All this is inspiring but at some point not matching with certain practices such as that “a girl should remain under her parents’ roof till” and only if “she is moving under a husband’s roof”.
We are all aware of our common practices. However, “common practice” is not enough reason to declare the finality of any given idea or deed. Surely, women can no longer afford to be regarded as property of a man that is simply passed on to another.
Conventions like the one in the mentioned article deserve credit and indeed should continue to discuss which “common practices” also pass as “reasonable and feasible practices” and which ones do not. That said, I believe strong consideration of women’s personal choice of whom to live with, when and under what terms should be made.
Thereafter, Rwanda can claim progress towards sustainable development; when the livelihood of women depends not merely on culture, but on all the other factors men’s livelihood does which can equally apply to women.
After all, cultures are historically very much subject to modification. In fact, the argument about women’s choice of abode should now be more about ethics and intellectual maturity rather than merely the dictates of tradition.
Natasha Muhoza, Kigali
Reactions to the story, “Women are the heartbeat of society, says First Lady”, (The New Times, August 8)
Women can no longer afford to be regarded as properties