DEAR ABBY: In a recent column (I've lost the clipping, so I can't give you the woman's "nom-de-gripe") a woman complained that her son and daughter-in-law refused to have children, thus depriving her of her RIGHTFUL grandchildren. And, although she didn't specify it, her qualifcation of the family background -- doctors, lawyers, college professors, etc. -- indicated that she perceived it to be her son's duty to contribute to and further the family's illustrious gene pool.
It reminded me of the story of the scion of a "proper" Bostonian family who applied for a position at a Wall Street banking firm. A letter from one of his references said:
"I would wholeheartedly recommend this young man to your firm. His father, a Harvard graduate, descends from a line of Pilgrim forebears whose family tree includes several Astors and Cabots. His mother, a Wellesley alumna, is a descendant of a Daughter of the American Revolution and also claims kinship to the Lodges. His grandfather was president of Harvard, and a great-uncle was ambassador to the Court of St. James."
To which the would-be employer replied:
"Thank you for your glowing recommendation. Unfortunately, we intended to utilize him in the brokerage business, not for breeding." -- JAMES A. ABLE JR., THE TAMPA GRAMPA