Focus on the Fancy-Free Vol. 3 — Babies

January 8, 2008, 9:00 am; posted by
Filed under Articles, Featured, Job  | 5 Comments

Read Volume 1 and Volume 2 !

Q.  Dear Focus on the Fancy Free: Babies are so expensive, smelly, messy and time-consuming. Should I really have a quiverful? — Jeremiah, New York

Focus on the Fancy-FreeA.  Thanks for writing, Jeremiah, and thanks for giving me the opportunity to say that most beautiful word — “No.” Not only are babies extremely time-consuming and high-pitched, they are also narcissistic. Their focus on being constantly held, hand-fed and coddled, while making every social event a personal stage for their tears is a classic example of conceit and self-absorption.

In short, babies need Christ — but I do not feel called to that mission field.

I adopt the Shaker stance of non-procreation. The Shakers were a British religious group who came to the States and established a series of hard-working and harder-worshiping colonies of Christians. They believed that if no one had babies, the end times would somehow be expedited, but they were so successful that there are currently only four of them left, in one small community in Sabbathday Lake, Maine. I guarantee they’re not interviewing youth pastor candidates. Their congregation is not rife with petty jealousies, discussions about introducing a drum kit into the worship service, or talk of bake sales — but most importantly, they do not have to endure the spine-shattering wails of an infant.

I would probably become a Shaker if it didn’t require such long hours of intense manual labor — another Shaker tenet.

Anyway, I know it’s a tough question. Many women can’t imagine a life without a baby, and most men can’t imagine a life without those same women. This type of algebra almost inevitably produces tots, with their Oshkosh overalls, plastic sippy cups filled with “juthe,” and back pockets full of crushed Cheerios.

Kids are simply unavoidable, so the discerning male must avoid these bambinos in any great amount. They are all-consuming! One either spends all his time severely spoiling the youth, aggressively rebuking them, or broiling in self-doubt about whether they’re doing one or the other, too much or not enough.

So yeah, have a baby or two. But show some restraint! Skip that third child and buy a nice home in Florida instead. Not only will it prove cheaper, but it will also give the kids you do have a tidy inheritance — which will help assuage their sadness over your years of distant and detached parenting.


5 Comments to “Focus on the Fancy-Free Vol. 3 — Babies”

  1. Steve on January 8th, 2008 12:11 pm

    Before anyone asks, had Job’s own parents followed his advice to quit after two, there’d be one fewer Huckster around these parts.

  2. Job on January 8th, 2008 12:53 pm

    I was an accident, Steve,

  3. Connie on January 9th, 2008 11:35 am

    Oh – you’re no accident Job.

  4. Hank Smithson on January 9th, 2008 5:29 pm

    “I was an accident, Steve,” – Job

    With a sentence’s well-planned and organized existence thrust into delightful upheaval by a missing period, Job manages to add innumerable layers of depth to an otherwise straightforward comment. Bravo.

  5. Steve on January 9th, 2008 7:55 pm

    My thoughts exactly.

Leave a comment!