"I don't want to think about it" is not a reasonable position for an adult woman to take. And lobbying for dinner out when finances are so tight is not "what you believe in"--it's a refusal to grow up and take some steps to improve your future, with or without your boyfriend. But if you value your relationship ("we're in love!"), it's very important to support your partner by respecting his values. A treat once in a while is okay, but this isn't something you should be arguing about, not ever. Privation today, fulfillment tomorrow! When he finds a new job, it will be a lot more fun to go out, because he won't be stressed out about it.
Fun, thank you. I wonder how we can become the Cayman Islands?
Ravishing. Though I also believe that there is a special shame for each person--a sixth finger shoved into every pocket, in your fine phrase. One is poor, another is gay, another is fat, another is an orphan. When there is no need for shame ever. Just a need for helping one another.
All I can think of when I see this image is Max Read. Wow, though.
Hello all, Maria here. I loved reading these interesting comments a lot. I am not opposed to the egalitarian goals of feminism (far from it.) Right now, though, Rosin's book is the #1 Amazon-ranked Feminist Theory book, and this is a real problem for anyone with egalitarian convictions. My job was to review this book, which has received many (MANY) positive reviews and a very great deal of attention in NYT, NY Mag, etc. It is not enough to be telling people, read Valenti! Real feminism means equality! Not while the Rosins of the world own a substantial piece of the intellectual real estate of feminism. (I will add also that I am insanely, horrifically old, and my views are somewhat colored by second-wave authors who were less egalitarian than many feminist writers of today. But I'm not alone in that. It will take more activism to change those perceptions.)
@Leila@twitter Hey, thank you for this response, and for writing about this. I agree, it's really interesting. That you're Canadian makes all the difference in the world with respect to these questions. We know a lot of college-age (American) kids whose parents couldn't afford to send them to name schools to which they'd been accepted, or who couldn't afford to send them at all. Many very bright, talented American kids wind up in local community colleges, struggling to transfer into state schools. And we know many, many kids graduating with tens of thousands in debt, who aren't going to be in a position to be traveling abroad for many years. So that really colors an American parent's instinctive reaction to your observations here.
It strikes me that some of this stuff has to do with the divorce, and a whole other part is to do with being supported financially. I'm very sorry for the author with respect to the first part of this question, and less so with respect to the second, because she gets to go to college, and she gets to travel abroad, and so many, many kids do not get those things. When does a parent's responsibility to pay for a kid's luxuries come to an end, would you say? Through college? What about after college? (I know some really rich parents who keep their undergraduate kids on a very short leash financially, for example, and others who are lavish.) I'd be interested to know a great deal more about how undergrads view the responsibility of parents with respect to financial support. Just for myself, I can't help but think that parents who fund "intercontinental ragers" are not doing their (adult!) children any kind of a favor at all. But then, maybe that is partly because, in my day, back in the mists of time, "trust-fund kid" was a downright insult and we all starved quite cheerfully together and drank the cheapest of beer, even those who didn't "need" to. (?)
Haha!! Well that is why read a book or two about it because like everything, the more you know, the less scary.
@jfruh omg ZYNGA, I'd forgotten!! What unconscionable shits. So yes, everything @jfruh said, by golly. But oh wait I just noticed that our author is at YELP which is indeed a publicly-traded firm. Bit of a rollercoaster, there!! They went public not so long ago. If you were to vest now, you would not be looking at too great a payday!! But if the stock barrels back up to $31 or whatever it was by the time you vest, boy howdy! That will be great, because you can have the difference in price probably between $15 or whatever the IPO price was, and whatever the stock is at when you exercise.
Much depends on the fortunes of your company in the stock market. Your options when exercised can be worth a lot, or pretty much zero! I suggest reading Peter Lynch's book, One Up on Wall Street, or any of his books, to get the foundations of an idea of how the stock market works. His books are really clear and good for anyone who wants to learn about investing WHICH YOU SHOULD! Then you'll be able to make much better judgments not just about your stock options, but about how to make future career plans. But basically, just to answer your question, your options can be but need not be converted into stock when they "vest". It is VERY IMPORTANT you figure out when this is, if your company is even a little bit successful, because you don't want to quit your job before they vest (sometimes like five years!) When they do vest, THEN you have the option to exercise. When you exercise that means you get to buy stock at fixed price, the "strike price" which is usually the price of the stock on the day the options were granted to you. You still have to buy the stock! But if your company has done super well in the market, you can buy them at the way lower strike price and sell the next day at the fabulously successful new price of five years later.