Sorry to the people who are presenting tomorrow--I should have posted earlier, but I'm just now getting to it.
I agree with what's been said about the sexual double bind; the line between slut and prude is too narrow to walk, and if anyone is navigating it successfully it seems that it is within the context of a committed (usually heterosexual) relationship. Maybe this is anti-Vanlentine's day sentiment exposing itself, but is sex really that important? I know that, especially at the time that these authors were writing, relationships between men and women are largely played out in a sexual arena, but it seems that virtue is woman's main characteristic and that virtue is completely tied into sex. Cruz makes an argument that women are defined in terms of sexuality by men. And that the vilification of women (again by men) is absurd because it is a vilification of women based on a definition of femininity that is imposed upon women from the outside. Cruz exposes the interests of patriarchy in classifying female sexuality, but even now this theoretical leap remains theoretical. We, as students of feminism, recognize that the virgin/whore double bind is a product of patriarchal power, but its cultural power remains in the world outside of these classroom walls.
I may have a skewed version of the world because the only tape I have left (and the one I'm listening to) is unmarked except for a sticker that says in my dad's handwriting "Country Classics" and Loretta Lynn is singing "We've come a long way, baby, all the way to Hollywood from Arkansas." And it's leaving me with serious doubts about what progress we've actually made.
I am also in doubt about how to approach texts that are so far removed from the current feminist discourse. Do we critique? Is it productive to do so? What can we learn? What is there to say about this stuff anyway?