Reading response (or, How all-encompassing is CTCS 677?)

So, to begin, a little anecdote from this week: In my Poetry and Prose into Drama class, which is essentially a class on adaptation (and completely wonderful), we were tasked with writing a quick scene based on an iteration of the Cinderella story. Our assigned readings had been both the Grimm telling and Timberlake Wertenbaker’s The Ash Girl. What I ended up with was a scene that comprised references to Project Runway, McFashion, and inhumane labor practices. I’m thinking, yeah, CTCS 677 is already having a profound impact on my life …
In discussing Cinderella, we of course addressed the fact that it is originally a Chinese myth, and from there discussed foot-binding, of all things, and how that aspect of feminine beauty (small feet, that is) has remained throughout numerous Western retellings. At 5’9, I can say lotus blossom feet are never going to happen. Anyway, I appreciated Brownmiller and Bartky’s attention to height, as that is something, I must say, even my “feminist” partners have taken issue with. Being guilted into not wearing heels isn’t quite hobbling, but it sure isn’t pleasant.
How can I bring heels up without the fabulous quote from Femininity, “Femininity deserves some hard reckoning”? This is exactly why I’m excited about this class. Yes, we have been slaves to femininity psychologically and economically, but at what point do we say, “I know what that represented in the past, but now it’s mine.” (I’m thinking specifically of the Silk Spectre’s redesigned costume for the Watchmen film that includes a corset.)
Finally, much of our reading, in addition to the films we screened Friday, brought to mind another book I’ve been working my way through (slowly but surely), called The Lolita Effect, a book that addresses our culture’s weird demand that women be soft and innocent (in contrast to men), but also virginal and sexy at once. Women and girls must be sexy without having sex. Hm.