to i.s.i.s. leader on facebook prior to the attacks. searchers at the suspects' home included bombmaking equipment, a dozen pipe bombs and thousands of rounds of ammunition. joining me from santa barbara is esmeé deprez of bloomberg news. thank you for doing this. let me me begin with what we know that's new. update us on what has happened in the last 18 hours. >> so the big news this morning is that facebook posting in which tashfeen malik, that's the young mother that's part of the couple of attackers, she apparently pledged allegiance

toll i.s.i.s. in the facebook post, as you mentioned. that's important because it jars a distinction that this could be i.s.i.s. inspired. federal officials are not saying whether this was i.s.i.s. directed and that's a distinction here, but they are concerned about the threat of homegrown terrorism and that's the concern with this facebook post and what it tells us. the couple deleted some of their online presence before carrying out the attack and that would indicate this was, again, premeditated. we talked a lot in the past about how others things noted this was premeditated. the big arsenal and cache of weapons they had at their home. officials are still probing into that. >> rose: some people are asking the question did they have a series of attacks they wanted to make and that something happened at the party and, therefore, they decided to pursue that and later go on to do other attacks? what's the thinking about their planning?

>> that's still, i think, an open question here. they certainly had enough ammunition and weapons to carry out multiple attacks and, you know, to have the mass atrocities of the shooting be much worse had they been able to continue carrying them out. that's the fear here. we still don't know whether they were planning, whether that holiday party, perhaps the dispute was kind to have the tipping point -- kind of the tipping point for the shooting. woe just don't know yet. >> do we know whether he was radicalized in part by his wife but certainly when he went to saudi arabia? >> he went to saudi arabia to pick her up after they met on an online dating site and came back and they lived here in southern california and that's where he tbriew up as well. we do know the f.b.i. didn't have him on any kind of terror watch list. they didn't have a record of him. they hadn't interviewed him. we do know he was in contact, we believe, with people who were on that list, so whether that

means -- you know, it's still too hard to draw too many conclusions from what that means, but he may have been in contact with these people that the f.b.i. did know about and that's, again, the concern about homegrown terrorism. i.s.i.s. has been recently focused on having people -- you know, having american recruits carry out attacks in their place -- where they're living, america, instead of traveling to syria to become radicalized and joining the fight over there. so this threat of i.s.i.s.-directed attacks at home, i think the fear is growing with every bit of new information we learned today. >> rose: what exactly did she say on facebook? >> i don't think that they've actually released the actual facebook post. i have not seen texts from that facebook post. it was deleted. that's why the media didn't have its hands on it before now. the couple had deleted their online presence in the days leading up to the attack. so somehow the f.b.i. was able

to uncover this pledge, but i actually don't have the actual wording. i don't know that anybody does at this point publicly. >> rose: have authorities released any information about anyone who may have noticed their growing radicalization? >> not that i am aware of. we did hear from the leader of mosque where mr. farook was a member. he's granted interviews to the media since we last spoke, talked about, you know, mr. farook was a quiet man, didn't really make a lot of noise. he was extremely devoted to his faith. he did go to the mosque two times a day, usually every day, he said, so we're learning more about that. we're also learning about mr. farook's childhood. he was born in illinois, grew up in southern california. his father was known to be prone to alcohol abuse and physical abuse. we're learning more about the childhood. >> rose: what do we know about

when they took their child to the their mother, the grandmother of the child? >> we don't know more about that. the police chief in san bernardino didn't know where the child was at the moment. the family is cooperating with law enforcement. they did retain a lawyer as well. so, you know, i would think they would be hearing perhaps more from them soon. but we don't actually know where that child is right now, just it got dropped off with its grandmother and perhaps still with her. >> rose: esmeé deprez, thank you so much. >> thanks, charlie. >> rose: esmeé deprez of bloomberg news. back in a moment. stay with us. >> rose: cartoons make the strange familiar or the familiar strange sew says "new yorker" cartoon editor bob mankoff in a new documentary called "very semi-serious." it takes a look at the

magazine's cartoon department. the "guardian" called it insightful and very funny. here's the trailer for "very semi-serious." >> the "new yorker" isn't the bedrock, it's the evert. >> people want the truth. this is a grain of truth. >> i've opened this up. all you have to do is call and say you want to see my cartoon. >> how are you? fine. i think his brain works in a different way. you see connections other people don't see. >> a lot of the jokes you get in are sort of lampooning the sort of person who reads the "new yorker." it's a society that takes itself very seriously so it's begging nofor it. >> i like the idea but not this idea particularly. >> when you see it, it's wow -- >> rose: joining me is director and roader leah wolchok along with the stars of the documentary, new york cartoon editor bob mankoff, "new yorker" editor david remnick and "new

yorker" cartoonist emily flake. pleased to have them here. do you like the movie? >> i love it! leah did a fantastic job. she started showing up at our office with funding from kickstarter. >> rose: you raised the money yourself? >> i thought, student production, but what the hell, let's be nice. azing, touching, hilariousis film. it's the damnest thing. >> rose: how did you do it? it took a long time to do it, actually. i showed up at bob's office about nine years ago and said, hey, bob, i just graduated from film school. i want to make a film about the new yorker cartoon department. and he was like -- >> rose --no. >> rose: he said, i have been waiting for you. >> come back in nine years. hello, makeup? (laughter) >> rose: so what did he say? he said, who are you?

who do you think you are to just waltz in here fresh out of film school and make a film about the "new yorker" magazine and our cartoon department. do you know who we are? i said, yes, and i'm not gonna -- >> leah was interested in the caption contest and that was her entreée and the "new yorker" was a little more than the caption contest. it took that time because over those years i think leah got to know "new yorker," the "new yorker" cartoonists just as well as about anybody. >> and the cast of characters is amazing. >> reporter: made for a documentary. >> yeah, all these different creative spirits and intelligences and radically different personalities. >> rose: and looks. oh, my gosh... well, we're not lookists here at the "new yorker." (laughter) and, you know, emily is spectacular and there are young and old cartoonists there, too,

the senior generation that have been around for a while, and then this younger cast which bob and i have been working really hard to bring emily in, because it's a hard thing to rotate who's there you only get 15, 20 shots a week at cartoons, and everybody wants to be in every week, naturally. it's a tough way to make a living. the cast of new and young cartoonists, some have been around for a while and i can't believe some just waltzed in. it's astonishing. to see it in the film, some of these people, i barely know, i barely see them. great to see you. (laughter) >> rose: did you have to go to his office and say, guess what? they want to make a movie about us? >> in different ways and languages. (laughter) >> well, the "new yorker" opened up over time to a lot of these

things that maybe at one time really it would have been closed to. i think we had an interesting story to tell which i think it's the only place that does humor that has an intergenerational range or people who are in their '80s, like george and sam, and people in their 20s, and people in every single decade. so in terms of that type of diversity, it's really unusual, and i think it speaks to a really quite large constituency. >> rose: what story did you want to tell? >> well, that was part of the problem, because there were so many stories that i could tell. i mean, here's the thing -- it doesn't have an inherent plot. i'm telling the story about an institution. so am i focusing on the history of the cartoons, the personalities of the cartoonists? but once i started meeting the cartoonists, i realized i wanted to tell the story of how this art form persisted throughout the generations and how there could be 20-year-olds in this

day and age still want to cartoon for a magazine that's been around since 1925. >> rose: and what did you find? >> i found there is something special about the way these cartoonists' minds work that help them see the world in a different way and help us as lovers of the cartoons see the world in a different way, and the only place left that they can publish their work is the "new yorker." >> that's the tough thing. the tough thing is that, 75 years ago, there were a whole lot of magazines in america that published tar cartoons. somebody like emily, if x piece was rejected in the saturday "sy evening post," she would take it to some magazine or another and you would be able to make your way more easily. there is a real responsibility to this form that we value so much and with really very rare exceptions the only place to go. there are political cartoons in newspapers and web sites of a certain kind, but this kind of form, this particular form, it's really the "new yorker." >> rose: does it include the

cover? >> the cover is a different operation, and it's a different -- their language is not involved. here, the explosive thing is the combination of the language and the drawing on the cover where francois is the editor. george covers any number of cartoons. there you don't have a caption. so it's an entirely different -- there is something so touching in the film where i think matt is talking about all different kind of artists. if you're a rock musician, you need a $5,000 telecaster, amps and all this apparatus. for this, you need a pencil and maybe a piece of paper. >> just a hard surface. you work essentially with a sensual, piece of paper. >> yeah. i'm working with stone and a chisel. >> rose: why did you want to be a cartoonist? >> you know, honestly, when i was 5, my father brought home

books of edward gory and gang wilson and i remember looking closely at that and saying whatever this is, i want this. they didn't take the "new yorker" but they brought home books every now and again and, yeah, it was sort of engrained in me. >> rose: from 5 on, you wanted to be a cartoonist? >> yeah, i had my path laid out for me. the long road (laughter) >> rose: but fun. yeah. er. >> w have a cartoonist benschwar to be a cartoonist. >> rose: four years of medical school, two years as an internist, four or five years as

a resident. >> and made the right decision. happy. >> rose: we have worked very hard on this. the first clip is david talking about the origins of cartoons at the new yorker. >> the the "new yorker" began as a comic weekly. the cartoons or the drawings, they're called, that was right there from the very first issue in february of 1925. so, on one hand, it was originally art in the magazine. there were no photographs in this magazine with some tiny exceptions, until the early 90s. i knew they were to provide delight, they were to provide the spirit of the magazine.

>> rose: is this a solitaire decision as to what goes in the magazine? do you look at the magazine and say i have 15 slots, show me your best 30 and i'll pick them up? >> bob will say yes but the answer is no. (laughter) emily and a lot of other cartoonists will typically send in five, ten or more of what's called rough drawings, and they send them in any which way, email, fax, however they're sending them, envelope, and bob and his assistant cull through these runs of roughs and bring it down to, i don't know, 50-some weeks, maybe a little bit more, and then we meet mid week, typically on a wednesday, and we get about 15. we want to get a sense to make sure we're getting enough diverse topics, that we're getting a lot of voices in, do we have too many of so and so,

have we not had enough of so and so. there are a lot of considerations going on and, at the same time, we want to make sure that what's in the "new yorker" in the future that isn't there now happens. you know, we have a lot of everybody writing for the "new yorker." cartoonists are a very small bunch of people, and we need to make the group more diverse, and bob has a program emily teaches at the school of visual arts to do so. that's very important. that's obviously not the subjects of the typical weekly meeting but it's something we think about because we want to widen the range of voices in the magazine and cartooning just as we've done on the cover and in fiction and nonfiction. >> rose: cartoons can do what other forms of media can't do? >> well, whatever they do, they do really quickly, okay? when you look at a cartoon, nobody says, hey, i'm going to get back to this.

like an article. don't pile up on somebody's night stand. it immediately makes the point and brings together, you know, these different frames of references. it can deal with all sorts of things. after 9/11, it was able to deal with that, after a week's break. everyone said, irony is dead and we're not going to laugh anymore. the cartoon was a woman who looked at a guy with a garish jacket and said, i thought i'd never laugh again till i saw that jacket. so they were saying we'll laugh again. they're not standing up and shouting, they're a unique form. when people talk about it in the film, you need a certain mind to make it happen and make it happen ten to fifteen times a week for us to select from.

>> rose: this is you talking at an open-pitch meeting for cartoon submissions. >> hey, bob, how are you? . ow are you? good, how are you? this is the picasso joke. my eyes are over here. >> i lost so much weight i have him for summer interns. great. >> sumos. giant s'mores with diapers on. >> so crazy. is this a cat? >> it's a cat in a suit. a cat in a suit. (laughter) >> rose: so when you set out, did you know you would find so much humor, so much fun, some people seem to have a very good time? >> that i knew right away because as soon as i went to the "new yorker" festival and saw the cartoonist and they had so much fun together, i knew that. what i was surprised about was

how they use humor to cope with what's going on in their lives and around the world. >> rose: cartoonists or the readers? >> cartoonists and we all do that, too but that's what i ended up making the film about, really, is about the way that we use humor to cope and -- >> a product assessment? yeah! emily talks about that. why do you become a cartoonest unless you see the world differently and why do you see it differently if maybe early on it treated you differently. >> rose: this is right on point. roll this clip. >> i would have teased me, too, if i had been in a position to do such a thing. i think getting teased as a kid is almost a prerequisite for becoming a cartoonist. you have to have a reason to look at the world differently because if you don't, there's no reason -- there's no reason to do it unless you're forced into it. i think you need that kind of

struggle. >> i mean, there is also this story of you, leah, the idea that you're right out of film school, and you go make a film. and to go to the funding that you went to and the confidence that you must have had for you to do this. get out of film school and look for a job where they can learn the craft. >> i have a job, too. when you're an independent film documentary maker you are doing so many things and pursuing your passion project on the side. >> rose: this is your passion project. >> this is my passion projects. the idea sells itself because who doesn't want to see a documentary. >> rose: you said let's make it so you didn't have to go to kick start? >> i don't know, maybe... (laughter) >> rose: what was the toughest

part for you? >> the toughest part of making the movie, i think, was how much my life changed as i was making the movie because it took so long in the chapter of my life. i had two kids over the course of making the film, so i think learning -- really learning to stay present as mom and be a filmmaker. i was working on the film after i went to bed at night, in between there are nannies and schools and the most challenging part was to try to incorporate my life and be an independent filmmaker. >> charlie, the film is very funny, and thanks to the cartoonists and bob and leah, but it's all very human. all these people are going through and dealing with something. bob had a very difficult loss in his family, as this film was being made, which becomes part

of the film. i credit both of you for making part of it. when i saw the film, i thought it would be a can of yucks about our weekly meeting and the cartoonists come off as characters and so on. it's so much more deep around humane. >> rose: because they got into the lives of the characters. >> so here's the thing -- a non-fiction book can be okay when the writer/reporter sticks around for a while. when the writer then stays the next week and the next week and the next year and the people start to change and the pat answers they had for everything starts to evolve into what they really think and how they really live and who they really are, we get another dimension of writing, and the same thing is clearly going on in documentary filmmaking whether wiseman or someone else and it's amazing to watch. >> rose: did you actually

say -- >> the junk that comes out of my mouth... (laughter) >> rose: i was looking for the line that you say is never clear to you -- what was the line? (laughter) >> the cartoon, i did in 1993 with -- which is a guy looking at his address book saying how about never? is never good for you? the line how about never, is never good for you is now on t-shirts and thongs. (laughter) >> in very little writing. (laughter) >> rose: how about never, never good for you? >> i have a copyright, so anytime you use it -- >> no kidding, title of his autobiography. which can be purchased, i believe, and the song. >> rose: how about never? is never good for you?

>> will you get it right, charlie i. >> rose: (laughter) >> rose: so is there another famous line that's come out of your mouth? >> well, i think a lot of us actually, you know, say lines that come from our lives. i mean, i did once a cartoon that embodies my neurotic self, a guy in a boardroom saying i don't think we should panic now, we always make preparations to panic. my whole life is making preparations to panic. >> bob should be known in the history of cartooning as the man who created a separate genre known as the lemming cartoon. so there's one of lemmings going over a mountain and they start to fall, but then they go up and the caption is, "what lemmings believe." (laughter) >> now, interestingly, the

questions get fast tracked, so -- fact tracked. when you send them to the fact tracked, they say, you know, lemmings don't actually commit suicide. and i say to the fact trackers, shhhh! (laughter) >> rose: could the "new yorker" be the "new yorker" without cartoons? >> no, you have to admit it's a strange formula. you're reading a 10,000 word article about hillary clinton or the war in sudan, and yet while you're turning the pages and, god willing, reading very intently, your eye flashes quickly to a gag cartoon. i think -- and it's part of the rather odd mix that's part of the "new yorker" itself, but harold rosser invented a magazine which was genius because what it did by having cartoons all throughout the magazine, it made sure you went through the magazine once and not only did you read the cartoons because it's clearly the first thing everybody does,

clearly, it also gives you the first look at the magazine, how you might go about reading it, what's there. and i think if you invented it today, a magazine with no photographs on the cover, gag cartoons in the middle of long, serious pieces -- >> rose: would make it? i don't know any billionaire would buy it. >> rose: do you need a billionaire to buy snit. >> need an editorial vision and readers to love it. >> in 1972, there was no table of contents. >> it was none of the readers' business. (laughter) >> and the writers' by lines were at the end of the articles. >> rose: if you want it, search for it. is that too much to ask? we provide all the great stuff. >> by the way, not a bad thought. >> rose: are cartoons

changing? >> i can think definitely are changing when you have new generations. >> rose: new generations? new generations, new people. as it evolves, cartoons can't be all things to all people at all times, but we want it to be more things for more people at all times. >> if you were looking for humor only at the freyers club you would get one kind of joke. "saturday night live" got different kinds of jokes and voices. that comes with different aspects of humanity, youth -- >> rose: thank you. congratulations. back in a moment. stay with us. >> rose: gloria steinem is here. she is, as you know, a feminist icon, a writer, an inspiration to generations of women and men. she has led an extraordinary

life of activism and adventure and writing. "my life on the road" is her first book in more than 20 years. it reflects on her decades of traveling and championing women's rights. in 2013 she received the presidential medal of freedom from president obama. pleased to have her back at this table. welcome. >> thanks very much. >> rose: is there any award you haven't received? >> tons, i'm sure. the presidential medal of freedom depends, its honor, on the president you get it from. >> rose: and you might have been given it by another president? >> fortunately, henry hyde who probably has damaged more than women's lives than any was given a pedal of freedom. so it meant a lot to me because it came from president obama. >> rose: how do you think he's

doing? >> well, you know, i have such respect and empathy for him because he's dealing with an ultra right wing that, if they had cancer and he had the cure, they wouldn't accept it. i mean, i have never seen -- >> rose: that's a nice turn of phrase. do you believe that? >> i believe that. i think the hatred is so huge that, although it's certainly not the majority of the country at all, you know, it's maybe 20%, 30% tops, but it has a lot of influence, and i admire him because he is always trying to talk, trying to reach out, as some people would say, too much, but that's the kind of fault to have. >> rose: and some people say not enough. they do. >> i don't know... >> rose: that he did not use the office in that way in reaching out enough. >> well, that has to do with the social criticism that he's not -- >> rose: exactly.

-- a guy who drinks beer and plays poker. >> rose: play off the notion ronald reagan and tip o'neal would attend of the business day do battle all night and at the end of it have a scotch and try to talk about the world. >> they did. >> rose: oh, yeah, that's true. >> i can imagine tip o'neal doing it, but i can't imagine ronald reagan. >> rose: chris matthew wrote a book about it. >> not because he was obdurate, it was because he was always reading on his behavioral institute cards. >> rose: reagan has interesting traits. he wrote a lot of things and used to write all those speeches. you know, they weren't written by someone else. you can like them or not, but he had pride in authorship. >> you have resurrected an ancient memory that ronald reagan actually, as president of the united states, called me in paris --

>> rose: yes... as president? >> as president. my office said, the president -- i said, oh, you can make up something better than that, but it turned out to be true, and he was making calls that arguably should not have been made by a secretary in the white house and he was making them himself to ask people to do television ads about products, by-products of the space program that were important on their own. >> rose: yes... and, so, he was asking me to do one with charlton heston. >> rose: which was hard for you. >> i did do it. >> rose: because of his support of the n.r.a. -- >> no, it was terrible. i called jesse jackson and i said what should we do? he said, no, people like us should really do this. >> rose: so ronald reagan reached out to gloria steinem? >> right. and i kept trying to make him laugh on the phone about how unlikely this is, and i could not. he had a script and was telling

me about this fellow who made western movies, you will love him, things like that. it was a surreal experience. >> rose: how long did the conversation last, four or five minutes? >> more than that, probably. but it was a minor thing that the people in control were doing policy and he was making trivial phone calls -- >> rose: but you're an important person so it's natural -- >> no, he was making all the phone calls. >> rose: i know he was making them all. but to call you, first of all, you're an important person, but secondly you say the purpose was legitimate. >> yes, legitimate but extremely minor. >> rose: yes, in the scheme of things. let me talk about foreign policy, i.s.i.s. what happened in california. nsidering foreign policy in ae silo, and the various other

movements also in silos. so what we are not recognizing is that demonstrably, in a wonderful book called "sex and world peace," but, you know, demonstrably in a couple hundred current countries, the biggest indicator of whether the country will be violent inside itself or whether it will be willing to use military violence against another country is actually not poverty, not access to natural resources, not religion or even degree of democracy, it's violence against females. and that is absolutely demonstrated -- >> rose: the larger the level of violence against females, the more likely the country is -- >> to be violent in every other way, yeah. because not that females are more important than males, no, but that the systems in which -- we call them patriarchal or

whatever, in which reproduction must be controlled and often doubly controlled in order to maintain racial separation or to maintain a particular religion, they control the body, they must control the bodies of women, and that means that, in our earliest years, we see a system in which it is assumed that one group is born to dominate the other and, often, this involves, since it's hard to dominate another adult, it also involves violence, and it normalizes violence in other cases. it is the root cause of violence. we've always known this in smaller, older societies, that the more polarized the gender roles, the more violent the society. >> rose: where are the gender roles least polarized? >> in the native american

cultures, in africa, in the original dali of india. >> rose: gender conflict in the oldest cultures. >> yes. in fact, their languages by and large don't even have he and she as gendered pronounce. people are people. >> rose: give me those countries. >> the qua and the sun who are the relatives of all of us, the native american, the cherokee, for instance, in this country, their language does not have mee and she nor a word from nature because we're not separate from nature. so in the original cultures in which reproduction was naturally controlled by women because it's our health concern, it's our bodies and so on, there were somewhat gender-assigned tasks, like women might be in charge of agriculture and women might hunt, so they were regarded as

equal, so we did not start with division. we saw other people as -- the paradigm was a circle, not a pyramid, and we saw human beings as linked rather than ranked. >> rose: if you had to make one last speech and the subject was, look how far we've come, and look how far we have to go, what would you say? >> well, to the first question, how far we've come, i would say we know we're not crazy, we know the system is crazy. this is big. >> rose: yes, also. -- yes, it is. (laughter) >> and to how far we have to go, i'd say we have a long way to go because we need to stop dividing

each other up by labels. >> rose: the culture generally or women? >> no, the culture generally, you know, that you and i share more as human beings than separates us because of sex or gender, way more. >> rose: yes. way more. >> rose: yeah. >. all right, so why do we focus so much on these adjectives used to divide us by gender, race, class, by caste in india. it's all about controlling reproduction in order to create and control and continue these hierarchical systems. >> rose: the answer as to why do we do this, it is to continue the hierarchical system? >> yes, right. and you can see when some started. that is, there is a wonderful book called "exterminate all the roots" which is aligned from the

heart of darkness and it traces racism to justify colonialism. the whole idea of racial -- >> rose: justifies colonialism? >> in order to justify colonialism. and where did that come from? that came from -- i'm sure an historian would go crazy from my over generalization -- from the institution of patriarchal systems in europe caused overpopulation, caused colonialism to go off and invade other people's lands and so on and so on and, in order to justify that, you had to say these people are inferior, you know, you're almost doing tell me a favor, you know, they can't adapt to the future, there came to be all these theories with skull measurements and all kinds of raiseyness that proved racial inferiority that were utterly, 100% wrong. so we have to undo that, and it's not easy because, as the

old cultures will tell us, it takes four generations to heal one act of violence. >> rose: four generations to heal one act of violence? >> that's their cautionary note when they're using -- if they feel they have to be violent out of self-defense. but you're way less likely to do it capriciously if you understand that, if you normalize it in one generation, then you grow up -- you know, because we as human beings have this enormous, long period of dependency. what 80% of our brain is developed outside the mother's body in culture. >> rose: right. so the good news is we're adaptable and the species survives but the bad news is we're adaptable so we can come to believe that race, gender and hierarchy are real. >> rose: real divisions. yes, real divisions and we

need to conquer nature when, in fact, we are part of nature. so there is a long way to go. but at least we have a vision of it and at least we understand that the way we are currently organized only accounts for maybe 5% of human history at the most. and it is not inevitable. >> rose: so where is the cutting edge of change? >> well, hopefully, at this table. >> rose: yes. we try mightily. >> it's a round table. >> rose: exactly right. and no squares are allowed. >> right. >> rose: where is the cutting edge of change? >> you know, it depends what we're actually looking at. you know, i mean, some people would say the web because it is a democratic network. >> rose: and personalized.

that skips over the divisions that we're accustomed to. >> rose: and gender is not identified. >> but we have to be cautious about the web because it is also divisive because how many people are illiterate, how many people have ledge triesty, how many -- electricity, how many people have access. it's polarizing. >> rose: on the other hand, it brings knowledge to an extraordinary -- >> an extraordinary number of people, but here's the other -- you know, it's not that it's not great. it is great, but we have to understand its limitations and, in addition to the fact that it leaves out, you know, millions upon millions of people and polarizes, to some extent. it also does not allow us to empathize with each other. we can get information from it, and this is great, and we can find each other, and this is great. but to empathize, you need to be present with all five senses like at this table. >> rose: to empathize? to empathize.

because, i mean, i asked my friendly neurologist -- >> rose: your neurologist or neuroscientist? >> well, both. >> rose: yeah. to produce oxytocin, which is the hormone that allows us to not just know but to empathize, to feel -- >> rose: the hormone's called oxytocin that allows us to empathize and feel? >> yes. >> rose: can you get that and add to somebody who is not feeling and empathetic? >> for instance, when we, male or female, hold or take care of a child, we're flooded with oxytocin, it's what allows us to bond. but it requires being present with all five senses. as much as i love books, you don't get it in the printed page, on the printed page, and you don't get it on the screen.

here's my dream -- >> rose: i want to know. we should have a satellite with -- right away, you know, with radio programs in every language that can be heard by somebody on the ground with a wind-up radio, don't etc even nd electricity. >> rose: windup computers. well, electricity, but you still need to be literate. >> rose: right. so that would be even a more democratic means of communication. it's one of my many dreams. >> rose: tell me more, ms. stei steinem, you've come te right place to share your dreams. >> all right, more. here's another one. all the people who are talking about climate change and global warming, for which i am very, very grateful -- >> rose: most are in paris as we speak. >> yes, i'm very, very

grateful -- would remember that the pressure of unwanted population is the first root to have the basis of climate change. now, unfortunately, people in the old days who used to talk about population control -- >> rose: the presence of unwanted people -- >> yeah, overpopulation. >> rose: right. oh, i see, overpopulation. >> overpopulation. people, pre the women's movement to talked about population control, unfortunately talked about it in a racist way that focused on other countries and, you know, made kind of racial assumptions, and that has given it a kind of third-rail aspect, so now we don't talk about the fact that there are, what, 8,000 more people on earth every minute or so, and there is, like, you know, hundreds of millions of women who want desperately, because it's a health concern for us, to be able to limit births but it's

suppressed by religion and culture and so on and they cannot do what, in old cultures, was understood with herbs and abortifacients and so on. >> rose: were you impressed with what this has to do with male and female, were you impressed with that mark zuckerberg has done, taking time off, paternity leave -- >> yes. no, i think that's great. >> rose: someone as prominent and young and wealthy and heroic he is to so many people who worship the god of technology? >> no, it's great because how men get to be whole people with all their human qualities is being raised to raise children or raising children. >> rose: how they become -- whole people. >> rose: give an explanation. because the qualities wrongly called feminine that are just human are empathy, attention to detail, patience, flexibility, that's what you immediate to

raise kids, and men who don't -- aren't raised in that way get to be hypermasculine, and they, in some of them -- >> rose: yes, some of them. due, seriously, some of them, because of the crime we've just seen in california, some of them create crimes that i would call supremacy crimes. they have no gain, nothing. they're not going to gain money when they're domestically violent. they're not going to gain something when they're racist cops. they're not going to gain something when they go into a theater or post office and shoot random strangers. >> rose: doesn't add anything to their value? >> no. and in a lot of cases of domestic abuse, they may kill their family and kill themselves. they are getting absolutely nothing out of it except they have become addicted to control. they are addicted to saying, you know, powerfully, i can kill

you, this is the ultimate proof of my control, and we should call them what they are, which is supremacy crimes. in this country -- >> rose: i have control of your life. >> yes, and that is hypermasculinity. they got born into this culture, they didn't make it up. >> rose: but the interesting thing is today, in san bernardino, is this is the first time they've begin to see couples. >> yes, i know, and that is the very first time because, up to now, in this country at least -- and i think in general -- the people who commit these kind of crazed crimes of killing strangers or their own families have been, like, 98% -- well, 100% male up to now, white, and not poor. they are exactly the people who are most likely, in a way, to get hooked into -- get hooked on the drug of control, that

they're not real men, they're not real people unless they control others to the degree even going against their own -- >> rose: even to violence. ight. >> rose: back to nurturing and what it does for a male -- do you regret not having children? >> no, not for a milli millisec. >> rose: no? no, but i was raised to have children and i'm glad for that and men -- >> rose: when you say not for a millisecond -- >> as a friend of mine once said, there is no more reason why everybody with a womb should have children -- >> rose: but -- wait a minute -- then why everybody with vocal chords should be an opera singer.

it is a gift and we nurture in different ways. >> rose: i understand. and it's possible in my case, and i'm not sure, but it's possible that, in my case, that because my mother and i were reversed in our roles to a certain extent that i was looking after her as a young person, and sometimes i was the parent and she was the child, that maybe, you know, that that's why i feel like i did that. i have no idea, you know. i'm really not sure. i just know i'm happy. >> rose: one of the things they say is all of a sudden you realize it's not about you. you don't have to look at child bearing to feel way. >> especially not if you're a female because you're raised with self sacrificed. if you say what movie do you want to go to, i'm raised to say, i don't know, what movie do you want to go to? >> rose: i don't know that you do, though. >> i try not to. >> rose: but isn't that empathy? i think empathy in part is to say, i'm interested in where you want to go. >> to be unable to, to feel you

shouldn't, that it's unfeminine to voice your opinion is a problem and, by and large, women need -- i mean, the golden rule was written by a very smart guy for guys, but by and large women need to reverse it and we need to treat ourselve ourselves as e treat other people. >> rose: are we doing better than that? >> yeah, we're conscious of it, that's how we know we're not crazy. it's huge. >> rose: why did it take you 18 years to write this? >> because i was doing it every summer and then going back out on the road. (laughter) and, actually, got much too long and two wonderful friends of mine, lavine and amy richards, took machetes and cut it down. >> rose: oh, you mean -- yeah, because it was too long. >> rose: it was a thousand

pages and they cut it down to 300 or something, 276? >> i don't know, but it was too long. and thanks to these days you can put what you cut out on to the web. >> rose: that's what you did? not yet. i will. >> rose: here's a picture of you. look at this. >> yeah, that's a very typical picture. (laughter) but, you know, there is the dedication. >> rose: all right, i'm going to read it. this book is dedicated to dr. john sharp of london who in 1957, a decade before physicians in england could legally perform an abortion for any reason other than the health of the woman, took the considerable risk of referring for an abortion a 22-year-old american on her way to india, knowing only that she had broken an engagement at home to seek an unknown fate, he said. you must promise me two things. first, you will not tell anyone my name. second, you will do what you want to do with your life. this is powerful.

dear dr. sharp, i believe you who knew the law was unjust would not mind if i say this, so long after your death, i've done the best i could with my life. >> right, this book is for you. >> rose: this book is for you. good for you. >> i'm gladder every day that i dedicated it that way, right. >> rose: nice to have you here. >> thank you. >> rose: gloria steinem, the book is called "my life on the road." thank you for joining us. see you next time. for more about this program and earlier episodes, visit us online at pbs.org and charlierose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

♪ narrator: every day our pets engage in behavior that's familiar to us. -it's not easy being green. -[barks] but why do hamsters love to run on a wheel? what makes a rabbit hop? how does your dog understand the rules of the pack? it's because our pets, though tame for thousands of years, were wild animals for millions more. to reconnect with that wild side, our pets play. and their games require some extraordinary senses and special skills.