"seek and ye shall find" applies to so many things way beyond its original meaning. If you look for misery in life, you will find it. If you look for joy, you will find it, even in the midst of misery.
And if you look for validation, you will find is somewhere.
I've mentioned before that I have a friend who I beleive is a sociopath. He is deliberately "in your face" at times, tries to be confrontational and when things are going well, he's fun to be around. But he gets his black moods and then he can get verbally vicious and attack other people. He knows how to wound with words but I've learnt to not take on board anything he says; I recognise when he's in an ornery mood and wanting to drag other people down to his level of misery.
Part of his claims to superiority over the rest of humanity, is hisbeleif that he can literally argue that black is white and nobody can block his arguments, they are unanswerable. But I've heard his logic - his arguments are only unanswerable because he won't listen to any arguments.
The writer in me likes to hang around this guy for the inspriration he gives me. The compassionate human in me finds this guy objectionable, often. But I put up with a lot for the good tiimes. I walk away in the bad times.
However, he's sometimes said some interesting things. One interesting thing on which we differ came out of his claim that "racist" is the only "-ist" that people don't at some stage willingly belong to. He gets called a racist often (with good reason) but dislikes the term because he personally doesn't choose to embrace that truth about himself. He claims even anarchists form onto social groups at times.
I challenged this - how can you have an anarchists' organisation? Surely by its very nature, it would be disqualified?
And here is where his "superior intellect" (self-avowed) comes unstuck. He can't see the illogic in the existence of a society for anarchists, with rules and a charter.
Heather, all you can do is explain to your daughter that if she chooses to beleive the earth is flat, she will find books to justify tat view. Whatever view she chooses to hold, no matter how radical or how selfish, she will find a book to justify that view.
This also means that if YOU, the parent, choose to believe that your daughter should be confined to the house, made to wear sackcloth and ashes as well as a chastity belt and forced to marry her brother at the age of 13, then you will be able to find a book to justify it.
She should be grateful that your views are so generous to her human rights. If she wants to live in harmony in your household, she needs to be considerate of your rights (as the parent as well as the authority figure, as well as the person who pays the bills) just as you have allowed her considerable personal freedom of thought.
The thing with freedom of thought - it comes at a price, and tat price is reason and logic. It's perfectly OK for her to read varous books but she also needs to read the opposite views so she can truly understand both sides of the argument. Within reason. In other words, if she chooses to believe the earth is flat and to read books on the topic, then she also needs to read the arguments that refute the Flat Earth Society's propaganda and to discuss the pros and cons with you. And YOU need to read these books too, so you are sufficiently informed to be able to discuss these with her.
I remember when easy child was younger, she got really "into" Christopher Pike's books. At one stage she was also into Babysitters Club. I read all of them. Even Christopher Pike, whose books I didn't really like much. But I read them, so I could know what she was reading and what was ringing her bells. Then I was better equipped to discuss the books with her.
Sharing these interests is always a good thing. Often our kids whinge that we refuse to learn about their interests. The thing is, when we do they often complain that (in their opinions) we're trying to turn back the clock and pretend an interest in young things. I ignore such illogic and prefer to err on the side of knowing what is in my kids' heads.
easy child went through a stage in her mid-teens of being interested in a very anarchic, selfish, cynical philosophy, influenced by SIL1 (or BF1 as he was then). I did't like it. "Kingdom of Loathing" I think it was. I held back from severe criticism though, because in their case I was fairly sure it was the satire and cynicism of it that fascinated them. With your daughter, I'm not so sure.
However, from things you've shared about your daughter - is there a chance she's simply trying to be extreme, to deliberately be confrontional and challenging? In which case, ask to borrow the book from her and simply take your time reading it. It works like a ban only more effective.
I had some weird reading tastes when I was in my teens. There was one book I was especially fascinated with and some years later I tried to order a copy (I was a uni student by then). It was not just another Wiccan book, I now realise - it was written by Aleister Crowley. Interestingly, it was that book which I now realise has taught me to be very cynical about alleged witchcraft. I used that cynicism to teach easy child 2/difficult child 2 and her best friend, all about how such spells really work (psychology, mostly). Simply put, I took the magic out and showed them the logic behind the spells.
I was able to do this because I read widely and on both sides of the viewpoints. If my mother had known what I was reading, she would have been horrified. She probably would have tried to ban what I was reading, and aI would have ignored her. I had plenty of opportunity to ignore her - the local library was the family rendezvous point and I spent hours waiting there for my father to collect me on his way home.
My best friend in my teens had very strict parents. Her mother banned certain books but my friend simply came to our house and read the books there. She borrowed "Peyton Place" from my (much older) sister and read it at our place. My sister didn't know the book was on the girl's mother's banned list.
Are you able to discuss these philosophies with your daughter? Ask her to define them, to discuss them impartially and to discuss the pros and cons. Don't allow passion to come into it, simply be rational, logical and calm. Concede points if she makes good ones even if you disagree. It's OK to disagree, people do it all the time. For example, you could say, "Women in the workplace are their own worst enemies, they have rights which they choose to not exercise; is it any wonder that they are often given the more menial jobs?"
You may be a feminist and dislike such a statement, but somewhere in there, you must know of women who would fit that description. Or you might have your own view which could be expressed.
being able to discuss things like this with our children - it is a vital part of their journey toward greater emotional maturity.
I forget where I heard it/read it, but girls especially in their teens tend to communicate with their mothers using argument. They will seem very argumentative and confronttional, when in reality all they're doing is testing their own views and using their mothers as sounding boards. It's like writing a story and needing to read it aloud to fully understand your own writing.
If you can respond to thissort of argumentative approach by not buying into it but till giving the different viewds an airing, and also teaching your daughter to listen to YOUR views in turn (it's only polite, after all - you listened to her and seriously considered her arguments) then you are helping her to learn to argue more productively with herself.
It's called "THINKING". Teens aren't good at it, they need practice. And they need to see us show them how to do it.
Marg
