> > > > There's always, "No you can't see that." Period. End of discussion.
> > >
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> > "Because I said so."
>
> Which, contrary to popular belief and my own former opinion, is all the answer that should be necessary in some situations.
>
As a parent, because you're in charge you feel like "because I said so" is reason enough to give.

As a child repeatedly hearing this reason, you would quickly realize that your parents are imposing arbitrary rules, and don't really have good reasons for any of them. Then, when you thought one of your parents' rules was wrong, you'd immediately think they were all wrong, for the same reason.

I like to think that kids are more likely to obey a rule if there's a reason behind it. Not only will they respect your authority more, but even when they turn rebellious they may think twice about rebelling against the rules they agree with.

Also, any decision to break a rule with a reason is an informed decision, and it's easier to justify punishing your kid, not to mention easier to told him so.

I was a very logical child. If my parents told me to do stuff (or not do stuff) "because they said so", it would have been completely unconvincing to me, and I would have just made up my own mind about whether doing that stuff was a good idea. So basically I wouldn't have trusted my parents at all.

Kids are way smarter than we give them credit for, and they think they're way smarter than they are. Treating them like they know nothing and you know everything, but it's too complicated to explain to them, is asking for trouble.

^v^:)^v^
FB