This was very interesting, I enjoy listening to NPR podcasts and this along with On the Media help me hear about new things that I would never have considered before listening. Thank you

Sent by Pad | 7:21 PM ET | 01-22-2007

That was the best episode yet. The interview at the beginning and the commentary at the end were both exceptional.

Sent by Doug | 7:45 PM ET | 01-22-2007

I felt the length and accents were both fine.

I could have done without the rebuttal to Barbara Boxer; her comment is getting way more attention and airplay because of all the people getting upset over it than it ever would have if they'd tsk'd to themselves and let it go. Not to mention it's hardly original; I've been reading in the blogs for years that the entire Administration has been over willing to send kids to war in part because none of them have family in the military. I don't think it was nearly as much of a personal attack as Ms Malveaux and others thought it was. But whether I'm right or wrong, they are only giving it a higher profile by spending time talking about it.

Sent by Janine | 12:41 AM ET | 01-23-2007

This show seemed to wander off topic a lot. Are we talking about peace in Darfur and Iraq? Are we talking about the difference between H.L. and Swanee Hunt? Are we talking about women's roles in leadership? It didn't seemed focused enough on women in leadership.

Some of the positions talked about in the article were based on opinions only, and some of them were just as sexist as the opinions these women are trying to fight. Female leaders would be more peaceful than male leaders? We would have a different country if half the Congress were women? While many people (men included) might feel these are true, there's no way to prove either of these.

As for Barbara Boxer's comments, I feel this shows that not only is their a barrier that women still need to overcome in leadership roles, it appears that within the community of female leaders there is still bigotry to be overcome as to "how much of a woman" a woman really is.

Sent by Scott K | 8:18 AM ET | 01-23-2007

I just listened to the show Powerful Voices and enjoyed listening to the different women and their views on having more women in politics. I enjoyed that the topic was not the usual perspective and was glad to hear about it. However, I would have really enjoyed it more if more time was spent with each topic/woman. Maybe if a series was created about the topic and each show was about a half hour long discussing the topic in more detail. For example - if the series was about having more women in politics, and the first show was just about women in Iraq. Then that show would hear from that woman and give more background into the culture and maybe hear from others with similar interests and others who disagree. It would be nice if there was a show that did not just report on the news, but gave in-depth perspectives on the news from the people and cultures that are involved in the news. I think it would be very beneficial for people to gain a better understanding of how issues affect common people and/or how common people create news. I guess I'm trying to say - a new service that helps to relieve the disconnect people have between the news / politics / war and their own lives.

Sent by Amy Huebschman | 11:08 AM ET | 01-23-2007

It is great to hear from these woman personlly. The length of the program was fine, and the program was very informative.

Sent by Homa Nassiri | 11:43 AM ET | 01-23-2007

I enjoyed the show greatly - touches on a lot of issues that have been nagging on me lately. I agree with the comment that I would not have missed the Barbara Boxer bit. But I disagree with the Scott's comment that some of the opinions were sexist. There seems to be good reasons why women might shape public policy differently from men, not because women are inherently kinder and wiser than men, but because they really do face different issues (are impacted very differently by war, for example) and priorities are shaped by biological realities. I would be very interested to hear a show discussing this more in depth, presenting whatever emperical evidence might exist for this assertion.

Sent by Jennifer | 1:37 PM ET | 01-23-2007

I enjoyed the program thoroughly and thought the length was fine. I like longer programs as long as they treat something in-depth and also have segments of varying lenghts/formats (as this episode did).

As to the issues, I did not think this program was all over the place at all - clearly balancing the particular (leadership role of women in Darfur and Iraq) and the global (leadership role of women) is difficult. However, if the program was more on "leadership," I think it would have been too general and not nuanced enough with the particularity of the experiences of the women, which is after all what we're interested in (they're experiences as women and as leaders in their specific contexts).

As to Scott's comment that there were some "sexist" views with regards to how women might be better leaders, I disagree for two reasons: the Ambassador made a point to say that not all women or all men respond in a predictable way (and in fact made a point that men behave differently around women and vice versa. For good or ill, that statement seems to be generally true). The other reason why I disagree that the view might have been sexist is because the Ambassador is expressing a pretty plain brand of liberal feminism. Given her age, I am not surprised (b/c she became politically mature at around the time when liberal feminism "won out"). Whatever her brand of feminism, if she makes it possible for typically unheard women to be heard, I think that's great. As for Dr. Malveaux, while I think that people who are being directly affected by the Iraq war need to be heard more and their experience should be taken into much greater consideration, I take her point. I also enjoyed that her portion of the program was opinion/editorial rather than a debate. I think a debate might be giving Boxer's comments too much weight, but her opinion on exactly, as Scott put it, 'how much of a woman' a woman really is I think is useful. I think Boxer's comments were unintentionally engaging that issue, and who is Barbara Boxer to say how much of a woman and citizen Codi Rice is b/c she is single and does not have children? Though I already love Barbara Boxer, I would love her a lot more if she focused more on how Condi did her job - really, there's plenty of material there.

Sent by Javier | 2:35 PM ET | 01-23-2007

The length of the interviews did not bother me. If they did, I would fall asleep often when I converse with others.

This was an excellent collection of interviews as it focused on diversity within a certain subset of the human race -- women. The participants showed how varied the views, backgrounds, ideas, and desires of females are. Now, that's diversity.

Sent by Steve Petersen | 4:00 PM ET | 01-23-2007

I listened to this program and was held completely by the women talking. I found the stories, all connected by their focus on women's advocacy, let you look at the subject with a multi-faceted world view. It was refreshing, intellectual and elevated the discussion of international women's advocacy to a higher level.

I didn't agree with Dr. Malveaux's opinion that Senator Boxer's comments held Sec. of State Rice in some negative light because she was single. I believe more attention should be give to the cost of these fail policies in Iraq. The administration has understood, all along the power of allowing Americans to examine the cost in bodies parts and life that we're paying in real terms, the same way as the families of military people do. They know it crystalizes the maximum price American's are willing to pay. That's why they've been so stict about controlling the "Dover Test". That is the idea of how many flag draped coffins Americans are ready to accept in support of the Administrations war plans.

I've listened to a number of the stories I find them wonderful with interesting spins that make you think outside the box. Keep up the good work.

Sent by Sharon Ferguson-Quick | 4:03 PM ET | 01-23-2007

Hey, I really enjoyed all of the "segments" to this podcast. I felt that you gave great first hand accounts of "women in leadership." I also thought that the segment as a whole ran a little too long but that you could solve the issue by cutting the show into some peices. If you had the show segmented almost like a DVD where you could quickly skip between segments it would be much more user friendly and the folks that didn't want to hear an essay on Barbara Boxer could at least skip to your "wrap up" and "sign off." Otherwise I really enjoyed the first hand accounts of women in leadership and the whole of the show.

Being a young man I think it is important to hear both sides of the story whether it be male or female. Especially when there are difficult accents involved. The word behind those accents are life experiences that are the most different from my own and if I can picture myself in their position then it brings me that much closer to peace, love and understanding in myself. Conflicts will only be resolved when we can love, respect and understand one another.

Sent by Eric | 4:24 PM ET | 01-23-2007

p.s. I just posted, but hadn't heard the entire podcast and would like to add two comments. First, the length was just fine with me, but Julianne Malveaux's commentary at the end did not fit in with the rest of the program -- the Hunt interview would have been a "boffo" ending. Second, I adore Malveaux for her intelligence, education, and energy. But this time she's off the mark -- and I speak from the perspective of the sensitive woman without children. Boxer's point was "people who have family at risk may have a different perspective on war from those who don't" -- and while I may be tired of society throwing it up in my face that I am not a mother, I can hardly dispute that my perspective is different because of it. (As a general observation, if Malveaux were more selective in her communication, her impact would increase a thousandfold -- and I believe the world would be the better for it.)

Sent by Heather Young | 4:33 PM ET | 01-23-2007

I enjoyed this show very much. I especially liked the discussion on why and how women would get into politics. For instance one person had a mother who was in politics before her and she also had extended family to help with child care. And, Ms. Hunt became involved because of her concern for the world developed by attending church. I liked the interviews and felt I was a participant because the questions are ones I would have asked. Thank you for a wonderful show.

Sent by Marjorie Fairfield | 8:53 PM ET | 01-23-2007

I definately agree that this was the best episode yet. I really enjoyed the segment in which you talked to the three women leaders, and the segment with the women in charity. I felt that the presentation, the pacing, and length, everything was just great. It definitely held my attention.

Sent by Ed Chinevere | 1:20 AM ET | 01-24-2007

I work in Baghdad as a contractor; i've been here two years. Because I've never been outside of the military installation where I work, I think it is very important to periodically listen to the words of the Iraqis first hand. In my opinion this, along with edited reports and reviews shows the integrity of your reporting. Was the firsthand report of the meeting tedious? Yes it was, but I got through it. It is unfortunate that I live right here next to the Iraqis but I'm not at liberty to speak and learn from them directly. But because of the security risks, I am content to learn about what is going on through the news reports. Thanks for giving me something else to consider.

Sent by Antonio | 5:36 AM ET | 01-24-2007

This was a wonderful episode of Rough Cuts. I learned a great deal.

Sent by Kayann | 7:36 AM ET | 01-24-2007

I really enjoyed the most recent program about women leadership. I enjoyed the entire segment and look forward to hearing future shows! However, this is the third time I've heard "Rough Cuts" and was disappointed by the past two shows I heard (I found them somewhat boring). Thanks so much!

Sent by Julia Terlinchamp | 10:17 AM ET | 01-24-2007

I was very interested to hear the contribution of the women from countries other than our own. They bring important facets to discussions and a different viewpoint to areas of concern that might otherwise be missed. I think the only hope for bringing about more civility to society for all nations lies with the involvement of women in all areas of governments.

Sent by Amy Geiger | 10:18 AM ET | 01-24-2007

Great show on women in leadership. Until this episode, I was unaware of the prevalence of women in Middle Eastern & African government. Your show offers interesting stories that too often get overlooked by the mainstream news media. Keep up the great reporting!

Sent by todd kale | 10:25 AM ET | 01-24-2007

Just listened to the "Powerful Voices" segment. Good job. I definitely enjoyed it.

Sent by Linda Phillips | 10:25 AM ET | 01-24-2007

Thank you thank you thank you! Thank you for talking about issues that never seem to get addressed by media.

So far this show has talked about things that I have been wondering about but didn't know who to ask. I especially love the most recent show about women in leadership roles. I said, "YES!" when I heard this show. It's so inspiring to hear about women taking action for the greater good even though it is dangerous and could even kill them.

As a 27 year old female I feel us ladies don't have enough good examples of women who are taking action and making a difference in communities, lives, and the world.

I like the intimate feel of the show and talking to people that you would never know existed. My boyfriend and I call them "Secret Bad A**es". People that are in it for everyone not just themselves. That's a true bad a**.

Thanks a bunch and keep up the good work.

Sent by Iann Clayton | 10:26 AM ET | 01-24-2007

I enjoyed this segment very much and it definitely kept my attention. Would love to hear more.

Sent by Sara Paden | 10:27 AM ET | 01-24-2007

Overall, I enjoyed the show and believe the guests and conversations were interesting and mostly constructive.

However, the piece Ms. Malveaux contributed on Senator Boxer frustrated me. I agree that Boxer's comments were wrong outright, and cannot be justified. I agree with Ms. Malveaux's comments on ones ability to make public policy decisions with or without "immediate family." I agree with her comments on the importance of the contributions of single women. I also agree that the diffucilty African American women face in finding a suitable partner should not be overlooked.

However, I completly disagree that Barbara Boxer's words were a comment on single African American women. Malveaux says "[African American women] don't need a US Senator to describe us as second class citizens before the world." This is ridiculous. Just because Boxer is white and Rice is black does not mean that there were racial implications. There are still many realities and instances of inequalities between whites and blacks that happen every day, but this is not one of them.
Ms. Malveaux perpetuates the the very sentiment which she distains. Please save your soap box speech for when it is appropriate.

Sent by A.G. | 11:04 AM ET | 01-24-2007

Is there any scientific research out there about whether women govern differently from men? Surveys, polls? My gut feeling is that women, biologically, ARE more peaceful than men, and I suspect that women generally are more likely to exhaust diplomatic possibilities before resorting to force to resolve an issue. But good reporting would look for evidence to back up these assertations and opinions, right?

However, maybe the point is that there are so few women participating that no one can say for sure, the data isn't there? If that's the case, Ms. Martin might point that out.
As for technical details, the length of the piece was fine. I don't feel that the media should pander to (and reinforce) Americans' ever-shortening attention spans.

Yes, the Iraqi and Sudanese women's accents are strong, but I don't care. I would much rather stop what I'm doing for a few minutes to listen closely, than miss the rare opportunity to hear these people speak for themselves.
This is the sort of story I'd like to hear more of: I want to know what other people throughout the world do, and think, and feel; people about whom I would never otherwise know.

Sent by Anna | 1:15 PM ET | 01-24-2007

Wonderful! I thought it insightful and inclusionary. Thank you for the segment on women in politics, and the "Puerto Rican Bill Cosby"

Sent by Laura Avalos | 10:48 AM ET | 01-25-2007

The topics, interviewees and length are excellent and quite representative of the kind of though-provoking information that NPR provides the public when few other media sources will. As more people forgo reading traditional print media in favor of the internet, with its audio-visual and interactive advantages, stories like these become even more relevant, and I appreciate that NPR is including serious, in-depth material from non-celebrity sources around the world. This particular program is so good that I am having my college class listen, and I am inviting them to respond to your request for comments. I frequently direct students to NPR, and programs like this is the reason why. The "rough cut" concept is excellent, and Michel Martin is a first-rate interviewer and commentator. Her entire blog is well worth reading, and is a great resource for teaching. Thank you, Michel.

Sent by Hilarie Kelly | 12:18 PM ET | 01-25-2007

I agree that Senator Boxer's comments were inappropriate and that her reasoning ultimately misled. What was glaringly absent from your response was any mention of the existence of queer Black women. I do not intend to open the can of worms that is public speculation on Condi's sexual orientation-- I only mean to suggest that not all Black women are single because of the state of male-female relations within the Black community. I applaud your efforts to thoughtfully address issues of race and gender in all of your segments, but to leave sexual orientation out of the discussion (when race, class, gender, and sexuality are all inextricably linked in our culture) is doing your listeners a great disservice.

Sent by Caroline | 1:13 PM ET | 01-25-2007

I noticed that the broadcast was longer before I listened to it and yet when it was done playing I was surprised. This is because length is only an issue at deep extremes (say, a three hour interview with no breaks in a hot room on with the audience sitting on concrete...). The true issue is one of craft: have the directors, interviewers and producers crafted a piece that is constantly engaging, that delves deeper into certain aspects or continually connects disparate subjects? In this case, the answer is a resounding yes!

Your second question is deeply related to your first. To cut something, particularly something as innocuous as an accent, in order to keep from "turning your audience off" is a much faster path toward tedium than is increasing your broadcast's lengths. Please do not ever cut a piece of your work out of fear of turning someone off. Please keep your other razors: is this topic important?; are our guests insightful?; are we representing a voice that needs to be heard? We, your audience, are quite capable of separating a guest who turns us off, or a comment or idea which does the same, from the program in which she speaks. you need not worry about protecting us from rubbing up against such bristles of life as heavy accents or untoward, different or dogmatic views. In short, give us journalism. we'll handle our reactions to it.

Also, when ambivalent about something safe and something risky choose something risky.

Sent by Crom | 1:37 PM ET | 01-25-2007

I think that the interviews were very interesting, and the length was not a problem. I agree with an earlier post that the commentary about Sen Boxer's "chiding" of Sec'y Rice was a bit over the top. I am not sure that the piece was needed at all, but it went way too long. Overall I thought it was a good show, thank you

Sent by Doug Wolfe | 2:14 PM ET | 01-25-2007

I think it is a positive contribution to the media. I liked the mix of the different points of view, and I think it is important for our county to expand our global cultural knowledge. Cultural relativism is something that has slipped away and if we are not objective we will soon miss the point. The broadcast was not too long, and if it is a subject that someone was interested in it shouldn't matter how long it is anyways. Cultural relativism is something that has slipped away and if we are not objective we will soon miss the point.

Sent by Alyssa Kitchens | 12:18 AM ET | 01-26-2007

I literally stumbled upon this magazine aimed at a certain type of up and coming powerful woman -- Muslim Girl (http://www.muslimgirlmagazine.com/). It also has a story on its site that directly grapples with diversity titled "Growing Up American" (http://www.muslimgirlmagazine.com/web/GUA.cfm) that features six Muslim girls discussing what it is like to live in America as a Muslim. Interesting...

Sent by Steve Petersen | 12:55 AM ET | 01-26-2007

I enjoyed this program very much. I found it encouraging and exciting to hear from diverse, strong women around the world.

Sent by Valerie Goins | 9:58 AM ET | 01-26-2007

I like the idea of pod casts more than the fact of them. First, I find it more difficult to capture pod casts than could make them compelling. I don't want to subscribe to them, I like to down load them to a flash memory card and listen. However, window shopping pod casts often results in my not thinking the stories worth the time, even though when I listen to, say All things Considered, I rather uncritically go with the flow of the program.

I use a screen reader and keyboard commands, that's how I operate a computer. That has something to do with the user unfriendly nature of this and many other websites, still I wonder if pod casting as such will really catch on as an alternative to passive take-it-as-it-comes radio. Good luck with your new show. I'll be listening.
Mike

Sent by Mike Cole | 10:17 PM ET | 01-27-2007

Second podcast I've heard of Roughcuts and both were informative and inspiring (the other was Herman Badillo). Content was excellent for both but I think if you can keep with a theme, with longer duration, you're on the right track. One of the big reasons I like interview programs like Fresh Air, Charlie Rose, Leonard Lopate, The Treatment is that a single topic can often be examined from 3-4 perspectives. This program may have been longer but it was just right for me. Keep this up and I think you have a solid new entry in the NPR stable.
Kind of surprised the Boxer commentary received so much reaction on this page. The biggest eye-opener to me was the Hunt interview. What a concept!

Sent by Steve Whelan | 2:33 PM ET | 01-28-2007

This is the third episode I have listened to. I have found each episode fascinating. Each have presented information not presented anywhere else. I have really valued the diverse voices.

Sent by Lisa Cohen | 10:14 PM ET | 01-28-2007

Senator Boxer does not deserve the vilification she is getting from the MSM or your show, for her statement to Secretary Rice, in fact she should be shouting that to the Bushes, Cheneys and every other person in that administration.

Making the statement that Ms. Rice had no personal sacrifice and therefore, should not be allowed to make such a decision is being said around the water cooler daily!

Comparing the decisions about schools and No Child Left Behind is to completely miss the point. When does No Child Left Behind send children to die? That is the point, not that Ms. Rice is single. She made no reference to her marital state at all. She referred to her FAMILY making no sacrifice!

Senator Boxer has been crucified for her statement, and does not deserve it.

If the news media would leave their ivory towers and mingle with the people that are sending their loved ones to make a sacrifice The Decider refused to and his children aren't being asked to would open your eyes and minds. Clearly, it appears to this listener, you could all use a little mind opening.

We are all wondering why is it that the people claiming the patriotism of the dead and mangled actually go to sleep knowing their families are comfortably safe and warm in their beds.

Allowing the criticism of Senator Boxer was a cheap shot, and not worthy of your show. If I want that kind of smear tactic parading as information, I will watch the FAUX (aka Fox) channel.

Sent by Lois Waldron | 10:15 AM ET | 01-29-2007

How to evaluate a show. I want to say that since this show was all women's voices, it was hard to follow. That goes back to the dynamic Dr. Deborah Tannen has discussed in her books about male-female communication. Mainly, I'm referring to the idea that it is easier for men and women to hear men's voices than it is for either to hear women's voices.

That said, it must have been a good show because I found myself wanting to discuss or argue with certain points made by various of the women interviewed. So, whether I think I was able to pay attention or now, I must have heard something these women said.

What I wanted to argue about was the notion that women were inherently less violent than men, that women don't lead or participate in ethnic cleansing, for example, or that women would be less militaristic than men are.

Do the names Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, or even Indira Gandhi ring a bell? Each led major countries with lots of military power. Each strengthened that military power, and each used that military power in a war.

Frankly, from what I have witnessed of women at all levels of human endeavor, they can be just as vicious, maybe moreso, as men. We seem to want to hold up "Woman" as some ideal of nurturing and cooperation, even in this post-feminist age. And it still seems to me that women are parroting the same stuff that Victorian men said about them and setting themselves on a pedestal as paragons of something or other when the truth is that whenever a woman gets the power to lead a nation, she will behave the way men leaders have before her.

So, you see, I think it must have been a great show to get me to think about those things even if it is hard to listen to only women's voices for the 30 or so minutes of this podcast.

I guess I would be more than willing to listen to more of the show. In fact, I think I'll download another now.

Sent by Tom Murrell | 12:18 PM ET | 01-29-2007

I loved this segment, especially loved that Michel asked each woman what listeners can do about the issues they discussed. At its most inspring, NPR and this show in particular make me want to do something about the big problems in the world, but it can be frustrating to face such a big problem without some guidance on what to do.

I've listened to most of the Roughcuts interviews, and always like them. (I'm mot much of a caller-in, so I can't answer that question.)

Sent by Emily | 1:42 PM ET | 01-29-2007

The radio broadcast of this titillating discussion is, I would agree with the you, a bit lengthy. The accents weren't horrendously thick and were reasonably coherent not to mention intelligent. However, some answers strayed from the questions which I felt would have produced a more engaging segment. Overall, the subject matter is overwhelmingly interesting, and the speakers, albeit long winded at times, provided insight into a political world completely foreign to most listeners.

Sent by Ginger Staley | 6:05 PM ET | 01-29-2007

The radio broadcast about women in leadership made me think about the world at large beyond the U.S. borders and my place in the world as a woman. The complex discussion justifies the length of the broadcast, because the depth of the conversation cannot be thoroughly covered in half the length. I didn't mind that the broadcast strayed sometimes because it made me feel as if I was sitting in on the stimulating conversations.

I personally believe that if more women have a greater role in leadership, then maybe politics will change for the better with the addition of more different life perspectives.

Sent by Helen | 12:18 PM ET | 01-30-2007

Honestly, I enjoy the rough cuts previews, especially the fact that the guest have time to clearly explain their issues and poisitions.

However, the tired framing of this show sounds as remedial and shrill as a college freshman moaning in the cafeteria about racism and wymmyn's issues.

Please NPR, spare us the tired messaging of 'would a world with women leaders be an end to war?'

Your host is excellent and the guest articulate and well informed. Please don't dumb down your product positioning to reduce your listeners to remidial left wing cliches.

Sent by Cathy | 12:11 PM ET | 01-31-2007

Maybe the longer format is more suitable for the kind of program you want to do. (What is it again? Still don't know the show's purpose...) This was definitely the best show so far. Interesting guests. Interesting discussion. Not something I'm getting from other news sources or the blogosphere. Not old news.

One criticism. In my one listen-through it seemed Michel repeatedly interrupted the guests as if in anticpation of what they were going to say. A good interviewer knows how to listen as well as talk. Less of those sorts of interruptions would have been good.

The commentary at the end wasn't particulary relevant to the topic, but wouldn't be a bad way to wind up (re time usage) if it had been more on-topic.

Also, while people are certainly entitled to their opinions, I wasn't left with a good impression of your comentator. She came across as someone with thin skin and she took Boxer's comments out of context. It made it a strawman argument and it lessens the impact of the point, especially to someone like this listener who also has no one at risk in the war and who heard the whole question and answer between Boxer and Rice. Not saying you shouldn't air her opinions, but you may want to be more choosy.

Sent by Allears | 3:44 PM ET | 01-31-2007

I enjoted it a lot, very interesting. I used it with some other articles for an essay for class. Would be nice to have "show notes" so I can get the names of the guests right. Anyone know how do you cite APA style a podcast gotten from iTunes? Yep, its new media alright! Waiting for the next show

Sent by Carlos | 9:20 PM ET | 01-31-2007

I've enjoyed all the podcasts of roughcuts. Length is not an issue for me as the time just flies with the topics covered. I think that's part of the charm of the show.
I like your approach to topics and guests.
Keep up the good work. I look forward to more.

Sent by Kathy O in NJ | 8:40 PM ET | 02-04-2007

I enjoy programs that offer something positive, exemplary, uplifting -- there's so little of that in the media. Ordinary Oprahs, the 3 ladies who converted faiths are among my favorites. We need more such programs that bring understanding and unity between the various "categories" of people in afractured and divided world. I encourage you to follow that vein as you would making be a significant contribution to the wel-being of our society and the world at large.

Sent by Julie on Mt. Washington | 9:17 PM ET | 02-12-2007