After many years as a speechwriter, speech coach, and judge for speechwriting contests, Dana Rubin was tired of hearing people always quoting historic men, including Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy and more.
“Over and over I would hear the names of these lionized men,” Rubin told Know Your Value. “I began to wonder: Was it really true that the greatest speakers in history were men? Why do we almost never hear about women speakers?”
That led Rubin on a quest. She began buying speech anthologies in effort to find out what the historical consensus is about the greatest speeches in history.
“I became truly obsessed. I bought more and more speech anthologies, and when I had 230 of them I put them on an infographic. At a glance you can see that over the past two centuries, the field of public speaking has overwhelmingly been defined as a male pursuit. It’s something that ‘great men’ in history have done — and certainly not ‘great women.’”
Next, Rubin decided to do some research to find out whether it was actually true that women have mostly been silent in history. Or, if they did publicly speak, if their speeches were any good.
Rubin found out that women have been speaking in public throughout history — making speeches, advancing causes, introducing reforms, giving funeral orations, leading prayer services, presenting testimony, and more. She created an online archive, the Speaking While Female Speech Bank, which now has thousands of speeches by women from around the world.
As the second part of the project, Rubin has published a book that coincides with Women’s History Month called “Speaking While Female: 75 Extraordinary Speeches by American Women.”
Know Your Value recently chatted with Rubin about her new book. Below is the conversation:
Know Your Value: In the book, you ask, “Why don’t we read or hear about speeches given by women throughout U.S. history? Why do we assume all the greatest speeches were by men?” What do you think the answer is?
Rubin: I have been grappling with this question for years. Finally, I’ve concluded there are several factors. One is that throughout much of history, the men in positions of power recognized that public speaking was a powerful tool for leadership, for persuasion and influence, and they didn’t want women doing it. They wanted to reserve that function and power for themselves. They wanted women to keep to their own sphere.
Even with the temperance movement, which got underway in the 1820s, the clergy and laymen leaders initially leading the cause didn’t want women involved as leaders and speakers. Later in the century, of course, temperance and prohibition became primarily a women’s movement, and women became impassioned and persuasive speakers, organizers, and lobbyists, because women were the ones who experienced first-hand the devastating effects of alcohol on family life. The same was true with the famous anti-slavery convention in London in 1840 — even the six women who had been accepted as “delegates” (like Lucretia Mott) were forced to sit at the sidelines and not allowed to speak. The men did not want women to lead.
But in addition, I’ve come to realize something more. It’s that the so-called leaders of society, the men with institutional power, didn’t believe that women had much to contribute. They saw women as subordinate and inferior. Women’s place was in the home. Men were basically not interested in what women had to say.
As why we commonly assume, even today that all the greatest speeches were given by men, I believe it’s a historical gap that got replicated and reinforced over time.
Consider this: if a woman spoke at an event but no journalist was assigned to cover it, and no stenographer was on hand to take notes, then that woman’s words would not be recorded, and they would not appear in the newspaper the next day. Without that, her speech would not be reprinted as a pamphlet, or included in anthologies. She would not be quoted. As the years went by, the absence of women’s voices solidified as reality. With each new anthology came a reentrenchment of the idea that it wasn’t worth looking around for women’s speeches, because they didn’t’ exist.
Because we had never read women’s speeches, they didn’t exist.
Know Your Value: What are your favorite three speeches that are highlighted in this book and why?
Rubin: It’s impossible to name my favorite speeches. I love them all, for different reasons. Each one, in its place and time, served an important historic purpose.
I will, though, call attention to a few that stand out as publishing milestones:









