> > 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

It really doesn't matter how logical your children are, or you are as a child, if your parents have instilled in you the concept that they are the authority and they make decisions on your behalf which they feel are in your best interest. If you'll notice, however, I said "in some situations," which I hoped would indicate the exception, not the rule.

As a father, I plan to give my children the reason why I give them instructions, deny their requests, etc. up to a point. There are, however, decisions that must be made, the details of which are not appropriate for a child to be told. In these instances "I said so" will have to suffice. I know that this is true, because I didn't do a lot of those "I said so" things, and I understand now why my parents didn't tell me why, and I have suffered consequences because of my decision. I do, however, want to make more reasons known to my children, and in so doing help them understand that I make rules and give instructions with the best of intentions, having been where they are and having gained wisdom through experience.

But when a child is very young, explanations aren't worth much anyway. They often can't understand or don't care what your reasons are. "Why" is just a search for information. It's usually only when they're a bit older that they start using "why" as a tactic to get their way. And, even then, the child could very easily know why, but they don't want to accept that reason as valid. And so "I said so" is all the reason, as frustrating as it is to both parents and children, that the child should need.

Mich-father of three in just over a month-ael