My dad chilling with the White Lady, circa 1965.

It’s hard to imagine a time at McMaster when there was no hospital on Main Street; when undergraduates were counted in the hundreds, rather than the thousands; when there were a mere four buildings populating campus.

It’s both a humorous and humbling adventure exploring archival articles and photographs from back in the day, and has become a frequent pastime of Sil staff. So much has changed (or not changed) over the course of McMaster’s history, for better and for worse. This week, we wanted to share a piece of that history in the form of featuring throwback content in every section.

Perhaps most striking about these recycled pieces is how timeless they are in their continued relevance to student life, government policy and Hamilton culture. Behind the yellowed newsprint and antiquated language are opinions, issues and thoughts that still matter and deserve a second run of publication.

Such nostalgia is a powerful conversation starter. Personal connections and forgotten stories often find their way into the present when we spend a moment wondering about the past. If we hadn’t published last week about the vandalized White Lady statue – who she is and where she came from – I would never know that once upon a time, a toddler-father of mine once sat in her arms in a blue jumper (and that there’s photographic evidence, as pictured, to prove it).

It’s easy for memories like that to get lost in the passage of time, especially on a campus where student – and student government – turnover happens at an accelerated rate. What is particularly disheartening is when those fighting the good fight on any variety of issues don’t have long enough to accomplish their goals in such a short time here, and when the progress they started is forgotten shortly after their convocation date. Their concerns and campaigns are often reincarnated a brief time later – but only once the momentum has died and the advocates, representatives and leaders don’t have the context or history to pick up where others left off. They’re back to square one.

That’s why concerns that were raised 30 years ago about (and by) the SRA are echoed today, the same old opinions get written every year, clubs have continuity issues and statues remain – years later – sadly graffitied, former glory all but forgotten.

This is how it has always been, but not how it needs to be. Sometimes, it isn’t until we take a moment to look back that we can know more clearly how we want to move forwards.

Jemma Wolfe
Executive Editor

Who makes a better wife: the modern girl or the old-fashioned girl? In 1930, this was a hot topic on campus, and unsurprisingly (at least to me) the old-fashioned archetype prevailed.

Such a debate (and a formal one at that – hosted by the Women’s Debating Society) is one I initially wanted to dismiss. Who wants to take such archaic discussions about “culinary skill and budget-keeping proficiency” by “freshettes” and “sophettes” very seriously?

What’s sad, however, and what makes reflection on such seemingly outdated conversations worthwhile, is that really, not much has changed. A stunning 83 years later, we’re still talking about the same old issues. Granted, we use different language and our judgment of women has expanded beyond the criteria of cooking and financial planning. But women are still commonly expected to desire the essentials of the “old-fashioned” girl’s life: being a good wife, wanting to “bear and bring up children,” learning to cook (and being good at it), and willingly sacrificing her career for children.

It’s not that women should feel bad about questioning who they want to be, what they want out of life and what ideals they want to live by. Those are natural and critical conversations to have with oneself; but that’s just it – they’re private subjects for reflection, and are not appropriate identities to classify as either “modern” or “old-fashioned” binaries. Women’s, or rather, people’s identities are far too nuanced to be so simplified and pigeonholed.

Back in 1930, The Silhouette’s writer was careful to point out that despite their edgy discussions, “the freshettes have firm faith in the modern girl’s ability to make a perfect mate for man.” On the contrary, I have firm faith in the modern girl’s ability to see beyond society and convention and be their own person, pursue their own careers, have babies if they want them – and not be shamed if they don’t.

If they attract a man – or woman – along the way with whom they are equally enamored, then that should be seen as pleasant happenstance.

Women’s personal growth and skills are not a means to an end in marriage. I hope that in 2013, we can put this thinking to rest.