Her Education Makes Him Live Longer, but Happier?‏

A few weeks ago, a study by the Swedish Institute for Social Research and published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health stated men married to highly-educated women have a longer life expectancy. When I read an article summarizing the study, 2 thoughts came to mind. The first was: not in my case. Those of you who read my recent post know that my husband passed away 6 years ago at the tender age of 47. Since I am one of those ‘highly-educated women’ with my Master’s degree and all, (tongue planted securely in cheek), I immediately chalked the study up as turkey baloney.

The second thought that came to mind was: How does her education level impact his longevity? The synopsis of the study that was published did not speculate as to how a woman’s education level positively impacts her husband’s lifespan. But a fellow blogger, Mason Jamal of Mason Says, dissected the study for me and offered an explanation.

Mason said (and I’m paraphrasing): Marriage helps to stabilize men. Left to their own devices, men would self-destruct. “We’re aggressive. We’re relentless. We’re stupid (at times).” He further explained that highly-educated women are full of knowledge that they share with their husbands. (Or assault their husbands with, I say.) Somewhere in this plethora of “good information along with some erroneous unchecked factoids,” there is bound to be something in there that may save his life.

Thank you Mason for drawing the connection. Without your explanation, the study itself would have been a useless factoid. After I took Mason’s explanation into consideration, I gave the study a little more credibility and upgraded it to beef baloney.

From the beef baloney study, I developed my own theory: the men married to highly-educated women may live longer, but I doubt they are happier.

Those of you who know me personally or have been following my blogs may have gathered that I am not really a proponent of the ‘educated, independent woman’. I personally think their ‘independence’ is disadvantageous to black men, black families and the black community. But that’s a blog for another day (and trust me, it is coming!)

To further expound upon my theory, highly-educated women, whom I define as Master’s degree and above, think they know everything. There is something about a Master’s degree that makes a women think she doesn’t need a man; she can conquer the world without him; that she is the head of the household instead of the helpmeet. Highly-educated women can often be full of themselves, finding it necessary to let every man she meets know she is degreed. (Which is different from pedigreed… but you can’t tell them that!)

And to be married to one, oh my God! She has to be the one in control of the bills, because he can’t be trusted to pay them on time. She has to be the primary decision-maker, instead of the decision supporter. She has to be heard and just won’t listen. She has to be the chief and not the Indian. And please don’t let her make more money… he may as well turn his man card over to her (and his credit card too), because she will proclaim the title breadwinner, and refuse to be the bread baker.

See men, if you get yourself a nice ,humble, smart, little lady with a high-school diploma or a bachelor’s degree, you might not live longer, but you sure might live happier. These women don’t think they know everything because somebody’s university gave them an oversized plaque to hang on the wall. They are satisfied being your helpmeet; supporting you and the family in your collective endeavors. They are happy to grow with you; they don’t have to be the leader of the pack. They are happy being the woman and allowing you to be the man, actually promoting your manhood… which is exactly what the Lord intended!

Consider this: If a woman’s high education level makes her husband live longer, then the reverse would be true also… the wife of a highly-educated man would live longer. Right? Wrong! The study didn’t find that. But that makes perfect sense. Think about it! Unlike women, men of higher education don’t feel the need to unleash their wealth of knowledge onto everyone around them. They don’t feel the need to let everyone know how smart they are, how educated they are, unlike us women. They are happy to live and let live (Wow… I sound just like my husband). But not us women… oh no! We gotta let the world know how many degrees we have. How much education we have… what the statistics say… how many studies we’ve read. (Oops, kinda like I’m doing right now!)

Prime example. On the Mason Says blog in which Mason discussed the study, one of his readers, Carla, posted a comment: “I'm familiar with a similar statistic (see, quoting statistics) about pet owners living longer. If you don't find a smart wife, at least get a smart dog.” That’s a cute comment. I didn’t have a problem with that comment. It’s the way she signed her comment that got my attention. She signed: Single with an MBA and Master of Arts!

Aha! See what I mean? Was it necessary for Carla to let us know that she had 2 degrees? She hasn’t even met a man yet and she’s already wearing her education on her sleeve. Singlehandedly, Carla has proven That Teowonna! right.

So men, word to the wise: Marry a woman with a high school diploma or a Bachelor’s degree. If you are uncertain which one is best for you, use the That Teowonna quick reference guide: Marry a woman with no more than 1 education lever higher than yours; preferably one with the same level. If you have a Bachelor's degree, marry a Master’s degree or lower. If you have a high school diploma, a Bachelor’s degree is as high as you should safely go! If you marry a woman with 2 or more levels of education higher than yours, you may live a few years longer, but you probably won’t be happier! Follow my marriage reference guide and you get to actually be the man in the family!

Food Stamps: Hand Up Versus Hand Out

Earlier this week, a study that analyzed 30 years of national data shows that nearly half of all U.S. children and 90 percent of black children will be on food stamps at some point in their childhood. Researchers also say those numbers could be pushed higher due to the current recession. The study further suggests that almost everyone knows a family who has received food stamps, or will in the future.

The lead author of the study, Mark Rank, a sociologist at Washington University, said, “Your neighbor may be using some of these programs but it's not the kind of thing people want to talk about.”

In what community? That’s my question. I agree that people may not be talking about it, but it is far from a secret in many of our communities. It is actually an expectation in some social circles.

When I read the statistics, it made me wonder if my family received food stamps when I was growing up. I didn’t think so, even though my mother was a single mom with two children. For a moment, I thought that perhaps she could have been getting the supplement and my brother and I just didn’t know about it. After further consideration, I found that to be highly unlikely because if we had, we certainly would have noticed a bi-monthly food windfall!

Just to be sure, I called my mom and asked her. She confirmed what I thought… we never got food stamps when I was growing up. She did, however, acknowledge that during Hurricane Hugo, we got a one-time ration to replace the food that had spoiled in our freezer due to the lack of electricity.

I asked my mother why. Why didn’t we get food stamps when so many around us were getting them. Surely she would have qualified since she was raising 2 children on her own. My brother’s father died before my brother was born and while my father was alive, he didn’t always help like he should have. So why did she not take advantage of the program, I wanted to know. She said, “I don’t know, Tee. I guess it just wasn’t in my plan. It never was in my thought process to get food stamps. .”

You know, at that moment, I felt a huge sense of pride in my mother for working hard to raise her children with limited, if any at all, assistance from the government. Even though there was a system there to lend a helping hand, she was determined to do it on her own. That got me to thinking. The people who were on food stamps when I was growing up, probably still get them (or some other form of government assistance) today. Hence my theory: there are two kinds of food stamp recipients: those who need a hand up and those looking for a hand out.

Let me say this right now: there is nothing wrong with people receiving food stamps or any other form of government aid. That’s what it is there for. But I do have a problem with people living on government aid. Instead of using it as a ‘hand up’, many are gladly accepting the ‘hand out’ and making it a lifestyle.

Here are some characteristics of 'hand up' recipients versus 'hand out' recipients.

Hand up recipient: Shopping cart primarily has staple items in it. Hand Out Recipients: Shopping cart is full of steaks, shrimp, lobster and other high-end delicacies.

Hand Up Recipient: Conserves some food stamps to go shopping for fresh produce between allotments. Hand Out Recipients: Spend every dime in one fell swoop because they know in 15 days, they will get more.

Hand Up Recipient: Values the benefits and use them as intended. Hand Out Recipients: Bombard you at the grocery store trying to sell their food stamps for cash money.

Hand Up Recipient: May discretely slide the food stamp card through the reader. Hand Our Recipients: Slap their card down with pride like it is an American Express Platinum card.

Again, I want to say there is nothing wrong with getting food stamps. Everyone experiences rough times… I am the first to admit that. But are government programs helping to sustain people during difficult times, or are they making people more dependent? I think these programs are very beneficial for people who need a little help during times of difficulty. Unfortunately, for others, it simply robs them of their amibition, decreasing the desire to climb out of a tough spot, limiting their vision to see past that temporary brick wall.

With this crazy economy, it is no wonder more and more people are taking advantage of the food stamp system. Let’s just hope they take it as a temporary hand up, instead of a life-long hand out.

A Sex Addict or a Bad Seed

She’s back. The brazen, big-mouthed, too smart for her own good, I hate that I love her, That Teowonna! returns this week.

If you read my blog last weekend, you caught me in a brief moment of public weakness. If you didn’t catch it, good! (My image with you remains intact!) Nevertheless, I’m back. And the object of my attention this week is ESPN sports analyst, Steve Phillips, and any men who get caught with their pants down and are too punk to accept the consequences of their actions.

Dudes, when will ya’ll get it? Sometimes sex just ain’t worth it! The brief moments of pleasure aren’t worth your family, your job and certainly not your reputation and self-respect. Nothing is more disgusting than a man who is so carnal and short-sighted that he will jeopardize everything he holds dear for a piece of tail. Not even good tail… just different, convenient tail. Bill Maher said, “Women like new shoes; men like new sex.” That is so true. But I have never jeopardized anything I value for a new pair of Manolo Blahniks.

But here is what’s even worse… when a man is caught with his pants down, instead of just saying 'I was wrong, please forgive me' (for the 28th time), he tries to blame his lack of self-control on an addiction. Addiction to sex? Gimme a break! I don't buy the whole sex addiction thing, not for one minute. My theory is it is just a convenient excuse for being promiscuous; for being a bad seed.

I had a conversation with a man today and he said he believes that sex can make men do some foolish things but questions if there is really a dependency on sex like there can be on alcohol and drugs. I found that interesting and it made me think: if someone does anything excessively that society looks down upon, is he an addict, or something much simpler... a deviant? A bad seed? Think about it this way...

I had a cousin, whom I will call Tony, who was a straight up thief. As I recall, Tony started getting in trouble early on. His crime of choice: theft - robbing - stealing. And from what I understand, he was pretty good at it, too; it was years before Tony got caught. When he finally did get busted, he was sentenced to life in prison. Can you imagine that? Life imprisonment for stealing!

After ten years of serving his sentence, Tony’s mother spent a thousands of dollars on a lawyer who took his case back in front of a judge for review. While he was guilty of the crimes, it was determined that the sentence was too harsh and Tony was released.

Initially, Tony was on house arrest. He was confined to the house and could only go a few feet into the yard. One of my relatives asked him if he thought he could stay in the house for the required period of time. He said lightheartedly, “After what I’ve been through, I can stay in the bathroom if I have to.” My family and I were satisfied that Tony had learned his lesson and his life of crime was over when we frequently heard him say that he would never go back to jail. That’s why I was shocked and scared when I heard rumors that he was ‘knocking people in the back of their heads and robbing them’. Say it ain’t so!

Months later, I recall being at work when I got a call from my mother. She said she had some bad news; Tony had robbed a bank. “Oh no!” But that wasn’t all. After Tony was cornered by the police, he put a gun to his head and pulled the trigger. (Gasp!) I guess Tony meant what he said… he was never going back to jail.

Consider this: after 1o years of 'rehab', my cousin just couldn’t leave the life of robbery and theft behind. Was he a crime addict? Or was he just a bad seed?

Steve Phillips is admitting himself into rehab because he just couldn’t resist sex with other women, even with all he had to loose. Is he a sex addict? Or just a bad seed?

Steve Phillips is no more an addict than Tony was. Both are bad seeds that good women threw good money (and time) away on.