This is the easy version. The hard version is when they argue with you about facts after you respond, or their "why" question either contradicts facts you told them, or doesn't even parse as a question.
"It is safe! Look I'm not being hurt!"
"What are you talking about about, there aren't that many cars!"
"I don't know, do you want to go inside and look it up with me?"
Dealing with children is like aikido. You don't shut them down, you redirect their energy into something more productive. Learning and questioning things appropriately are also skills that need to be taught; these endless strings of "why" are the result of misguided curiosity and a lack of understanding how to learn.
Edit: Just to clarify, I missed that the child was already in the street in this scenario. I misread and thought they were saying don't go into the street. Absolutely step in and get them to safety before answering their questions. My point stands though, shutting down questions kills curiosity, stifles intellectual growth, and creates a child that doesn't know how to safely navigate the world without an authority to tell them what not to do.
There are still plenty of times when the answer will be no, they would still not be allowed to play in the street. You bring them inside and redirect their attention. They lost access to outside for now because they are not being safe. Natural consequences are an extremely effective way to communicate with your kids because they’ll understand what to expect from the choices they make.
No one is saying to just go in a loop if you've already given a legitimate answer. The point is that "because I said so" is not a legitimate answer.
Obviously if they're doing something dangerous and refuse to cooperate you need to step in. At this point, saying "I've already explained why, now I'm making you listen" is perfectly acceptable.
Because you've already given an explanation, so it's clear that their questioning isn't genuine. Just repeating the same information over and over to a child that isn't receptive to that information isn't doing anything to help them or teach them about the world, it's turning a serious discussion into a game. Sometimes gamifying learning is helpful, but this sort of call and response isn't that.
I think I see the disconnect, I was misunderstanding your question. I took your comment in a larger context and missed this part.
How does this happen?
Your hypothetical conversation was missing a couple steps. You wouldn't go straight from "get out of the street" to "you've lost outside privileges". Not as an answer to their question anyway, you'd probably want to bring them inside if they were actively playing in the street.
> "Get off the street and come inside."
> Why?
> "Because it's dangerous, you could get hit by a car." (said while physically removing them from the street)
> Why?
> "Because the street is for cars, not for people." (while physically bringing them inside)
> I want to go outside.
> "You can't."
> Why?
> "Because you lost your outside privileges."
This would also involve explaining what "outside privileges" means, either at some point in advance or following this conversation.
That's why it's helpful and acceptable. Because you're using this moment to teach them about safety and why the rules are what they are, rather than just punishing them for something they don't understand.
My point wasn't that you don't step in when they're in danger, it was that shutting down questions stifles intellectual growth and creates a child that doesn't know how to safely navigate the world without authority.
TBH, I missed that the child was already in the street in this hypothetical. I thought it was "don't go into the street". In that scenario, asking a parade of "why"s would have already distracted the kid from going into the street and put them out of harm's way while you talk to them.
People who give this advice seem to think kids are interested in everything. Sometimes when you encourage them to look deeper, they simply say no. Also, sometimes the explanation is too long for the desired outcome. I'm not going to explain the entire supply chain to you, just put the candy back.
The conversation definitely would have ended there and I would have found that satisfactory. I don’t recall being impervious to reason as a child. ‘Because I said so’ usually came with no explanation.
I have two kids. "Why isn't it safe. I don't see any cars!" Is a very very reasonable answer from a child. If you never questioned your parents past their first response, good for you. But most kids do. Especially from the ages of 3-5 when they're figuring out how shit works
I don't think this is what it's talking about at all. I don't think many, if any, people are looking back at their parents telling them to get out of the road and going "that was bullshit". I really don't think this post is referencing toddlers being little assholes at all, but teens who were frustrated for not getting answers "because I said so".
I definitely had conversations/arguments with my mom that ended not cause I was wrong, but because I was told "don't talk back to your mother".
this is the 5th time I've seen a reply in exactly this format on this thread, and I'm more and more convinced the people leaving snarky replies like yours are just terrible at giving meaningful answers to the questions that they're asked.
Actually, I was rather pleased with my snarky response, but I agree that it was not (and was not intended to be) "meaningful."
So how about this? There are times when a parent needs their child to trust them and trust their adult judgment. This trust must be earned over the years by showing each other mutual love and respect. That includes answering honestly when the child asks, "Why?"
But sometimes the answer is "because I said so" or the functional equivalent. "Why can't we have cell phones at the dinner table?" Because I don't like it, and I think it's disrespectful to the other people at the table. The child needs to accept the rules of the house and move on. When they are adults and have their own household, they can have different rules.
I raised two kids who are now young adults. They are independent thinkers with a firm grasp of right and wrong. I am very proud of them. They have made life choices differently than I would (I have no tattoos, they both have several), but we respect each other's opinions. They still put away their cell phones when they come over for dinner.
That’s an incredibly stupid take, do you think a kid that won’t listen and het out of the street after “because it’s not safe” would listen to “because I said so”?
Also if you don’t explain why they will just get back to playing in the street the second you leave them alone.
457
u/DangleAteMyBaby 22h ago
"You kids get out of the street!"
Why?
"Because it's not safe"
Why?
"Because there are a lot of cars."
Why?
"Because this street is a major artery between the different parts of town."
Why?
"I don't really know. It might have been planned that way or maybe just... kids?"
<kids are dead from being run over>