On September 5, 1995, while first lady of the United States, Hillary Clinton delivered this speech at the United Nations 4th World Conference on Women in Beijing, China. This speech represents a defining moment in Clinton’s advocacy for women and in her style as a rhetor.
The rhetorical situation of this speech represented challenges for Clinton as she had faced criticism ever since becoming first lady and received new criticism for agreeing to give the speech.
Arguing the central point that “human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights,” the speech contains many rhetorical techniques we have now come to expect from Clinton, including her references to people she has spoken to on the topic, invocation of specific moments in women’s history, and an ethos of someone with the experience and expertise to speak on the topic.
For more on this speech as a transformative moment for Clinton, see this recent news story.
Image Credit: npr.org
Hillary Clinton and Beyond 
Please see the following link to read my anotated notes on Clinton’s speech:
https://via.hypothes.is/http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/hillaryclintonbeijingspeech.htm
LikeLike
Good catch on the way Clinton uses “Man” in this speech. It is not longer a catch-all term for humanity in general and she clearly delineates who is who. Her expedient approach is effective, as it subtly introduces the idea of a fresh voice into what has been a male-dominated discourse.
LikeLike
The strategic use of “families” stuck out to me, too. Especially if (as mentioned in the Yahoo/Associated Press article) there were members of Congress calling the Conference on Women “anti-family.” It’s kind of astonishing how “what’s good for families” is used as an argument both for and against women’s rights. That makes me think of the conventional wisdom that people aren’t persuaded by someone else’s reasons, but by their own.
LikeLike
After watching both Hilary’s ’95 and 2016 speeches, it’s clear that her message on the significance of equality among men and women of all creeds has remained consistent: women are as much a part of the “village raising a child” and yet remain undervalued by society. By framing her nomination victory speech as a milestone for human/woman’s rights and against her opponent’s inverted view of American greatness, Hilary empowers her audience conveying the idea of power in unification. Throughout both speeches, I appreciate the continuity of her principle that equality, opportunity and respect on the domestic front will lead to stronger communities and nations — a “better, fairer, stronger America.” By the same token, while I respect the significance of what Hilary’s victory represents as a female politician, I also question the extent to which this claim-to-fame posited against her opponent’s predated concept of American society overshadows her outlook on other central issues within her public appearances and the public eye. After all, she talks up a good game via sharing Senator Sander’s ideas of an America for the people but the Youtube “like-bar approval ratings” would suggest that not all the people share the same views as her. Then again, if she really does “listen” to the American public, “what the hell do (they) have to lose?”
-T
LikeLike
You bring up some really interesting points in your response. Hillary is clearly a very skilled rhetor but there is some fundamental misstep causing the American public to dislike her (as evident in the “like-bar” on the youtube clip). I am unable to find the cause of the misstep (or “the gap” as the Vox article called it) in her rhetoric. Her speeches are so strong! It leads me to believe that there is some other source. Though the Clinton Campaign would have us believe it is the media there must be more since the media dislikes her opponent as well. I am looking forward to analyzing rhetoric about Clinton in the future as it may clue us in to this gap. Thus far Clinton as Rhetor seems to be strong, consistent, and speaking the Truth.
LikeLike
I agree with the ideas about ‘the gap’ from VOX and other problems with her presentation that relate; however, i do not believe that this video can be used in comparison to her current campaign. Her problem with this speech seems to be her lack of animation and passion- shes just talking, shes not feeling- way too monotone. She is relying too much on the power of just saying. I think her speaking has become more animated since 1995, seems she has tried to rectify this problem. Maybe it is too late to change the public’s view? In the 1995 speech she was to choppy because of her dependence on each individual work- ‘and. their. families’ ‘that. both. women. and. men. are.’ ‘on. one. should. be. forced. to. remain. silent.’
LikeLike
Shakespeare wrote “Listen to many, speak to few”. This idea of Hillary as a “listener” and her “listening tour” campaign and how it did not resonate well with the press, media and her public ultimately affecting her likability factor I find fascinating. Of interest is the fact that in her Historic Victory Speech of June 7, 2016 she indeed distances herself from the idea of being a “listener”. Instead she reframes listening and flips it saying:
“I want to thank all the people across our country who have taken the time to talk with me. I’ve learned a lot about you….I see you.” No mention of listening whatsoever!
-M
LikeLike
I agree, the woman as “listener” is fascinating to me as well, as it embodies what is sterotypically referred to as a feminine attribute, that of the caretaker. I notated that same paragraph that starts, “I want to than all the people across our country who have taken the time to talk with me” and ends with “Well, I do. I hear you, I see you.” Implicit in that passage is a diaglogue taking place between Hillary and all of the people she’s spoken and a final silent, ‘I’m listening.’ Also, later in the speech, she does nod to idea again when she pounds on her “stronger together” theme and says, “We’re stronger when we work with our allies around the world to keep us safe. And we are stronger when we respect each other, listen to each other, and act with a sense of common purpose.” So the theme of listening does find a way into the speech after all!
LikeLike
This speech is powerful in the sense that Clinton strategically refuses to distinguish women based on categories they would normally be classified under: gender, race, ethnicity, income, etc. She also unifies all women with the understanding that despite the different struggles they face do to different circumstances, they universally understand the concept of not receiving the recognition and rights they deserve. Once she makes it clear that women all over the world are facing the same discrimination do to gender bias, she emphasizes that women are not only women; they are humans whose human rights that are being violated. This binary identity of being a woman and human is a powerful rhetorical strategy and by doing this, Clinton defines the struggles that women face as a struggle humans face. She states, “Human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights”. I think that the importance in this is that Clinton makes gender inequality a shared injustice that can no longer be ignored by the non-female population. It’s such an obvious statement yet the concept of it is still relevant given that the same discriminations are still occurring today 11 years later.
LikeLike
21 years later*
LikeLike
I share a lot of your thoughts on this speech; I was particularly interested in Clinton’s deliberately expansive definitions of women’s roles. And it’s definitely worth noting the consistencies in the messages of the two speeches (though her delivery has improved).
LikeLike
Great point regarding the strength of her rhetoric.
I noticed several appeals to ethos via women she’s met with, previous conferences and location and these serve to solidify her credentials and strengthen her syllogistic reasoning that women are equal contributors/comprise much of the world population and women are violated therefore attacks on women’s rights are attacks on human rights.
On a global scale, this is an especially significant chain of reasoning to voice and even more important considering her role as a political icon even some 21 years ago.
LikeLike
I appreciate your observation on Clinton’s mention in regard to ethnicity and race. She brings in several examples in regards to women living in different parts of the world and I think it strengthens her speech by straying away from an America-centric viewpoint. It is certainly a shared injustice that women face and I am glad she still talks about it 21 years later. I am glad she calls out men on these injustices as well.
LikeLike
I totally agree with what you said about her speech is strengthened by her straying away from an America-centric viewpoint. 21 years later these injustices are still really prevalent and I am happy that she is addressing that these are still issues women face and has the ability to point out that men are a part of the problem.
LikeLike
I really enjoy your point that Clinton makes the most of her rhetoric by demonstrating how gender inequality is “a shared injustice that can no longer be ignored by the non-female population.” Yet I wonder, as I touch on in my own response, if it is truly a shared injustice that affects personally the non-female population, or if it is an injustice only to women, one which could feasibly continue to be ignored by the non-female population, it’s just that Clinton goes to lengths to point out that ignoring this injustice is no longer practical when one could otherwise turn a profit. Perhaps Clinton, as a master rhetor, is pointing out that this injustice is an opportunity for the non-female population to benefit, thereby expanding her audience to include the non-female population in the best way possible: by appealing to their own fiscal interests under the guise of altruism.
Sneaky sneaky…
LikeLiked by 2 people
I added my own annotations to Clinton’s speech:
https://via.hypothes.is/http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/hillaryclintonbeijingspeech.htm
LikeLike
(with the username sp559)
LikeLike
I love that you mention the “He for She” campaign — I think it’s interesting to see the parallels and threads that tie the lineage of the movement back a few decades.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Although the mantra “women’s rights are human rights” as well as the overall thesis of this speech seem to appeal to the rhetoric of equality, I find it interesting how Clinton finds ways to insert the rhetoric of expediency into her speech, as in the 7th paragraph when she speaks, “if women are healthy and educated, their families will flourish. If women are free from violence, their families will flourish. If women have a chance to work and earn as full and equal partners in society, their families will flourish. And when families flourish, communities and nations do as well.” After she has enthralled her audience with her use of anaphora and epistrophe on the phrases “if women…” and “…will flourish,” respectively, Clinton logically deduces that appreciating women’s basic human rights will lead communities and nations to prosper. In doing so, she briefly makes it seem as if pragmatism and expediency are the most important reason we should recognize women’s equality before proceeding towards the rhetoric of equality.
While her speech’s content moves towards the violation of women’s basic human rights, ultimately indicating that women’s equality needs no justification and is an end in and of itself (see anaphora of the phrase “It is a violation of human rights when…” used later on), I found myself wondering at her sneaky inclusion of the rhetoric of expediency. Though I’m limited to mere speculation, I’ve considered that she was, perhaps, trying to expand her target audience to include reactionaries by demonstrating how society as a whole (which includes them personally) might benefit (profit?) from women’s rights and equality. If so, she hits the definition of “expedient” right on the head: “a means of attaining an end, especially one that is convenient but considered improper or immoral.” according to OED. The end here is, of course, women’s rights and equality, and if Machiavelli had it right that “the ends justify the means,” you won’t hear this criticism from me, but it may seem to some a bit improper to suggest women should be valued as equal members of society because it will benefit everyone else.
Speaking abstractly, such rhetoric of expedience may even be considered a form of degradation or even objectification of women for the continued benefit of those in power; speaking practically, however, again, perhaps the ends justify the means.
LikeLike
That pink suit! Thinking a lot about visual rhetoric and the way people interpret messages by what they see as opposed to aural or verbal. The role of color and color having the power to convey and communicate meanings and messages without words. In her speech in Beijing she wears light pink–a color associated with charm, politeness, sensitivity, tenderness, and femininity. Twenty years later, Hillary is still wearing suits — but now she wears bolder more energetic and lively colors — a virtual pantsuit rainbow– Red symbolizing strength and passion; yellow suggesting optimism and cheer; green for vitality, wealth, prestige; blue being communicative, trustworthy, calming; orange reflecting freshness, youthfulness and creativity; white putting forth purity and simplicity; brown/tan to depict her as organic, wholesome, simple, and honest. I am left wondering how much of Hillary’s visual rhetoric is a conscious decision on her part chosen with the purpose of sending a message to her audience.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Buffington36, I like your analysis of the color pink as the choice of wardrobe for this conference in China in 1995, versus her wardrobe and color switch in the United States in 2016. Like anything seen in a thoughtful or brilliant film, nothing is left to chance with Hillary’s appearance. If her hair is messy during a campaign speech, then it’s left that way intentionally, to appeal to whatever audience appreciates a ‘real human of a candidate’ (whatever that means). This reminds me of Sarah Palin during the 2008 campaign; although she wore skirt suits but in darker and bolder colors (like deep reds), people focused more on the price tags, rather than color palettes, perhaps because of her ‘I’m-a-real-maverick-kind-of-candidate’ approach. I’ll confess that even though what someone wears matters (the extent of which depends entirely on the person/people observing), I hate that these conversations focus almost exclusively on what female candidates (or entertainers or world leaders, etc…) wear, while male counterparts are left to their own devices or repetitive wardrobes.
LikeLike
Likewise, it irks me that fashion nearly always plays a role in how we perceive representations of female public figures, but by the same token, I hadn’t noticed (perhaps made a conscious effort not to notice) the color of her suit until buffington36 pointed it out along with its implications of stereotypical femininity. Especially in today’s image-saturated culture, the visual aspect of the “total package” of a candidate just can’t go unnoticed. I’m glad that Hillary has the option of making specific sartorial choices to enhance her campaign and underline her messages.
LikeLike
It’s interesting that you mention the suit because I was thinking how much more feminine she looked and spoke during this speech than recent speeches. I’ve noticed her style and way of speaking has changed since then and even more so since the 2008 election and I wonder if it has anything to the critique of “women are too emotional to become president”. She has a more “masculine” presence today than she did in this speech.
LikeLike
What struck me about this speech was the way in which Hilary Clinton stressed the importance of the qualities women possess and societal roles they fill that make them unique, while still artfully melding that notion with the idea that women are equal to men. She did this most powerfully by repeating the idea that women’s rights are human rights. Women’s rights should not have to be discussed on different forums or valued only by women themselves. Rather they should be a part of a fully encompassing discussion on human rights, to be heard, respected and considered by all. In my opinion this speech was a mix of the argument for justice and the argument for expediency. Clinton’s most powerful claim, that women’s rights are human rights, is essentially an argument for justice. Women and men are the same and their issues should be treated with the same levels of seriousness and interest from all people. However, Clinton also placed a great deal of emphasis on the ways in which women differentiate themselves from men. She emphasized the role women often fill as primary care giver to their families and the inability of any family to flourish without the strength and perseverance found in the open exhibition of feminine qualities. This is a view point that up until this moment at the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women, were not spoken about on a larger scale. The value of femininity, of the nurturer, was not a part of American rhetoric. Hilary Clinton captured the essence of what is important about femininity in this speech and put it out to her listeners as something to be valued, but not only valued, but a quality to be viewed as part of the larger strength of a nation. This comparison is the crux of her argument and the source of its power. Clinton was able to turn the traditional masculine value of strength and apply it to the embodiment of femininity as a different, but equally important part of the power and strength of a nation as a whole.
LikeLike
As Hillary emphasized healthy and educated and socially involved women as pillars for a strong and stable family, I thought about who this perspective would appeal to, and I realized that most of this speech is intended for and appealing to men. When Hillary states that families flourish when its women are healthy and educated, she is appealing to both women and men through pathos; after all, who doesn’t want to see their family flourish? However, when she states that most of the work women do with regards to family is not valued by popular culture, economists, historians, and politicians, she is speaking to the men in these positions, since this argument seems to say (at least to me) that men make up the majority in these positions and because women are somewhat to mostly excluded (depending on the position), they are at the mercy of men. So much of this speech focuses on improving the lives of women (through health, education, and social reform) so that they can improve the lives of their families (and by extention, of their relatives). There is no mention of improving the lives of women by allowing them the choice of being a single, childless, and educated woman because that notion is too radical, too unappealing to the intended audience. She appeals to the pathos of men in her closing statements by declaring that there will be no peace in this world until women are treated as equals – she does this by amplifying the threat of domestic instability (because what man would want to live in an unstable home?)
When Hillary speaks about the many violations women have and continue to face simply for being women or girls, the rhetoric becomes visceral and graphic with phrasing such as, “babies strangled or spines crushed” and “women doused with gas and burned alive because their dowry was deemed too small.” With every shocking but realistic statement, Hillary emphasizes that it is a violation of human rights; she does not say ‘women’s rights.’ If something is repeated enough, it starts to become its own truth.
As First Lady of the United States, no detail in presentation goes unplanned, so I’m wondering if the blush-pink skirt suit was chosen to match the audacity of the message (since pink holds your attention), or was it supposed to remind observers that even though Hillary may have bold words, pretty pink is for girls and she knows her role, which is why she is keeping femininity front and center?
LikeLike
In her speech in Beijing,Hillary Clinton proves to be an excellent women’s rights advocate.She delivers a well organized,clearly focused speech with a just demand for considering ‘Women’s Rights as Human Rights.’
The intricate outline leads listeners to recognize,understand and embody Hillary’s demand.At the beginning,she starts setting common grounds for all women being more united than divided.”However different we may appear,there is far more that unites us than divides us.”Although she celebrates women being united and holding this conference,she nevertheless addresses people against such conferences.Her counter argument is based on the importance of holding the conference and how it will have a global impact.By referring to the success of the previous Nairobi conference in acknowledging domestic violence and making the world aware of it,she gives context to her words.
Her speech moves forward to display her rhetoric ability as a lawyer and first lady,she adds logos to her readily earned ethos.Her demand that women should be given the right to speak freely and be heard based on human rights.Then referring to the worldwide acknowledged human rights at Vienna leads logically to her justified call for “No one should be forced to remain silent.”
On the other hand,her pathos appeal does touch the heart of people especially when phrased in a memorable repetitive analogy of”It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food……when women and girls are sold…doused with gasoline.”
In my opinion,her topoi of cause and effect as well as the use of analogy contributed the most to the success of her speech.Finding a relation between ‘when women flourish,their families will flourish and consequently the world will flourish.’ proved her point and granted her speech a great deliverative rhetoric which will hopefully lead the world to move to the future through “taking bold steps to better the lives of women,…..lives of children and families.”
LikeLike
What struck me most about this speech was, ironically, how little it struck me at first, on both an emotional and a logical level. To an American millennial based in New York City – albeit a female millennial – Clinton is stating the obvious. Of course women’s rights are human rights, and vice-versa… that’s just common sense! How could such logic be disputed? Was it really necessary to argue that women are humans, deserving of a life free from horrific violence, and was it politically expedient to deliver said argument with such specific, repetitive detail?
After reading the associated news article, however, I began to get a sense for the “Context of Clinton” with regard to “Clinton as Rhetor.” I read and listened to Clinton again, taking the sociohistorical context of not only this speech, but this type of speech, into account. This time, I was moved to tears.
The persuasive power of these words does not hide “between the lines,” unlike much of today’s political rhetoric; rather, its power lies in the mere utterance of these words, BY the First Lady of the United States, TO a diverse group of international women linked by struggle, AT an early conference on women’s rights, where – sadly enough – basic rights had not been advocated for so plainly until this moment.
The abundant references to women all over the world, as well as to the critical importance of their societal contributions, did not weigh down the speech, as they seemed to before; rather, these references contributed significantly to Clinton’s ethos, emphasizing both the varied roles and responsibilities of women as well as Clinton’s dedication to her fellow women, underscored by the power she holds as a woman. And the decision to list abuses against women so explicitly, reframing them – rightly so – as abuses against humanity as a whole, was bold, even revolutionary, given the political climate of the time. However, Clinton clearly did not take this task lightly: she manages to combine the “argument from justice” with the “argument from expediency” by framing women’s issues as the world’s issues. According to Clinton, if women are afforded basic respect and human rights, not only will they flourish – their families will flourish, their communities will flourish, then their countries, then the world and its population therein. Emphasizing women’s crucial role in family life, along with their increasingly important contributions to work outside the home, seems outdated today – but it was essential to get the point across in 1995 Beijing.
Although Clinton’s tone and delivery are businesslike, occasionally faltering, and the arrangement/structure of her speech is relatively straightforward, the enormous weight of her words renders the speech effective, historic, nonetheless. In this case, nothing more was required of Clinton than to be an unapologetic champion for women through words that were, back then, too often left unspoken.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hillary’s 4th World Conference for Women Speech was filled with references to unity and rights. She made it a point to discuss EVERY woman from the children to the adults. She discussed a range of women, their different careers, cities, countries, and continents. Placing a huge emphasis on the fact that though all seemingly from completely different walk of life they still have to deal the same ongoing struggle – rights. No matter their class or creed, women around the globe are constantly subjected to abuse, as Clinton mentions and the stripping of basic human rights. It’s a very plain message she is sending and she makes it a point to drill it in. She constantly repeats the words “women” and “rights” and “human rights” throughout, leading us to her most poignant statement, “If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, let it be that human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights, once and for all.”
Expanding on this point she makes sure to use trigger words in her 2016 speech, “all” “human” “rights” “unity/unify.” She’s very clear and direct (a bit more cheeky) in her speeches using for the most part very accessible language and creating a sort of rhythm to her main message, which is simply, that all people need to access to the same rights.
LikeLike
Hillary’s speech at the UN Fourth World Conference on Women was momentous because of who was giving the speech, where it was given, and when. Hillary was being excoriated in her own country and as the AP article noted, there were concerns about letting a first lady wade into political waters. Bill and China did not necessarily have the best relationship. To give a speech on human rights, specifically regarding women, in China (not a human rights leader btw) in the 90’s was a bit brave in itself.
She consistently tries to create an environment in which everyone is included. Her multiple allusions to families and her usage of ‘we’ in place of ‘i’ at points shows that she is casting a wide net in choosing her audience. She is fostering a sense of community amongst this audience and subsequently painting herself as the leader (setup for political aspirations?) To praise mothers and children specifically is to put a focus on bonds and relationships, which she wants to strengthn across borders into address her speech topic.
Hillary also generates images of women who are vastly multifaceted. Women brings up all kinds of different occupations when discussing working women. She mentions all different types of problems, from health-related to money-related ones, that face women across the globe. In doing this she is trying to appeal to all women, like a true feminist, and also reach out to men. By describing women of such different standings she is trying to get men to be able to related to them. Relatability will help men realize that women deserve equality like them.
Altogether Hillary makes a persuasive argument for womens rights and how they are human rights. I would have appreciated her addressing the side that says womens rights deserve more prominence than general human rights, because of undue hardship faced by women.
LikeLike
Within the speech “ Women’s Rights are Human Rights,” Hillary Clinton creates interweaving narratives as she argues that “ human right’s are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights.” She appeals to the audience’s ethics when she repeats “It is a violation of human rights…” seven times. Within these examples, she alludes to the different cultures, customs and policies that negatively affect women. I appreciate that she didn’t homogenize the experiences of women everywhere into one universal experience. This speech is similar to the speech she made in Brooklyn in that has the “ stronger together” theme. I believe that this is an argument from expediency, in that she is arguing for the equal rights for men and women because women are different from men, but just as valuable because they are equally human.
LikeLike