Superman -- the Most Famous Illegal Alien Ever?

(Flickr/Dunechaser)

News comes that the title character of the new Superman reboot will be played by British actor Henry Cavill, star of the Showtime series The Tudors. In fact, of the three major reboots of major comic book characters in the works, all of the title characters will be played by Brits.

The reaction among some comic fans has been aghast, especially since Superman is generally considered the quintessentially American superhero (that is, considered that way generally by white, male comic book characters who look pretty demographically similar to Superman himself). In fact, if you have some time, you should read this award-winning student paper (PDF) on how comic books in the stretch between the Great Depression and the Cold War change to adapt to American ideals that are popular at the time.

But it's important to remember that Superman, while very representative of Americans in certain ways, might be even more representative than you might think: After all, Superman was an illegal immigrant -- one of the 9.3 million estimated to be living in the United States today. These days, he wouldn't even qualify for in-state tuition.

Update/Correction: The illustrious Dara Lind, who knows a lot more about immigration than I do, points out that the number of undocumented folks I grabbed is from 2004. The actual number these days is closer to 11 million.

Friday Links: Stop Sitting on Your Fortune!

(Flickr/J. Star)

• Are Italian women literally sitting on their fortunes? No. Also, stop being so gross, Italian newspaper. [Bust]
• A documentary shown at Sundance this year cribs inspiration from Rebecca Traister's work on women in politics. Miss Representation is a film about the objectification of women in media and political activism. [LA Times]
• The doggie bag traces back to ancient Rome. [Food & Think]
• Via Dara Lind, the account of a woman who decided to have an abortion after her husband had been deported. [The Asylumist]
• Props to Jessica Wakeman for documenting the painful experience of moving out after a breakup. [The Frisky]
• Pema Levy tells us that there might be a small chance the Equal Rights Amendment can still pass. Maybe. [The American Prospect]
• Why aren't there more women in comedy? This writer for CollegeHumor.com argues that not enough women try. [Split Sider]
• Stop. Are you pregnant? Are you pre-pregnant? Are you sure? [Ms. Blog]
• Maybe it's because I'm from Minnesota, but I could not stop laughing while reading this parody of the Tiger Mother column. [The Hairpin]
  

Why You Can't Prove 'Forced Rape' Easily

I have a post over at TAPPED today in which I talk about Nick Baumann's reporting on the GOP's efforts to redefine rape as "forced rape" in the proposed "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion" bill.

I'll just add that rape has never really been a good "reason" for abortion anyway. The idea behind exceptions to banning abortion in various ways (or, in this case banning federal funds from going anywhere near abortion care) is somewhat bogus anyway, and really seeks to get folks who otherwise would oppose such bans to support them. It's really nice to think that women who are raped, victims of incest, or women whose health is in danger will still have access to abortion (or in this case, funding for abortion), but the reality is that most women wouldn't have access to abortion even if these circumstances did apply to them.

If you're petitioning to get funding for abortion because you fall under the list of exceptions, you have to prove in some way that you've been a victim of rape -- a high barrier already, since RAINN estimates that over 60 percent of all rapes are never reported to the police. Furthermore, simply reporting a rape doesn't necessarily mean that it would be weighed as strong enough evidence, and just 6 percent of all rapists ever serve time in jail.

Now, with the GOP seeking to redefine rape as "forced rape" -- a term that doesn't exist in any legal code whatsoever and is more on the level of Whoopi Goldberg's term "rape rape" -- and, should the bill ever pass (though hopefully the Senate and President Barack Obama have the good sense to block such an absurd piece of legislation) women would have to prove not only that a rape took place but that she was forcibly raped. How, exactly, is a woman supposed to prove that? And meanwhile, while a woman is busy trying to prove she was "forcibly raped," the pregnancy carries further along, making it more dangerous to end.

Either abortion is legal, or abortion isn't legal. The rest is moral judgments up to individuals to decide. Just because "exceptions" to an abortion funding ban exist doesn't mean they won't work out in the worst possible way for women in practice.

Abortion Doesn't Hurt Women's Mental Health, But Babies Might

(Flickr/JKönig)

The anti-choice movement has been putting forth this notion that abortion is difficult or emotionally traumatizing for women. This has become the "abortion hurts women" line of argument among the anti-choice community, and one that has been thoroughly debunked by Reva Segal and Sarah Blustain in a 2006 American Prospect piece (as well as a more recent piece in the Jan/Feb issue of Mother Jones by Blustain, which isn't yet online).

A recent study written about by the Associated Press today not only confirms that abortion doesn't result in mental problems, but suggests that having a baby actually might.

The Danish study included 365,550 teenagers and women who had an abortion or first-time delivery between 1995 and 2007. None had a history of psychiatric problems that required hospitalization. Through various national registries, researchers were able to track mental health counseling at a hospital or outpatient facility before and after an abortion or delivery.

During the study period, 84,620 had an abortion while 280,930 gave birth.

Researchers compared the rate of mental health treatment among women before and after a first abortion. Within the first year after an abortion, 15 per 1,000 women needed psychiatric counseling – similar to the rate seeking help nine months before an abortion.

Researchers say women who seek abortions come from a demographic group more likely to have emotional problems to begin with. Statistics show that a large percentage struggle economically and they have above-average rates of unintended pregnancies.

While first-time mothers had a lower rate of mental problems overall, the proportion of those seeking help after giving birth was dramatically higher. About 7 per 1,000 women got mental health help within a year of giving birth compared with 4 per 1,000 women pre-delivery.

Much of this doesn't surprise me. After all, having a baby is hard. One's body changes dramatically over the course of the pregnancy and, unless you give the child up for adoption, you're likely to encounter increased mental, emotional, and financial stress that compounds as you care for a newborn child.

This isn't to knock motherhood inherently. Most women find the undertaking extraordinarily rewarding and remarkable. But it's hard to deny that having children increases stress. Instead of caring for oneself, you' have to care for an additional (and quite helpless) human being. It is not something one should undertake lightly. There are real effects that motherhood has on your mental and physical health.

So let's drop the "abortion hurts women" narrative. The science just isn't there.

Guest Blogging at TAPPED This Week

Hey, I'm guest blogging at TAPPED this week! Check out what I've written so far:

• Medicaid expansion programs that offer more women contraception are good public policy.
• A Texas voter ID bill is pretty much just blatant voter suppression to help Republicans.
• Women are in a worse position in the economic recovery than men.
• We should make the Pell grant an entitlement program if we really want to "win the future."

Stay tuned.

The Factors of an Unintended Pregnancy

(Flickr/carmen_seaby)

The journal Sexual Health recently published a study on unintended pregnancy. According to the study's abstract, 51 percent of women who reported an unintended pregnancy went on to experience at least one other unintended pregnancy.

Other factors also contributed to multiple unintended pregnancies: one's race (women who are black or Hispanic are more likely to experience multiple unintended pregnancies), having been born to a mother who was under 18 when she gave birth, and young age of first sexual experience (whether consensual or not).

The abstract didn't disclose whether any of these factors coincided with income or insurance coverage. I'd be interested to see how those factors stack up.

'The Kids Are All Right' and Missed Opportunities

(Focus Features)

It seems the Oscar nominations are out today. I've seen seven of the 10 nominees thus far, including The Kids Are All Right, which I had a chance to finally watch last night. (No spoilers except what you've seen in the trailer.)

I was ultimately disappointed by this film, which is I suppose what happens when you see a film that's been hyped for as Oscar-bait so long after it's been out. My main complaint with the film was that all of the characters felt like flat stereotypes to me -- except for Mark Ruffalo's character, Paul. Paul was, in many ways, the character with the most depth, whereas both Julianne Moore and Annette Bening's characters came of mostly as stereotypes of a lesbians (the exchange about the Joni Mitchell record is what did it for me). Bening's character comes off as a villain for much of the film, and Moore's character, while at first we feel sorry for her, she does ultimately betray her entire family.

But even though Ruffalo has the most interesting role to play, the film offers little in the way of resolution for his character. Instead, his character feels like a red herring, and we're actually supposed to focus on the family portrayed, which would work, expect there's been little in the way of realistic character development with any of them.

Ultimately, this film to me felt like a missed opportunity. It's not uncommon for couples -- especially lesbian couples, since women's sexuality sometimes fluctuates over time (keep in mind I'm not saying this is true of all women) -- to begin to want and need different things sexually over the course of the relationship. After all, sexuality is complex and long-term relationships go through changes over time. The combination of those two things in the film's setup should have made for a fascinating means for delving into those ideas. But the way Moore's character went about that exploration, through betrayal rather than an open discussion with her partner, instead makes the show more like a traditional story about a family that goes through an affair.

The movie didn't quite do it for me. But it's still great to see a film about an LGBT family nominated for an Oscar.