Timeless Rhetoric: Atwood & MLK

between the patriarchal and ideological feminist representations of women.

The recurring motif of the ‘eternal breakfast’ acts as a symbol of the static state of which she is critiquing. Atwood argues that a state of stationary perfection becomes static, and hence the flawless representation of women in literature becomes static. Atwood uses the rhetoric device of dirimens copulatio in the extract “what are novels anyway?Only a very foolish person would attempt to give a definite answer to that”, this hints at self-deprecation and creates a sense of humility and textual integrity as she accept s this flaw in her argument so to appear unbiased. Atwood argues that the depiction of women in literature ironically prevents women’s advancement, similarly Aung San Suu Kyo argues that the depiction of women in their traditional roles of carers and nurturers has prevented their advancement in politics. Atwood employs polyvocality to shift from complex arguments to the seemingly simplistic anecdote of the eternal breakfast.

Her literary knowledge and wit allows her to embody her message and complex ideas to convey that she as a woman is complex. The speeches timelessness and treatment of universal concerns through the construction of rhetoric support her argument and captivate the attention of past and present audiences. In ‘Keynote’, the composer effectively constructs rhetoric to addresses the universal issue of gender inequality to satisfactorily call for social reform. Suu Kyi was a recognised activist for women’s right and was leader of the democracy movement in Burma.Similarly to Atwood, her context allowed the audience to trust the speaker, enhancing her ability to engage audiences and increasing the textual integrity of the speech. She argues that women need

to gain a political platform to eradicate gender inequality.

Suu Kyi uses pathos to appeal to the nurturing nature of women whereas Atwood does the opposite, in referring to the complexity of women’s characters. Her argument rests on the notion of women’s traditional role of ‘nurturing, protecting and caring. ’ She contrasts this with the statement ‘no war has ever been started by a woman.She questions why women have the role of raising the family whilst being denied the same rights and freedoms of men. Suu Kyi furthers the notion of the full participation of women in all levels of government, appealing to logos, repeating the four essential components of human development as identified by the UNDP.

She also appeals to logo in stating the UN’s definition of tolerance and goes a step further to redefine it to ‘the active effort to try to understand the point of view of others’, in contrast to ‘live and let live’.Suu Kyi capitalises on her personal context to empower her female audience to call for gender equality. She states that her main thesis is to ‘voice some of the common hopes which firmly unite us all in our splendid diversity,’ conveying the sense that her speech will be free of dogma, but also reflecting the nature of the United Nations. Her reference to ‘brave men’, is also ironic, as she is redefining men not as part of the supremacy that is the case in Burma, but in the minority of those attending the conference.This speeches effective construction of rhetoric devices support’s Suu Kyi’s main ideas of gender inequality in politics.

In conclusion, both speeches convey the main idea

of the suppression of women, whether that be in literature in Margaret Atwood’s Speech ‘Spotty Handed Villainesses’, or in politics in Aung San Suu Kyi’s speech ‘Keynote Address at the Beijing World Conference on Women. These speeches rely on the effective construction of rhetoric devices to support their main ideas, captivate audiences and transcend time.