Gertrude Stein's "Paris France"

I had read somewhere that Gertrude Stein's writing was difficult, but that's not the case here. Yes, she wrote run-on sentences that were short on punctuation, but the sentences are not hard to understand, except for the occasional one that can be read in more than one way because of poor grammar.

As I read "Paris France," I wondered about the style. Was it meant to be stream of consciousness, naive, childlike, like speech, or all of these? To me, the effect of the style was to make Gertrude Stein appear a simpleton.

"Foreigners belong in France because they have always been there and did what they had to do there and remained foreigners there. Foreigners should be foreigners and it is nice that foreigners are foreigners and that they inevitably are in Paris and in France."

I decided to check my reactions to the Stein style against others, and so Googled the book and read the Wikipedia entry, which describes "Paris France" as a novella. Now, I had considered it a memoir, and still do (the back cover of the paperback unhelpfully calls it "literature"). But it's funny that changing the genre from memoir to fiction can change one's opinion of the very same prose one was reading before the change in perception. As a novella, the writing in "Paris France" is more acceptable, if you consider that you have an unreliable narrator who is a little dim.

Gertrude Stein lived in France through both World Wars, but her treatment of them in this book seems to show her desire to distance herself from the wars as much as possible. Perhaps if you're in the middle of a war, it's natural to lie low and hope you live through it.

I confess that "Paris France" has caused me to think a lot, even if my first thoughts were about how little I liked it.

Render unto Caesar...

The answer to this silly birth control issue is so simple that I really need only one paragraph to solve it.  To require every employer who offers group insurance to its employees to include coverage for contraception in no way infringes on any person's religious freedom.  Nobody is required to use birth control.  Each woman can still follow her own conscience and not use contraception.  Simple as that.  That should be enough, but I know you won't be satisfied.

Monty, I hear you saying, if I believe that contraception is a sin, I shouldn't be forced to pay for anyone else's pills!

Well, there are a number of answers to that one.

First, the essence of group medical coverage is sharing the risk of others.  There are many, many benefits of your policy that you will never use.  Lucky you, but you still pay the same premium as anybody else.

And, frankly, the women who use birth control are doing you a favor by keeping costs down.  Every woman who uses birth control is saving you from sharing the cost of her giving birth to as many babies she might have had otherwise.  That's a lot of savings right there.

Finally, if the principle of not wanting to help women sin is so important to you, then you surely will be willing to go as far as going uninsured.

Atheists "live in isolation and secrecy?"

There is an interesting article in "Slate" today by Julian Baggini (reprinted from the "Financial Times"), wondering "Why won't the U.S. accept its atheists?"

Here's a link.  (Not sure how long it will be there.)

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/ft/2012/02/atheism_in_america_why_won_t_the_u_s_accept_its_atheists_.single.html#pagebreak_anchor_4


The point of the article is that atheists arouse more distrust here in America than other groups that are more or less widely reviled, including gays, Jews, and even Muslims.  Atheists are reluctant to tell their families, friends, or acquaintances about their unbelief.  The family of one woman in Texas don't want her babysitting their children; before they knew, she was welcome to do so, even though they knew she was a crack user at the time.


I had thought of this question only in the context of politics; that is, that an atheist has next to no chance of being elected president, for example.  But I hadn't considered myself to be discriminated against because of my unbelief.  In the light of Mr. Baggini's article, I realize that that's because I keep the fact to myself for the most part.  Being an atheist doesn't compel one to participate in any particular behavior that others might think sinful.  An atheist doesn't have to do anything at all, except to not believe in God.


So, as an aging white male who looks a lot like any other aging white male, I don't feel threatened.  As long as I keep my mouth shut.  I never told my own devout mother.  She must have noticed that I never went to church, and perhaps she never asked about my spiritual life in order to protect herself from worry.


I don't make a fuss about my atheism to my religious friends, but I've always told myself that that was out of politeness:  I didn't want to make them defend their belief to me.  If I came across as a scoffer (which I am, frankly), I might make them uncomfortable and lose their friendship.


In any case, although I don't feel isolated, I think the author has a point.  I live in an area of the country where atheism is a bit more common.  My wife is an atheist.  I have several atheist friends.  In short, I guess I have an adequate "support system."  But I imagine others may feel very alone.


When you're out driving, try counting the bumper stickers proudly proclaiming people's religious beliefs.  Lots of them, right?  One doesn't often see an atheist bumper sticker.  That would invite vandalism, after all.

Dear Evangelicals of Anoka,

Be not afraid.  There is no radical homosexual agenda.

If homosexuals have any agenda at all, it is that they be able to live their lives without being taunted, beaten up or killed.

If your child is naturally heterosexual, if he or she is attracted to the opposite sex, there is no danger that your child will be influenced to "try it out."  Homosexuality will simply not appeal to your child.  There is no such thing as recruitment.

If your child is naturally homosexual, there is absolutely nothing you can do to change that, except perhaps to make your child miserable by trying to change him or her.  If your child is homosexual, he or she will seek other homosexuals out.  That's right.  That's a fact.  Your child will not be a victim of an evil influence.

If I may be permitted to use your own language, God made homosexuals, too.

You are afraid that allowing the teachers in public schools speak of homosexuality as "normal" will convince your straight children to try homosexual behavior.  It will not turn straight children into gay children.

Let's talk about the word "normal."  If a teacher says that homosexuality is normal, what the teacher means is that there are a certain number of people for whom attraction to the same sex is natural.  I think that what you are afraid of is that these teachers are saying is that everyone should try homosexuality, because it's natural for everyone.  It's not natural for heterosexuals, so that's one thing you don't need to worry about.

I am a straight man, and I have never been sexually attracted to any man.  None of the many homosexual friends I have known has ever made a pass at me, because they just know from my behavior that I'm not interested.

I know that you must be afraid of the Gay Straight Alliance organizations in your children's school.  But the GSA is not there to spread homosexuality.  The GSA is there because there are straight kids who care enough about their neighbors to help them get past the bullying without killing themselves.