The "situations and expenses I don't know about" that Cary mentioned? They're called fees. I don't know if California schools are the same way, but I tried to sign up for some classes at a New York community college, and the fees were what killed me. The cost per credit was low - but then you add on the mandatory enrollment fee and the mandatory application fee and the mandatory sitting down fee and the mandatory standing up fee - and you're talking hundreds of dollars a semester in fees. That "cost per unit" may be deceptive and not really cover the whole cost of going to school. (I hope CA doesn't play the fee game like so many other states, but I'm not hopeful.)

On the other hand, Zahra had a good point - being a student usually means health coverage, including mental health coverage. It may not be great coverage, but it's something. If you are working, and you fall into the gaping hole between "qualifies for free or low cost programs" and "can afford to actually pay for a therapist", you're pretty much screwed. Despite the blissful "get therapy" comments from Cary (and Dear Abby, and every other advice columnist who never tried to get therapy in a big city when you're mostly broke), it's not that easy, especially if you don't want to go bankrupt in the process. I went through my meager savings account in just a couple of months, trying to see a therapist, and then went into debt before I gave up. Looking back, I would have been better off with money in the bank. I signed up for low-cost therapy, and as far as I know, I'm still on the waiting list 6 years later. Especially in a high cost city with a lot of dangerously screwed up people, someone with non-life-threatening depression is a very low priority for these programs. If you can get decent health coverage by going to school, it's worth it, and it might help you. (However, before you commit to anything, make sure you're really covered, and you can get decent care.)

Unless you absolutely love Los Angeles, I'll echo someone else's comment about moving somewhere cheaper. I didn't realize how much my depression had to do with constantly struggling financially, until I moved away from New York. For someone who's already prone to anxiety and depression, the constant financial anxiety of living in an expensive city can just make things worse. Some people thrive on city life, and it's worth the sacrifice to them, but consider what's important to you.

And once these girls grow up, they'll find out that it helps to be thin when they're looking for a job, too. Surveys have shown that heavy women are less likely to get hired or promoted, even with equal or better qualifications. So it's not just friendships or sex appeal - being thin affects how much money you'll make or whether you'll be able to get the job you want.

Maybe these girls are just being realistic.

Several people have commented that this crossover seems unlikely to attract new comic book fans. I also wonder how it will affect the soap opera fans. I was a long-time watcher of Guiding Light, starting when I was in middle school. (My mother watched it, and it was on when I got home from school.) I watched it for over a decade, until my job made it difficult to keep up. The idea of a character "obtaining superpowers" seems like it would alienate the traditional soap fan, especially on GL which is an older, more traditional soap. (Unlike, say, Passions, which attracted a younger and more "ironic" viewership, and could get away with stories about talking dolls.)

Back in the 1990's, GL tried to introduce a "clone" of popular character Reva, and this story was extremely unpopular, particularly among longtime fans. The publicity brought a short-lived ratings boost, but fans complained and left the show in droves, and eventually the ratings dropped so drastically that the show was almost cancelled. I think this tactic may backfire and end up not only not gaining new fans for superheroes, but driving away fans of soap opera.

I may not particularly like dress codes that single out women, whether they are religious or secular. But I believe that everyone has the freedom to dress as they like, with as few limits as possible. But the niqab seems like a step beyond "modest dress", for practical reasons as well as feminist ones. I don't have hearing loss, but I find it difficult to understand someone who covers her mouth when she speaks. I've only spoken to someone in a niqab once, but it was nearly impossible to hear her voice, even when she spoke up. Add in even a small hearing loss (something that's fairly common) and it becomes nearly impossible to understand someone who covers their mouth and face. I don't think other religious clothing have the same practical issues. I don't need to see someone's hair or legs in order to communicate with her, but it helps to see her mouth.

For example, the teaching aide in Britain who recently won her case was a language teacher. Could all of the students really understand her when her face and mouth were covered? She said that she only veiled when males entered the room. So male teachers and male parents are forced to stay out of the classrom, so their child can have a teacher who speaks clearly. It seems like the "right" of someone to wear a face veil has to be balanced against the difficulty other people will have communicating with someone who muffles her face - especially when someone communicates as part of her job.