Hi, I'm Ivana.

Today it probably all clicked for me. In Rwanda. I’m here briefly on an expedition of our Solvo Institute together with Professor Miroslav Bárta. We’re studying a society run by women. They hold 60% of the seats in parliament.

Rwanda, in East Africa, is often called the “land of a thousand hills” thanks to its mountainous terrain. In size it’s comparable to Moravia, but its population is closer to Czechoslovakia before the split—around 14 million. It might not seem like a particularly remarkable country, apart from the landscape, but it is different.

Rwanda has a very young population - more than 60% of people are under 25 and as I’ve said, women have a powerful voice in this African country. And this is despite the fact that most of the population is religious, mostly Christian, with a tiny Muslim minority, and as is “known from the Bible,” woe to the man ruled by a woman.

Yet here they rule almost exclusively.

How is that possible? It’s simply the result of developments over the last 30 years. The 1994 genocide was a tragedy during which about 800,000 people were killed in 100 days, mainly members of the Tutsi ethnicity - above all men. Since then, Rwanda has undergone fundamental renewal. Perhaps the foundations were laid by earlier colonialism - Protestant Germany and Belgium - and the resulting better status of Protestant daughters in society, who were more often regarded as partners to their husbands.

The genocide left 800,000 dead, shattered families - women with children - and thousands of orphans. It wasn’t unusual for one or two women to live under one roof with a crowd of ten or fourteen children. Who would feed them? They had no father and often no mother either. The survivors had to take care of themselves. These women started from nothing. They would milk a goat, if they had one, and instead of giving the milk to the children that day, they would sell it to buy flour, and so on. From small earnings to larger ones and eventually to big business. From selling surpluses to small-scale production in workshops, to shops and even factories. Society also had to be organized and educated. Women quite naturally moved from the home into employment or entrepreneurship, because without them society would not have been rebuilt. They were needed. They became an indispensable part of the success of the new Rwanda.

I always say that women’s success rests on far greater effort than men’s. This isn’t to diminish men’s achievements—it’s just practical reality. Generations of women who wanted to succeed had to do not only their so-called “women’s work,” i.e., running the household, caring for children, working in the fields or garden, and only then could they devote themselves to what offered an “upside”: education, money, success. I’m not exaggerating; this applied even to women from affluent backgrounds. “First you’ll learn to cook, sew, and embroider, and then you can sit down to that crazy physics or mathematics, or write a short story.” It’s centuries of women’s hard labor. And those who did not toil were entirely dependent on men - first their fathers, then their husbands.

If we look at the history of wars, the same scenario repeats over and over. Men go off to fight and women take up their roles as breadwinners and protectors of the family. Women who had previously had to obey their husbands’ decisions in everything or struggled to get their (often correct) opinions heard, began to run the household or take jobs; they had to assume the position of family breadwinner. And they had to manage it. The family that depended on them simply would not survive otherwise. How could they manage without preparation?

For one thing, they had always been present throughout the process of making a living, and we all know the proverb: “Necessity taught Dalibor to play the fiddle”- that is, when there’s no other choice, we accomplish the impossible.

Besides caring for the family and ensuring production needed “in the rear” during war, from World War I women were part of the military as nurses, telephone operators, intelligence officers, scouts, spies. During World War II the U.S. had the Women’s Army Corps (WAC). Within it there were Army Postal Units, where women handled sorting, delivering, and recording field mail.

The best known was the 6888th Central Postal Directory Battalion—an all-female African American unit sent in 1945 to England and later to France to process a massive backlog of mail for American soldiers.

Their motto was “No Mail, Low Morale.” Why am I speaking so extensively about women’s involvement in war? Because when crisis comes, woman or not, it’s necessary to take on even “men’s” professions; gender doesn’t matter.

The fates of women who served during World War II, in the army, auxiliary corps, or factories, varied by country and social situation.

In the U.S., when soldiers returned, men were massively favored for jobs, so many women had to leave factories and auxiliary services. Only a small number continued, and that was more the exception.

African American women (such as those from the 6888th Postal Battalion) also faced segregation and discrimination upon returning, and their contributions were officially recognized only decades later.

In Great Britain the situation was similar. Society valued their contributions, but pressure returned for the traditional female role of wife and mother.

Wehrmachtshelferinnen - the Wehrmacht’s female auxiliaries - telephone operators, clerks, nurses, operators of searchlights and anti-aircraft guns, became unnecessary after the Reich’s defeat; most were interned, interrogated, and then returned to civilian life.

Those who served directly in the NSDAP apparatus (the SS-Helferinnenkorps) were seen as collaborators and sometimes faced punishment or social stigmatization.

In the USSR, over 800,000 women served during World War II, from pilots to snipers. After the war, most faced severe social injustice. Society acknowledged their contribution, but again the pressure to return to the traditional roles of wife and mother prevailed. Demobilization ultimately sent women back home to their original roles. Even so, the war changed perceptions of women’s work and was one of the catalysts for later feminist movements (especially in the 1960s).

And now, what about the men?

Rwandan men are distinctive, tough, and temperamental. They’re not thrilled about self-confident women and Rwandan women are self-confident. They don’t show it at first glance, though. They are soft in communication and try to be accommodating. They’re kind. They’re not like South American women (my apologies here) - forthright and fiery. With their kindness and suppleness they try to defend their position. But when pressure comes and men use the tactic in communication of “either you back down or I leave the family,” then, to preserve the family - which holds enormous value for them - they would rather step back from their positions and submit. They want a father for their children; they want a family for themselves and their children. They pay for it with their independence and self-reliance. In my view this is given by the biological need of a mother to protect her young. Even after what they have experienced or heard from their older sisters, Rwandan women have managed to preserve their mysterious femininity, which springs precisely from an awareness of their role as mothers. And it’s not only local women who behave this way. The biology of motherhood is potentially in each of us; that’s why emancipation develops in waves. When humanity faces greater danger, both sexes fight - each with their own weapons. When there is peace and quiet, the lions lounge in the sun and the lionesses hunt and provide for the cubs.

Thirty years have passed since the genocide. Today Rwanda is considered one of the safest and cleanest countries in Africa. Kigali is a modern city with rapidly growing infrastructure. And women here still, even after 30 years, hold a majority position in the governance of the country and public affairs. The more time passes since the genocide, the harder it is to maintain the position they won.

We, women in the Czech Republic, can still only dream of such representation in parliament.

The lovely Gabriela Marešová interviewed me recently, and I think it turned into a really nice print feature. I'd be happy if you gave it a read. I talk about our inner jealousy, of course about Lunches for Kids, and why we need to raise children with the understanding that they are free beings, to raise them as free people who can freely choose whom they love, and whom they don't.

Here's the link.

They wrote about us in Forbesu, E15, and even Vogue. And I’m incredibly proud of our team. Not everyone has the chance to attend therapy in person, which is exactly why we created the Amicara app. We’re continuously developing it in collaboration with mental health professionals to help people navigate difficult family situations and emotional challenges.

I’m a proud tester and regular user myself, so I’d love for you to try it out too.