this one is about gender policy. >> a new book put out by aei american enterprise institute is women's figures. >> that won't apply to the plea billy crowd. [laughter] >> this is the province of women in america and i'm going to show the broad side some of the ideas on the same in both of these and that is the first paragraph which is compared with men, women and 21st century america live five years longer, phase and on and pet rate that is significantly lower or word of a substantially larger scale of high school diplomas and face lower rates of incarceration, alcoholism and drug abuse. ..

what is your reaction. >> it's not true that women in come rabble jobs make 77%. few you looked at supermarket cashiers. a man and a woman make about the same. first year associates in law firms make about the same. the women on average choose to work fewer hours than men. full-time is about 35 hours a week. and women work about. many women go in and out of the work force as they have

children. and that on average reduces their average earnings. but it doesn't mean they're discriminated against. it doesn't mean that if you take two women and two men in the same job they don't end the same. they do. >> what is the paycheck fairness act, do you think it's necessary. >> the paycheck fairness act was up again voting in congress. it failed. there was a failed when -- it would require firms to report to the government the women they have on their payroll, the men they have on the payroll, how much they pay both groups, that's an attempt of the government to troy to equalize pay between groups of men and women. rather than as the law holds right now men and women in the come rabble job. they try to set equal pay for

equal. which are two different things. there's no reason why groups of women and groups of men in the same firm should be paid the same if they have radically different jobs. look at exxon, for example, that has a group of men in oil drilling@s. it's a dirty dangerous job. you can't get me to codo that. you have to pay people a lot to risk their lives. they have a group of women in publications, communications, there's no reason the two groups should be necessarily paid the same. the paycheck would be moving toward requiring firms to pay men and women the same even if they're in different jobs. that is not paycheck fairness. that's communism. >> diana furchtgott-roth your book -- was there a time when women were treated unfairly in

the workplace. >> there certainly was. there was timed in the 1950s and '60syou look at the arizona and see jobs advertised at one salvation army for men and another for women. and the original feminist are to be congratulated on ending that. as many of you know, there were times when wouldn't couldn't even vote. there were times when women got pregnant they were fired. and feminists are to be congratulatedded for having moved the goal post and having changed that and the culture in the workplace. but now feminists want to move the goal post even further and say there's disimtion if there is know call outcome. so the discrimination is 50 percent of the ceos are woman. there's discrimination at 50% construction workers aren't woman. there's description of members of congress who are not women. that's folds.

false. they make different choices in education. you see young minute majoring in matt and science. and more young women in gender study and literature. field that are not going pay as well. when they enter the workplace you see more women going in to non-profit and shorter hours and more men in and investment banks and computer science. there isn't any reason the two groups should be paid the same if they make different choices. a man and woman in the investment bank, they got out of cold man sacks. those should be paid the same. they are paid the same. if there are not there avenues to sue. that's the big difference. >> what dow you think about the white house counsel on women and girls? >> i think the white house needs to have a counsel on men and boys. because you can see that young men have lower earnings than

young women. if you look at single men and women than the single men have lower earnings. you see they are far higher rates of boys cropping out of high school than girls. boys are getting less education now than girls. and so if the white house wants to have a counsel on women and girls, that's fine. as long as they have one on men and boys too. that i think is the big laugh. but you know that the white house is not talking about extitle to it applies supports a and under title ninth colleges have to have the same number of men and women playing college sports in proportion to the enrollment. in 55 percent of the enrollment is women. a% of the college sports has to go to women. they're talking about extending

the this to science. so that if 55% against of campuses were women, they would to have 55% of science slots which the white house can easily do because tight nine applies to all field of education. this would be disastrous both for women and for america's competitiveness. because it would mean some young men wouldn't be able to major in science and some young women might be pressured to major in science when they didn't want to. >> a contributor editor at real clear market.com. a cool limb gnus for the washington examer. she served as chief of staff in 2000 to 2002. and served as chief economist at the labor department from 2003 to 2005. are you supportive of tight nine when it comes in the world of sports? we just celebrated the

anniversary, i think the 40th ankers are i are or something. >> when we were discussing title nine one of the method colleges could come employ with title nine was having many fulfilling the desire of the different group. this they were exceeding to the qualify women playing sports, that was fine. but the way that now they are interpreting it it ha to be proportional. i'm supportive of title nine as regards to proportionality. it's become a quo that system. there are more young men that want to play college sports. there have been articles in "new york times" how the college are playing games with the number. a woman can be on two teams, for example, and it counts as two people. or a woman can sign up to play hockey when he enters as fleshman and decides she is tire. she drop out and be fcially listed on the team.

the problem is that young men are losing valuable athletic scholarships because they can't get on the team. because colleges have having to cut back ton men's teams because there aren't enough women who play college sports. that's a tragedy. the real problem in our society right now is not the advance of women but the advancement of men, especially low-income minority men who get to college through a athletic scholarship. when you hear the political phase war on women what is your thought? >> well, the real war on women rought now isn't the war against free contraceptive. that's a matter of fashion. it's something that is coming up right now. women who want contra accepts have always been able to get contraception. medicaid provides free con from

seption the real war on women is the economic war on women. the fact that 780,000 age 16 and over are unemployed in january two 2009. the fact women who want jobs can't get them. the fact the economy is just growing at 1.9%. the real war on women is that they can't get jobs. and that their spouses and family members can't get jobs. and they're suffering with high gas prices, high food prices, high health insurance premiums when athey cannot find the ways to advance economically. >> how obama's jernt policy undermine america is the name by dynedown. and she she writes american and the world women are more likely than men to succeed. women on average do better in

school work, life, women try yum faint every day america. other is dis-- these pollations make a career out of telling women they are defeated. >> yes. that's because by saying that women have to earn the same as men it immunes the lifestyle choice which allows many women to choose the flexible job with lower earnings or the part time job and the feminist say that is not sufficient. that by doing that women are earnings less than make making a poor lifestyle choice. last three supreme court justices who were nominated. last throw women supreme court justice -- throw three don't

have any children. they devoted themselves full-time to their career. that's wonderful for those who want to do it. my boss secretary ciao, doesn't have children, secretary continue let's is a rice continue have children. women who want to have a more flexible lifestyle choice and want to devote less time to the work and some time to are family. that's a valued choice fop the goal is 100%. the goal should be to have a satisfying career. the wonderful thing about america there's a great variety i jobs available. flexible time jobs, full-time jobs, part-time jobs. women center all these choices. and the ones who choose more flexible jobs are with lower income should not be put down. they should not made to feel it's a vailed coys.

>> we are at freedom fest in las vegas. we talking it diana furchtgott-roth. the most repeat book by aei press. women's figure and illustrative guide to economic women in america. you have another book coming out. what is it? >> regulating disaster. how green jobs pots damage america's economy. that's how the focus of green job alternative fortuning is imposing cost on america's economy. costs that proponent of green jobs are not acknowledging. >> and for the most part, you write a lot about gender policy and politics. and is this a branch out for you to write about green job displs. >> i also written my book have been in the area of gender. i have written a lot also in energy economics and in

taxation. i'm a monthly column nist for this. i edited a bock called overcoming barriers to imeerpship. i wouldn't say it's a radical thing. social security something i've been thinking about it and writing about far long time. thank you for joining us on booktive. >> it's great to be with you. >> coming up from booktv coverage from the annual libertarian contest. economist george talks about new edition of the 1981 best selling book. this is just over thirty minutes. [inaudible conversations] george, you have a new audition of "wealth and poverty" how. has country changed since the original came out. >> it habit changed auto. we have a new carter in office and president obama so most of the themes that of