Rhetorical Analysis Of Hillary Rodham Clinton

Hillary Rodham Clinton is a widely known figure in America and elsewhere as well. She is an American politician that advocates for women’s rights and the former United States Secretary of State. On December 1995, Clinton gave her remarks at the U.N. 4th World Conference on the Women’s Plenary Session. Clinton addresses all attendees in the Beijing location, which included other human and women’s rights activists. She gave an eclectic amount of examples about the troubles women go through on a daily basis by using persuasive and forceful rhetorical devices. It’s used to inform the audience about the issues involving women’s rights in order to convince them to take action. Through her rhetoric, Clinton proves that women’s rights do matter and that they are the foundation of the family.
Clinton’s skillful use of rhetoric is weaved into her speech in order to convince and inform the audience of her cause. Using expletives, she starts the sentence off with a general commencement, but then goes into the details that really matter.
“By gathering in Beijing, we are focusing world attention on issues that matter most in our lives -- the lives of women and their families: access to

education, health care, jobs and credit, the chance to enjoy basic legal and human rights and to participate fully in the political life of our countries.”
The expletive provides additional information that is crucial to the lines following it. It informs the audience of the struggles women and their families experience, especially rights that seem miniscule and petty in the “common man’s” eyes, but are huge and important in the eyes of those who do not have it.
She continues her technique of listing examples in the third paragraph of the speech .
“We come together in fields and factories, in village markets and supermarkets, in living rooms and board rooms. Whether it is while playing with our children in the park, or washing clothes in a river, or taking a break at the office water cooler, we come together and talk about our aspirations and concern.”
Her use of juxtaposition is for the purpose of developing contrasts and comparisons between “fields and factories” and “village markets and supermarkets.” Although they are all different places and complete opposites of one another, Clinton is expressing that everyone still coalesces at the end of the day to form a community where aspirations and concerns are shared and discussed. The examples also set an instance where the rich and the poor are being compared, but in the end, with all differences set aside, we still have the same problems sitting in front of us. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, and no one seems to have a solution.
Clinton connects the subject of her piece (which is women and their families) by using epistrophes in several sentences.
“What we are learning around the world is that 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.”

It connects everything related to women back to their families. Clinton is saying a family will only flourish when the women too, are given the same rights as everyone else. The repetition of the ending emphasises the necessity and importance of women’s rights and creates a memorable and euphonious tone due to the rhyme scheme. It also appeals to audience members who are family oriented or have families.
Clinton continues her rhyme scheme throughout the entire speech using mostly anaphora. One example is the one child policy that was enforced at that time. Clinton starts with the use of anaphora and a small anecdote.
“I have met new mothers in Indonesia, who come together regularly in their village to discuss nutrition, family planning, and baby care. I have met working parents in Denmark who talk about the comfort they feel in knowing that their children can be cared for in safe, and nurturing after-school centers. I have met women in South Africa who helped lead the struggle to end apartheid and are now helping to build a new democracy. I have met with the leading women of my own hemisphere who are working every day to promote literacy and better health care for children in their countries. I have met women in India and Bangladesh who are taking out small loans to buy milk cows, or rickshaws, or thread in order to create a livelihood for themselves and their families. I have met the doctors and nurses in Belarus and Ukraine who are trying to keep children alive in the aftermath of Chernobyl.”

Although there is a small anecdote that indicates Clinton’s experience of actually seeing and meeting the women with the struggles, every sentence begins with “I have met.” It has a good ring to it, but it also proves that the points she made on women’s rights are valid and true. It only draws the audience to her argument even more, convincing them to take action for women. The small anecdote also reveals to the audience situations that they may not have had a precedence with and the use of anaphora pushes them to support women’s rights even more.
Not only does Clinton strategically use rhetorical devices throughout her speech, she uses appeals to pathos. She brings up the lack of freedom for women and families to have more than one child (which is because of the “one child policy” in China). She states that “both women and men are entitled to a range of protections and personal freedoms, from the right of personal security to the right to determine freely the number and spacing of the children they bear.” This appeals widely to pathos because many women most likely had to give up their second child, which is infuriatingly horrendous. It is a widely known policy throughout the world and those who do have children--which is probably a significant amount of the audience-- will understand and sympathize with the women.
She continues to use connect to the audience through an appeal to logos by discussing the women out there who work long hours in minimum wage jobs just to support their children.

She appeals to those who cannot afford the correct necessities for their families, and yet, are still not given the same rights as everyone else. She speaks for “women who are working all night as nurses, hotel clerks, or fast food chefs so that they can be at home during the day with their children; and for women everywhere who simply don’t have time to do everything they are called upon to do each and every day.” This appeal just proves to the audience that women and their families do deserve their rights. They work twice as hard for half the pay, and yet they’re children do not have safe places to live or

learn?
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s fight for women’s rights continues to appeal to those with families-- which is typically, a greater amount of the population. “If we take bold steps to better the lives of women, we will be taking bold steps to better the lives of children and families too.” Her use of parallelism pushes the connection between women and family because “families rely on mothers and wives for emotional support and care.” Both sides of the parallelism example have a similar form and syntax, which is used as a persuasive device to convince the audience to fight with Clinton and realize the connection between women and family values.
Clinton’s use of rhetorical devices such as anaphora and appeals to logos and pathos create a compelling tone that makes the speech more memorable. She laid the cold , hard facts down on her audience with no remorse and included anecdotes that are unimaginable to those who have freedom. Her appeals were strong and convincing because they were generally relatable and easily interpreted by the audience. Overall, the continuous connection between women and family in the entire speech encourages the audience and others to take action on the behalf of women everywhere. And those that care for their families will do so.