Women in Cambridge have been making headlines in the University papers for a long time. Articles either announcing their admittance to a new section of university life, or vehemently condemning the threat to tradition posed by their behaviour, are not hard to come by. By trawling the Varsity archives for what was printed in this same week 60 years, 50 years, or even only ten years ago, the discussion of women’s place here is continuously contestable.

The 1951 argument about the right of women to participate in Union debates hit the headlines as traditionalist male Union executives sought to negotiate with determined female undergraduates. In fact, King’s, which currently enjoys a positive reputation for open-mindedness, first allowed female guests to join members of the college at Hall in this week 1961. Even then the move attracted criticism from some undergraduate members, who dismissed it as a ‘futile break with tradition’.

However, the problems encountered by women in their struggle for equal treatment did not solely emanate from male reactionaries but also from within their own ranks. Some women agreed that the debating society should remain for men only.

Apathy from the more academic quarters of the female population was a fundamental stumbling block, as without solidarity there was little hope for women’s collective voice to be heard, especially as they only constituted 10% of the student body in 1961.

Despite these difficulties, the 1961 edition also reported a “Feminine revolution” as an unstoppable force for change. The movement predicted the girls’ army of “clip-clopping high-heels” would eradicate segregated institutions by the 21st century. But, arguably, this “revolution” is yet to materialise.

The all-male Pitt Club still exists. And so does the apathy within the student population. Where are the protests outside the doors of Pizza Express? The thought is laughable. Are members socially ostracised for their acquiescence to the exclusion of women, except as exotic guests? Again, the idea cannot be entertained; the members of the club are integral characters to many peoples’ social groups and they will not be forced to seek refuge in each other’s arms, despite their institution’s belittling of female company.

It’s almost as if the vibrant feminist hopes of an equal Cambridge society have been quietened, mesmerised by the co-educational colleges and lulled into silence by the relatively low profiles held by such gentleman’s clubs these days. The lost sense of urgency within the movement is evident in the shift in the amount of press attention given to women’s issues.

The events of November 1961 demanded a double-page spread but now, a writer would have to make a calculated decision to interpret a story in a gendered way. This could be because, apart from one or two harmless bastions of tradition, the time for feminist ideology has past.

After all, Feminist Soc is not one of the political societies in the limelight; many of its key battles have already been won. All Cambridge colleges now admit women. The Union has a female president. This paper has many female writers. And more importantly, most students would regard themselves as treated as complete equals in all areas of university life.

This situation corresponds perfectly with the vast reduction in the number of women-orientated articles seen in the paper this week, which contrasts with the story from 60 years ago. However, the lack of urgency surrounding the feminist cause does not mean that true equality in the university environment has been achieved.

For example, if you tried hard enough to find a piece about issues concerning women in last week’s Varsity, the piece about this year’s applications might catch your eye. Despite the 2% rise in applications, there has been a 10.5% fall in the number of women applying to Cambridge. This is a significant figure, and what is worse is that it is not unique to Cambridge.

There has been a fall in the number of women applying to all UK universities. This is a serious issue which concerns everyone in our society, not just the people who identify themselves as ‘feminists’. However, on a national level, the government seems more concerned with the fall in mature student applications, rather than the widening gap between male and female higher education. And on a university level, the majority remain blissfully unaware.

Apathy towards equality, it seems, is as much a poison to gender relations now as it was in 1951.