[applause] [inaudible conversations] >> for more information, visit the author's website, johnmcmillian.com. >> up next, discussing the flip side of feminism. the authors argue while women have more power, freedom, and education, they are less happy. they believe men has been miscast as obstacles on the path to equality for women and both sexes have been hurt by feminism. [applause] >> thank you very much, and ladies and gentlemen, yes, i've had an interesting and fun life, and i don't owe any of it to the

feminists. i'll tell you that. [laughter] feminism has become a very hot topic. i suppose the reason for that is sarah palin. a feminist cannot resist attacking her. it's not just because she's a republican and a conservative. it's because she's a successful woman. she has a cool husband, a lot of kids, a great career, making lots of money. she is by any standard a success, and they can't stand it, and acid in their wounds is that she's pretty too. [laughter] ..

>> in fact, they were all pro-life. that wasn't was the feminist planned at all. one the reasons i was able to beat the equal rights amendment was because they did not believe i was doing what i did. they conjured up conspiracies like the insurance companies were financing me or some other nonsense like that. now this ideology of telling young women that you are victims of an oppressive society is so unfortunate. if you wake up in the morning and believe that, you are probably not going to accomplish anything whether you are a man or a woman. and many of the real feminist, in fact, most of them, think that abortion is the litmist

test for being a feminist. one the new feminist wrote in the "washington post" a few weeks ago the definition of feminism is that we are under an oppressive pay tree your i and we have to overturn it. it's not true they are working for equality. the feminist are for empowerment by the female left. you find they are not empowering all women. they want to make an alliance with the left wing and so it's the female left that has become so powerful when it aligned itself with the obama administration. now when the feminist movement got under way, really in the late '60s, early '70s, they called themselves not feminism, they calledded themselves the

women's liberation movement. you have to ask what did they want to be liberated from? they wanted to be lip -- liberated from home, husband, family, and children. so you find they are encouraging women to be independent of men. that's why they were big supporters of divorce, and they looked upon marriage as a very confining role in life. gloria of of -- gloria steinham said when a woman gets married, she becomes not a free person. the wife and mother was living in a comfortable concentration camp. that was their attitude. the social degradation of women was really a major goal of the feminist movement. it wasn't -- they were really not using the argument it takes two incomes to support the

family. that really wasn't why they wanted to get her out of the home. they wanted to get her out of the home not for economic reasons, but for social and cultural reasons because they tried to tell women that you are just a parasite, your life is not accomplishing anything, the only way to have fulfillment is to be independent of men and have your own career. it's kind of interesting when they have a divorce, you know, while they were married, they were all time griping because the men aren't changing half of the diapers and washing half of the dishes and getting up in the middle of the night to take care of a baby. they want him to do 50/50. once they have a divorce, they think only the mother can handle it. they want sole and exclusive custody and the father just to become a visitor in their child's life, maybe twice a month. they taught young women your

only fulfillment is in the labor force, according reporting to a boss instead of a husband. and they thought that was so great they wanted to treat men -- any men, they wanted to treat men as irrelevant, unnecessary, and also anti-must cue linn. we see what they have accomplished through title 9:00. they have been on a campaign to get rid of men's sports in colleges, now they are working on the high school. there is a cultural difference between the way men wants sport and college and women. when i went to college, i went to everything to avoid the kind of sports. but the men like it. they have gotten the colleges to cancel hundreds of men's sports. but the one that annoys me the

most is they have gotten colleges to ban 450 wrestling teams. now you tell me what good that does for women. and it shows you that this campaign has nothing to do with equalizing the money that is spend on sports, because wrestling is the cheapest sport that you can have. all you need is a mat. but that's one the things that they have done. they are proud of it. and they have this idea that men and women are really the same and it's only this that's keeping them down. now it is taught in the women studies courses and maybe other sociology courses too they are really -- you know, it's kind of funny. when i started fighting the feminist movement, they are -- i seemed to be the god goods in making us two different kinds. they took it as their responsibility to correct his mistake. or should i say her mistake,

which they frequently did. now they seem to have shifted to the different theory. god got it right in the first place, and that all of these differences that we think we see are a social construct. they are built into you by your stereotype and terrible things that mothers get their girl babies dolls and boy babies trucks. a lot of what they are doing is based on the ridiculous idea there isn't any difference, physically, emotionally, culturally, sexually, or any other way between men and women. in fact, in a lot of colleges, you can't even get a grade or a major in women's studies department until you buy into that philosophy. so there's so many lies that they taught. really feminism is the fraud of the century. one the lies is that there's no difference between men and

women. that's simply not true. another lie is that the hook up culture is liberating. and they tell girls that, you know, to be equal, you've got to engage in sex and be just as pro miscue yes, sir as men are supposed to be. then they tell the girls that you have to structure your life so that you have a career. and there just isn't any space for marriage and babies. and a lot of the feminist have discovered after 40 that there was indeed a biological clock which they denied. and some of them have written very bitterly about it. one of their chief theorist,

jermaine guerrier, written bitterly about her efforts to have babies after 40. she has the medical bills to prove it. another one you see on television made very bitter comment in her book. and about how she longed for the baby she would never have. and one of these feminist, sylvia hewlett wrote a book in which she thought she had made an amazing scientific discovery that women over 40 are less fertile than women under 40. her book didn't sell very well. people didn't want to hear that. another one of the examples of the oppression of is the society expects mothers to look after the babies. this burden has to be lifted. that's why the taxpayers should be responsible for providing

taxpayer-paid day care for all children. this was a tremendous fight in 1988, '90 to try to establish federally financed and federally regulated day care for all children. nothing to do with need for it. but just as a matter, of course, to lift the burden off of women's packs. unfortunately, -- fortunate, we did beat them on that. i noticed that bernard wrote in the book about the bias of cbs. the biggest story that you will never see on cbs is what's wrong with day care. because the feminist in the network will not allow that as a story on cbs. another myth that is created is that the feminist movement has created so many opportunities

for woman. well, yeah, if you think there are a few opportunities you can get a job in a coal mine if you really want to and jobs like that. but i remind people, i worked my way through college as a gunner working the night shift in an ammunition plant and got my degree from a great university in 1944, absolutely no discrimination against me of any shape or form. i got my masters at harvard graduate school. absolutely no discrimination. i competed with all of the boys. that was 1945. my mother got her college degree from a great university in 1920. those opportunities were there. if women wanted to take advantage of them. i'll say maybe in those eras, most of my friends prefer to get married and get going having some babies. but that's a matter of individual choice. and they don't respect the individual choice. in fact, the big momma of feminist movement taught in all of the womens studies courses

the french woman that wrote "the single sex" you should not give women the choice to have a career or be a full-time homemaker. if you give them the choice, too many women will make that choice. they understood that. they didn't want them to have the choice, because they wanted it get all the women in the work force. and, of course, i guess i'm kind of known for defeating the equal rights amendment in a ten-year battle. what got me on to that, prior to that, i was writing and selling books on politics and on the strategic balance. the soviet missile threats. but anyway, i got into era because it was such a fraud. it pretended to give a benefit to woman and put women in the constitution. it didn't do that at al. i testified in 41 state legislative hearings. and the only time the other side came in and said we have a law

in our state that discriminations against women that e.r.a. will remedy was a state where they said they had a law that said that wives could not make home made wine without the husband's consent. for this, we need to mess up the constitution? they said put women in the constitution. men are in the constitution. the constitution is a beautiful sex-neutral document. it only talks about citizens and residents and we the people and electors and presidents and senators and representatives. women have every constitutional right that men have and have had since the constitution was originally ratified. it was such a fraud. what e.r.a. would have done was to make all lies sex neutral. well, the classic sex specific law with the draft registration law and which said male citizens

of age 18 must register. well, i had sons and daughters about that age then. and my daughters thought this was the craziest thing they have ever heard. you are going to give women a new constitutional amendment and we have to sign up for the draft like our brothers. that was unthinkable, we were still in the vietnam war when e.r.a. came out of congress. the whole idea of feminism is a fraud. it's worse than a fraud. because it's leading young women down a dead-end road. that's why i was so happy to have the collaboration of my niece, suzanne, who speaks to the issue from the younger generation and in a voice and words that i think appeal to the younger people. they may think i'm an old fogey. some of the people are writing about the obsolete version of marriage that some people are clinging to.

suzanne can give you the young people's view point. and i think we have provided a book that is a road map for a happy life for young women and also a warning to the guys about what you can't say now. but we hope to open up the subject of feminism so you'll be able to talk more, frankly, about some of these issues. it's the flip side of feminism, what conservative women now and men can't say. i think you'll enjoy the book when you get it. thank you very much for listening. [applause] [applause] >> hello. it is so great to see so many young ladies here. i have to tell you. because you all are the group that we are most trying to reach through this book because i truly believe that it is your age group that is getting such a bad message today.

it is often said that when something gets repeated often enough, people ultimately accept it as truth. with no other subject is this psychological phenomenon more applicable than feminism. the modern generation has absorbed the myths of feminism like a sponge. they believe essentially what they have been taught to believe. they think a feminism is someone who's strong and independent. they think feminism is what allowed women to get college degrees and pursue careers outside the home. and they also believe that feminism freed mothers from their cages. and we all have seen on -- in hollywood movies that have depicted the 1950s mother who is so despondent after the last child goes off to kindergarten. she's alone, it's dark, she doesn't know what to do with

herself. that's the image that we have of the 1950s mother. to give you evidence this is how the modern generation thinks, i thought i would read for you some comments that were made online in the last few weeks. as a result of two publications, one in in "the huffington post"d "boston university" which is my alma mater. there were several articles, q & as about feminism, and there were angry responses who were raised by baby boomers. my mother raised me not to depend on anyone but myself. my happiness depends on it. they could thank it possible for them to both have college educations. were it not for feminists, she never would have gone to college or be able to be a published

author. obviously it's okay for women to have a career, as long as the career involves putting women down and keeping them in their place, i.e., barefoot and pregnant and submissive whenever a man is pregnant. that is what i try to do in the flipside. they are right. women still after all of this time earn less money in most jobs and equally educated and equally experienced male counterparts. we are penalized for having a womb. and my favorite, feminism saved us from the horrors of the role that women were expected to play in the early half of the 20th century. anyone that denies that is just insane. so that should give you a flavor of the kind of knee-jerk responses that anyone who speaking out against feminism is going to get. that's why we say what men can't say. it's worse if a man says what we are saying.

that's definitely worse. if a woman says it, she's a trader to her sex, of course. feminism means different things to different people. but we prefer in flipside to use the definition that phyllis mentioned from jessica velente who is sort of the head honcho of the third-wave feminist movement. she provided in the washington post a working definition for feminism. she said feminism is a structural analysis of a world that oppresses women. an ideology based on the notion that it exists and needs to end. this is what it means to think like a feminist. if you believe that, if that is your world view, you are a feminist. but being a feminist does not mean being strong and independent. in fact, just the opposite since

feminism transfers dependence on a man, husband, to dependence on uncle sam. feminism is not what allowed women to get college degrees and pursue careers. we have men and technology to thank for that. and that is a completely new concept for young women. because they've never heard that before. we explain why we mean by that in "flipside." how did feminism become so thoroughly absorbed in american culture? very easy. women on the left who hold the power in this country. there is a castism between everyday american women who are right-of-the-television, and women that you see in television, movies, and academia. they are left wing. their message conflicts with the message that most young women need and want.

what are some of these myths? there's a bunch. i'm going to focus on three. the first is the wage gap. we probably -- i know i have, so i'm sure you have, heard endlessly, lately in the media, actually, about how women still don't make what men make throughout their lifetimes. they are constantly harping on this gender gap. there is a gender gap. there is a wage gap -- they use both phrases. there is a gap. there always will be. there's a good reason for it. when women become mothers, they freely choose to care for those children. that means they are going to be out of the work force for some period of time. for some people, five years, ten, 20. maybe they don't ever go back. but most women take time out to care for those children. when they do return, most of them return on a part-time

basis, often after the last child went to kindergarten. they also don't take the dangerous and unpleasant jobs that men do. you add them up. there's a reason why there's a wage job. that's not what -- that's not the message that you get from the media. the women in the media don't explain that. they just tell you women, despite all of the agains, still don't make what men make. making you think that women are discriminated against. another myth is the idea that -- phyllis said this as well -- casual sex is liberating. the more sex that you are, the freer that you are with your body is somehow meaning you own your body and it's empowering and liberating for you. it's a horrendous message. and we have copious amount of research in "flipside" that is very politically incorrect that will tell you the truth about

the horrible fallout of our -- what we call hook-up culture. we also provide in the appendix, exerts from an excellent pamphlet that dr. miriam grossman put together concerning this issue. and also phyllis mentioned the other myths that i was going to talk about. which is this idea that gender differences don't exist. there's really no difference between males and females. in a recent interview, gloria steinham was asked about her thoughts on male and female brains. there's been a lot lately in the last few weeks. which has been great. dr. louann wrote the female and male been. men and women are different. which we know. but now it's in print. steinham's response? every time there's a step

forward, there's a backlash. now there's a backlash about brain differences. even if they are right, it doesn't have to continue. what makes human species survive is adaptability. aren't there differences we cannot ignore? society certainly intervene at a cultural level to change that behavior. fortunately, just this past january, just two months ago, a dr. katherine hakeem published a report that highlights a dozen feminist myths. some of which we have mentioned, but she provides a full dozen. these myths, she said, quote, have no solid basis in social science theory, yet are wildly believed and constantly reiterated in the media.

feminism is not what people think it is. it has nothing to do with equality for women, and it has nothing to do with making women more independent, not at all. feminism is about power for the female left. it's an emotional issue. people feel very strongly about feminism. those who are able to detach from their emotions and read "the flipside of feminism" with an open mind is what feminist want is no different than what mr. obama wants, to fundamentally transform america. thanks. [applause] [applause] >> we will be glad to take questions. there are microphones in the room which we would ask you to wait for for recording purposes. and if you'd be so kind as to identify yourself and give an

affiliation if you would like that, it would be appreciated too. i could not help but any of during suzann's litany of quotes, reagan, our opponents are not necessarily ignorant, they just know so many things that aren't true. which takes a while to get around. [laughter] >> do we have any questions from the floor? surely. it's on. >> al, the media, looking back at american history, when women gained the right to vote, do you believe that feminist viewed that era differently than you do? >> is the microphone on? is it on? i don't think it's on. they claim credit for it. and they don't deserve any credit for that. it was an entirely different

movement to get women a positive benefit. i'm certainly for women voting and being active in politics. but they claim they were the foremothers or something. and there's no relation. those women were all profamily and in particular, they were anti-abortion. i don't know how the current feminist can trace any lineage to them, but i think that's all another myth. >> if i could just add to that, i think that that issue is what makes the whole conservative women movement so confusing when it comes to feminism. i think that's what causes problems is because conservative women want to hold on to that label because they do associated with the suffrage movement. one the things we do in "flipside" is to delineate. really all of our discussion about feminism is from 1960s on. and we explain why it should not be connected with the suffrage

movement. but it's that confusion that people think if they chuck the label, you must think that women shouldn't vote. the movement goes back. in fact, those two movement just aren't related. in a broad sense, they might be. but in the real sense, they are not. >> you can't believe how many times i've debated a feminist, and she's crying around is that women didn't have the right to vote. i don't know anybody who remembers that time. i mean move on. get with it. [laughter] >> another question. yes, at the back. i'm suspicious, it's only men asking questions. >> see, we told you, things they can't say. >> peter sprig with the family research council. i wanted to ask you about women in the military. i had seen a couple of articles recently. one i think just this morning

says that women that serve in the military have higher divorce rates than man who serve in the military. low and behold, there are more single mothers than there are single fathers. and a few weeks ago, there was information that there is an effort under way to expand the roles that woman can take in the military to let them be in all forms of combat roles expect for ground infantry. it's been expanding over time anyway. can you comment on, you know, what the feminist movement says and part of the reason for this, i might add is that it's presented for this in order that women have more career opportunities to advance for higher ranks. and i just wondered if you could comment on the feminist movement and what it's meant for the role of women in the military? >> yes, the feminist are

complaining there are not enough women generals and high rank. you get high rank when you face the enemy and fought for our country. i think it's a -- i think it's very wrong what's happening. in fact, i don't really have respect for men who send women out to do their fighting for them. women have an important place in the military, i have a lot of friends who served honorably in women's jobs in world war two. as far as putting them in combat, i think it's ridiculous. they simply cannot do the physical work that men can do. there's no way they can. they make the man lie about it in saying they are doing the same work. if the men don't lie about it and accept it, it's a career killer for them. i think it's very wrong, but the feminism are pushing that and always have and at the very beginning of the fight on the equal rights amendment in 1972,

their -- their document, their platform was 100 page article written by a famous professor who wrote at the yale -- in the yale law journal. and he just said as between brutalizing men and women, there is little to choose. women should be in every combat job, and that's what they have been before and the feminist have never denied it. >> another question. yes, down here in front. if i can get a microphone. >> thanks. >> i'm charlotte. now that this victim mentality is in place, what is the best way for people and young women especially to over come it. how did you refrain from feeling like a victim as you were seeing the different attacks? >> it's really difficult to stand up against this. there's no question about it.

because it does seem as though every one around you thinks one way. i have found, or i did find that really the best way is to surround yourself with people who are like minded. that really helps a great deal. but have you ever -- have you ever spoken out and said opposite of what they are telling you that they don't think women are victims? that's something to think about. if you just throw it out there and put the question back on them, it's interesting to hear how they respond as to why they think that. and often times, they don't really have a good reason for it. they are just simply passing on what someone else told them. what i do is i tell people to ask them the questions. ask them why they think that, where did they get it, what are the examples of that? and then prove them wrong with getting them to see they are wrong without telling them they are wrong. i don't know if that helps. >> well, i don't think it's

difficult at all. i think it's a lot of fun. [laughter] >> they are so wrong when betty friedan said in a debate she'd like to burn me at the stake, i thought are you trying to make me into joan joan of arc? you know, they are so wrong and so foolish and put out so much nonless. i'm not going to let the slobs ruin my day. >> i will say she's extra thick skin. >> i had to learn it though. >> that's true. my experience has been the exact same as hers from that angle. and it does get easier over time, for sure. but you get to the point where when the accusations are so outrageous. i got an e-mail yesterday that said i'm worse than hitler -- not yesterday, last week. and it takes you back for a moment. it does. then eventually you realize who thinks like that? how can you -- do you really mean what you are saying?

when you realize the kind of mentality that you are dealing with, the worse thing it does is tell you how many people there are like that out there. that's awful. that's the worse part. just in the last few weeks alone, the attacks on me because of the boston university article where i went to school. it was a interview with me since it's my alma mater was off of the charts. crazy, crazy. it's sad. wow, when conservatives talk about indoctrination on campus, they are not kidding. it's not paranoia, go "the flipside of feminism" web site and click on the bu and front page and you will be -- maybe you won't be -- shocked. >> yes, down here in front. i'll stay on this side for a minute. >> you lead right into what i was thinking. has there been any in road in

academia for your message. do you envision end roads for your message? >> if so where so the children can go to those schools? >> it's just starting. so i'm very cautiously optimistic about where it's going to head. i know i'm to be on an npr affiliate next friday on the bu. boston radio called, and it's going to be a lion's den for sure. they are going to want to single me out as a enemy. so i don't know. i know that certainly phyllis has been more involved in terms of college -- the college environment. because she's given a lot of speeches there. for me at 43, i'm just sort of starting out on that area. i don't know what's going to happen. i'm concerned. and that's why i said when i stood up and see all of the young lady's faces. it's so wonderful. because again that's the group

that i'm trying to reach. >> well, i think the colleges have been infected in nearly all of the departments. if you want to be safe, take engineering. but don't waste your education dollar on womens studies. they are absolutely the worse. and it's just a lot of feminist, lesbian propaganda. >> it goes back decades. my husband would get lower grades from these feminist professors. this is in the early '80s, because he would argue -- yeah, argue with or take issue what they were teaching or attempt to provide an alternative view point. maybe it's not this way. he was penalized for that. the power is off of the charts. itst -- it is just awful. >> one more down here and one in the back. >> hi, my name is lynnet.

i was wondering what you would say to men and on both sides of the aisle it seems that men have become weakened by feminist movement even if they do agree with things that are advocated in your book, they don't claim a lot of -- yeah. >> right. exactly. my hope is that men will use this opportunity to have a door open and say, you know, i really think this is isn't so great for either our marriage, society, our family, my friends, or what have you. it's going to be difficult. because the women rule the roost, i know feminist don't want you to think they do. they certainly go on the home front. all of the research proved that. despite all of the power, there's tremendous power within thinker home. -- within the home. if you are female. it's really about encouraging men to feel that they can argue

with or take issue with some of those issues within the feminist movement and still -- and not be taken as a chauvinist. of course, he has to be married to or surrounded by women that encourage that and think that way as well. so that will dependent on how much he speaks up. the average person. >> well, the first time the speaking out has to come from women. >> yup. >> the men just can't do it. sorry. >> no win situation. >> there's no question it won't come out of their mouths the same way as women. hopefully they will be part too. >> background? >> angela wolf, could you comment more on what you think the affects have been on men and what they will continue to be if the feminism movement isn't stopped? >> say that again. >> could you comment on the effects of feminism movement on men and what they will continue

to do if it not halted or reversed? >> there was a fantastic spread in the wall street counselor about kay hymowitz's book "manning up." it was a focus on how men are now stuck in the prepubescent quandary. why? the answer is feminism. it's feminism that has not allowed them to be men. and part of being men and growing up is getting married and having a job. okay? and so that environment since it's no longer there because women are shacking up with them, everyone is getting married later, they don't need to support the family because we don't need men anywhere. here's your man. it starts out like this. he's still down there.

he needs somebody -- he needs a system to force him to grow up. that's sort of the -- who's the man that we talk about, george guilder. >> uh-huh. >> you love george guilder. we quote him several times. >> his book is "men and marriage." >> he has excellent how to work together. what you need from women for men to be a certain way and with feminism we are not promoting that. men are not growing up. it's very simple. it didn't come out in the article. >> i would add to that the domination that women and feminist have in the educational system. and it starts in the elementary grades which are mostly run by women and now largely feminist because of the power of the teachers union. and your typical -- not all -- but your typical elementary school teacher looks upon unruly boys as just unruly girls.

and they need to be made to behave like girls, and they need to sit still and do the work with a men and pencil that girls can do very easily. and unfortunately, a lot of new schools are being built without playgrounds and recess is being canceled in a lot of schools. this is a direct attack on the boys who have to go out and run around and beat each other up to learn something. the feminist won't tolerate that. they have the insane idea that boys and girls are the same. i've mentioned the problem with sports. they are trying to take sports away. colleges are 60/40 female/male. nobody likes this. the girls don't like it. they have done it. the feminist have done it. >> we have a whole chapter called amast cuelated -- no, expendable male. sorry.

we couldn't decide. the whole chapter is about men. it starts when they are school boys and goes through the stages of manhood and talks about precisely what has happened with men -- boys and men -- males as a result of feminism. >> do we have one more question? somewhere? one far side. >> josh with congressman's office. i wondered back on the first question, talking about the suffrage movement and how that contrasts with for modern feminist movement. would you attribute when they throw the well you can only get a college education because of us thing more to the suffrage or -- >> no, i think they honestly believe because they have been raised by baby boomers mothers and feminist parents that has thought them feminism is what

gave women opportunity. that includes college degrees and careers. without feminism, the world you see it today would not exist. that's what they believe. what we are proving in "flipside" there's a whet -- there's a whole nother reason, and it would have happened with or without the movement. that's a great question. >> and i wrote my first book in 1964, before the feminist movement, and sold three million copies out of my garage. >> and so can you. [laughter] >> well, while we are having some enjoyment, it is a serious topic. we do recommend that you get a copy of "the flipside of feminism" just to see where we are. i want to thank you for a wonderful presentation. [applause]

[applause] >> to find out more visit theflipsideoffeminism.com. >> well, federal judge denny chin's rejection of the 2008 google book settlement, the future of complete online library is in question. joining us now to discuss this issue is sarah weinman, she's the news editor of publishers marketplace. ms. weinman, could you begin by giving us a brief overview of the google book settlement and who are the parties involved? >> sure. the grade school book settlement arose from a lawsuit that was filed by the association of american publishers and authors guild. they objected to the fact in their view, google was scanning out of print and orphan work. of those work who copyright status was not entirely known.

they felt the whole scale scanning was infringement. they didn't like that. so they sued. as they made it's way to the courts, the parties all decided to create what is known as the google book settlement. what that would entail is coming up with some means as giving book holders monetary value for their view. what they elected to do was to create the opt-out process. if authors did not want their works to be scanned by google, they could write in and opt out. those who did have their work scanned would get about $60 per work. as it made it's way through the courts, judge chin last heard about this approximately 14 months ago. and then he was confirmed to the second court of appeals after which nobody knew exactly what was going on with the settlement. then when the news came in last week he resecretted it, that

sort of created a wave of surprise among many parties. especially in the publishing community. >> what was judge chin's rational? >> he ultimately believed that the settlement was not fair, adequate, or reasonable. he felt the numerous objections that were launched by 6,800 authors as well as 500 other parties were stancive enough to rule that the way the settlement was created contravenes current copyright law and that there was perhaps a better way to do it. in his view, he thought the majority of the objections would be mullified and say no, i want to be part of the settlement. instead of assuming unless you opt out that you are automatically in. he didn't like that. he felt that this was not a good way of going it. the other portion that i've addressed earlier related to

orphan works. he felt that the google book settlement could not adequately address this. and, instead, this was a matter that should be taken up by congress. >> so sarah weinman, during this entire legal process, google has been scanning books into it's system. what happens to those books? >> that's a very good question. and, in fact, because settlement has now been rejected, no one knows what the next move will be. there is supposed to be a status meeting in court on april 25th at 4:30 at which time i guess the parties are going to state their claims as to why they should come up with a revised settlement, that's what the aap and the ag are both on record as saying. and google will have to figure out exactly what they want. there are multiple ways of looking at it. some commentators say that this is actually hurts google because, you know, this puts their scans ability in doubt.

other commentators say that, no, this is, in fact, is fine because in another separate program which is the creation of google ebooks, google is already scanning works that are in the copyright with various permissions. you can go to google's ebook site online and download for a price any current ebook that's available for sale and go to various retailers. they do it through what's known as the partner program where publishers and authors as well have opted in order to make these books available for sale. so there's some rational that by implementing and instituting this particular program, this is perhaps a model for what the google books settlement should be. the other thing it puts into limbo, the settlement was supposed to create the google, ebooks rights registry. google publickers spent between

12 and $15 million between getting it up and running. now can you have a rights registry for a settlement that doesn't entirely exist. so it remains to be scene. will the aap and ag relaunch the lawsuit? other parties litigate? google want to continue the suit? we'll known a lot more on the status meeting in april 25th. >> what was google's reaction and the american association of publishers reaction to judge chin's suggestion that they use an opt-in system? >> both the aap and the ag were understandably disappointed that the settlement was not approved. but both parties seem to express some optimism that they could find a way into the settlement, like, for example, mcmillan ceo, john, who issued a statement on behalf of the aap essentially said they are prepared that the publish plaintiff to enter into a narrow

settlement and take advantage of the ground-breaking opportunities and hope that parties will do as well. scott who is currently the president of the ag, he said along the lines of, you know, regardless of what the outcomes of discussions are, readers want access to unbelievable works. authors need every market they can get. there has to be a way to make some kind of settlement happen to make these works available. they hope they can, in fact, arrive in a settlement. with respect to google, they were, as i said, kind of disappointed, but their essentially said they hoped to be able to continue their scanning work and make as many books available. so essentially, i think it's disappointed but cautious optimism seems to be reigning the day. >> what about google competitor, amazon, microsoft, yahoo!, et cetera, what was their reaction? >> to the best of my knowledge,

i think the reactions were lodged within court documents. from what i understand, though, they were certainly pleased that the settlement was not approved because each of those parties were -- or certainly the majority did lodge objections with the court. amazon, for example, had essentially said if you give google this unfair advantage, how is this good for copyright? that was another big issue of judge chin, which is that if -- it's a good idea to have a digital library and have the works scanned. but should google be the arbiter and decision maker and the entity that's decided how and what is scanned? which books are essentially made available? and i think in judge chin's opinion, he felt very uncomfortable that one entity and one corporation could have that much power and the unfair advantage over any corporate

entity. >> they wrote the decision is a victory for the public good, but insisted we should not abandon google of dream of making all of the books in the world available to everywhere. instead we should build a digital public library which would provide the digital copy free of charge to readers. is there any viability to that? has anyone stepped up? >> it sounds like a wonderful idea. the only entity that stepped up is google. unfortunately, especially with the current economic state of play, the priority for a digital public library that wasn't in congress wasn't the highest of priorities. already look at the money that's been spent on the rights registry which may have to be abandoned or in best-case scenario taken up. who will it be taken up by? as a result, google with the

tremendous market cap they have were really one the only corporations or only entities public or private that had the clout and the muscle to be able to make this happen. ultimately, that was why a settlement was a good idea for the aap and the ag. because they recognition there is value in the work that google did. and they wanted to at least get something off of the ground and that could be built on and built on. will the library system will able to come together for a nonprofit entity when they are facing such massive cutbacks at a state and federal level? i'm not entirely certain. so even though there's disappointment and cautious optimism about reviving the settlement, there's skepticism it can happen. some people are looking at it as a win/win. i'm looking at it as more of a neutral potentially great loss

if something doesn't move bard. -- forward. >> does judge or will judge chin continue to have a role in this issue? >> from what i understand, he will not. especially now that highway has moved on to the second circuit court of appeals. this is one the last outstanding cases on his docket. the 14 months that it took and seemed at least in publishing circles long. inspite of the complexity and issues that were raised, it makes sense in hindsight. then the issue becomes who will take this up? litigated from scratch? will it be heard again? other court cases that factor into what outcome is reached. will it drag on for years? we don't know at this point. as i said, a lot of things will become clearer at the status meeting on april 25 preponderate >> -- april 25th. >> we look forward to talking to you.

finally, do you see congress playing a role? >> that's a very, very good question, peter. certainly judge chin hopes that congress will play a role. i'm not entirely certain that they will play a role since the -- from a priority stand point in the greater context of budget cuts and health care and various military activities going on whether the issue of orphan works or having a digital library is going to even register on the current congress. they also, i think, traditionally haven't necessarily been the most willing listener in terms of trying to change current copyright law to make it more accessible to everybody. so i think it remains to be scene what congress, in fact, will do. >> sarah weinman is the news editor for publisher marketplace. we'll talk with her again after the april 25th hearing.

thank you. >> thank you so much for having me. >> in depth with author, poet, and play write from earlier will reair at 12 a.m. eastern. >> let us return, therefore, to the child man, the young single dude, not child, but not adult either. i see him as a result of the four huge shifts. first is preadulthood. a decade or more of single life devoted to work and self-exploration. women also spend years in preadulthood, the single years of the 20s, and 30s, but here's the difference. women have the advantage, miserable as it sometimes makes

them about knowing about biological limits. the large majority of women and men say they want children. that's what the surveys consistently say. but for women who's fertility begins to decline by the time they are 30, that means that they will not be able to play or work without serious distraction for very long. even though who are unsure whether they will have children know that the decision alone imposes boundaries on their preadulthood. men don't have the pressing limits. they can take their time, and they do. the second source, shaping the child man is a highly segmented and uncensored media environment. in the past, the young men had never paid much attention to television and magazines. media in turn had trouble figuring out how to reach the younger male. by the mid '90s, they found each other and fell in love. we have "maxum" hollywood movies

that discovered the formula for attracting young males, bodily fluids, and exposed female body parts. one of the most successful guy tv channels is spike. it game on air in 2003 in reruns of "star trek" and original show "babe hunt" in which they try to detect the differences of nearly naked women. i tried to find an image, but i would have gotten kicked out. :