So let us be honest when we ponder on the word "women" with "agents of change". The problem at hand is that does this create the "real change we need "? We all know that there is no "real change" unless women are not financially independent and unless the nearly half population of women in Pakistan don't become nearly 50% of employed people in the public and private sectors. If this is not met we can forget about eradicating the oppression and violence and equality and rights that women deserve. Because then it will all come down to "morality".
Has the women universities able to achieve the above-mentioned goal? No, the answer is simply negative. Considering the realist view of the society the "money" equates the "power" in society. So if the women are financially independent from men they would not need to appeal on the morality of the society or shout to make differences etc.
The only agent that can make a difference in the social status of women second to above mentioned economical independence is the "morality" of the individuals, of the communities and of the society as a whole. Those marching in " Capitalist Aurat march" and those not marching in these marches all appeal and shout to the MORALITY of the society. The correction of morality as history has told when not backed by punishments and rewards methods fail. It is the same morality that applies the principle "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must".
Evaluating the result of the role of women universities as agents of change in moral behaviour, however strong it may be, would always remain as the effect of the "weak of the society". What comes out of the women universities all around the world, are the results of the researches done and the published books, that are written by the women in universities which ultimately get dissolved in the society and make the opinions of the society as a whole. The emergence of revolutionary ideas and often the striking striking facts associated with these enlighten the minds of the readers that can call for a future change to take place. For example, the course "violence against women" mostly taught in universities drive women to think on the social attitudes and make them aware of the violations they thought to be normal as serious human right abuses. These self-aware women would in real life never go back to the same state of acceptance of this violence again. Although this agent of change brought by women universities that in this case is "the awakening" does not and in most cases never prove as a remedy. It would although, in the evolutionary phase of growth and development of human society, may cause a betterfly effect in the far future. That is the proponents of this method of "speaking out LOUD" may never live to see the change in their lifespan.
Many capitalist countries encourage the education of women. The Hilary Clinton efforts and the efforts of the UNO has seen women universities in the underdeveloped world as agents of change. As more women go to the university level they are more likely to improve the social status of their family. But yes it is true the change they are agents of are likely to be the western kind of change, as that what mostly the degree programs teach. This is because women universities are based on the modern pattern of education that is black and white and often fails to give nomenclature to the colours of indigenous society. So the only agents of change we see are far off from the ground reality of the society.
When universities education becomes a "compromise version" of the accomodating western standards to suit the indigenous minds the result always comes out to be a compromise.
Let us at a seemingly bizarre but logical comparison questions of economics and violence against women. For example, why the IMF is not linked to causing violence against women? When the most subjected women of violence and injustice belong to the lowest class of economically in the debt trapped countries. why the exploitation of resources in the far off African villages by the European companies like the shell and British petroleum not taken as the cause of deteriorating status of women in that society? Is the so so called educating the women, through the change of agents breeding institutions, the women universities solving the problem or designing the solution?
The answer is simple and straight forward the capacity of the society to make a change for itself is drawn out and the agents of change that result in this manner encompassed in the small box of MORALITY ALONE DRIVEN campaigns.