<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/css/rss20.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:pheedo="http://www.pheedo.com/namespace/pheedo">
	<channel>
		<title>On Parenting</title>
		<link>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/parenting/</link>
		<description></description>
		<language>en</language>
		<copyright>Copyright 2009</copyright>
		<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:00:00 -0500</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>http://www.movabletype.org/?v=4.21-en</generator>
		<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
		<item>
			<title>Blaming parents for the disappearance of play</title>
			<description>There are some ideas that just seem so good, so common-sense, that you wonder why there is a debate over them at all. Last week, the Post featured one of those great ideas: getting our young children more time to, well, play. The evidence on the benefit of play is so dramatic that I actually worry that the stats aren&apos;t believable: Research has shown that by 23, people who attended play-based preschools were eight times less likely to need treatment for emotional disturbances than those who went to preschools where direct instruction prevailed. Graduates of the play-based preschools were three times less likely to be arrested for committing a felony. And, yet, your average kindergartner is getting about 30 minutes of play a day. The villains, in this telling, are the politicians who -- in an shortsighted effort to boost short-term test results -- want to push testable knowledge on&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=72ab37bf3593df611cc1cd424a6b5726&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=72ab37bf3593df611cc1cd424a6b5726&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://a.rfihub.com/eus.gif?eui=2221&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<link>http://feeds.voices.washingtonpost.com/click.phdo?i=72ab37bf3593df611cc1cd424a6b5726</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2009/11/blaming_parents_for_the_disapp.html?wprss=parenting</pheedo:origLink>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://voices.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2009/11/blaming_parents_for_the_disapp.html</guid>
			<category>Child Development</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>&apos;Macrobiotic cupcakes&apos; and the mythic over-involved parent</title>
			<description>Time magazine has decided -- at this moment in history -- to attack a persistent straw man of parenting: the maniacally engaged parent. The cover screams &quot;The Case Against Over-Parenting,&quot; as if there was debate about whether overparenting is bad. By definition, it&apos;s bad. that&apos;s why they call it OVER-parenting. (No magazine would boast that it had developed a case against over-eating.) The magazine describes a country is which parents have gone mad: The insanity crept up on us slowly; we just wanted what was best for our kids. We bought macrobiotic cupcakes and hypoallergenic socks, hired tutors to correct a 5-year-old&apos;s &quot;pencil-holding deficiency,&quot; hooked up broadband connections in the treehouse but took down the swing set after the second skinned knee. We hovered over every school, playground and practice field — &quot;helicopter parents,&quot; teachers christened us, a phenomenon that spread to parents of all ages, races and regions. Stores&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=aaf8cad880b3536ca4b2cec5e629cfcc&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=aaf8cad880b3536ca4b2cec5e629cfcc&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://a.rfihub.com/eus.gif?eui=2221&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<link>http://feeds.voices.washingtonpost.com/click.phdo?i=aaf8cad880b3536ca4b2cec5e629cfcc</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2009/11/macrobiotic_cupcakes_and_the_m.html?wprss=parenting</pheedo:origLink>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://voices.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2009/11/macrobiotic_cupcakes_and_the_m.html</guid>
			<category>Behavior</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:00:01 -0500</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>What Working Mother&apos;s attack on custody says about dads</title>
			<description>When I first became an at-home dad, way back in 2002, I was sure I was part of an exploding trend. The number of at-home dads seemed to be growing exponentially, and all the signs pointed to continued growth. That was what it felt like. The reality was somewhat different. The number of dads at home had indeed, from a small number to a slightly larger (but still small) number. If you squinted at the statistics the right way, it looked impressive. But the raw numbers told a different story. The number of guys doing the at-home thing was only 105,000. In a country of 300 million, that&apos;s a rounding error. That group wouldn&apos;t even fill the football stadium at the University of Michigan. But dads have now officially arrived, according to Working Mother. The magazine this week published a hyperventilating piece on the danger that working moms face in&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=c2d878efab6f7ce45d003889734defca&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=c2d878efab6f7ce45d003889734defca&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://a.rfihub.com/eus.gif?eui=2221&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<link>http://feeds.voices.washingtonpost.com/click.phdo?i=c2d878efab6f7ce45d003889734defca</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2009/11/what_working_mothers_attack_on.html?wprss=parenting</pheedo:origLink>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://voices.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2009/11/what_working_mothers_attack_on.html</guid>
			<category>Dads</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:00:13 -0500</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>When baby gets airbrushed</title>
			<description>Anyone with even the vaguest knowledge of what goes on in the publishing industry probably realizes all those sexy, magazine-cover images of movie stars and models are usually -- shocker! -- airbrushed. But for some reason, most of us may not have considered that the cherubic faces beaming at readers from the front of some parenting mags also have been retouched to make them look more attractive. The Telegraph, expanding on information first uncovered in a BBC documentary called &quot;My Supermodel Baby,&quot; reported earlier this week that Practical Parenting and Pregnancy, a UK magazine, alters some baby photos to make skin tones more even, eyes brighter and creases of fat less apparent. Editors at U.S. magazines, on the other hand, have insisted that they don&apos;t resort to such practices. Representatives from BabyCenter.com, Parenting and Baby Talk magazines are quoted in sfgate.com&apos;s Mommy Files blog as saying that they make standard&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=e7e1f70a415371269f2fd363d85aa37c&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=e7e1f70a415371269f2fd363d85aa37c&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://a.rfihub.com/eus.gif?eui=2221&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<link>http://feeds.voices.washingtonpost.com/click.phdo?i=e7e1f70a415371269f2fd363d85aa37c</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2009/11/when_baby_gets_airbrushed.html?wprss=parenting</pheedo:origLink>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://voices.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2009/11/when_baby_gets_airbrushed.html</guid>
			<category>Babies</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:00:02 -0500</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Understanding why toddlers say &apos;why&apos;</title>
			<description>There are more than a million pieces of scholarship published in peer reviewed journals every year, and yet -- despite all of that frothy research-- some of the biggest mysteries in our world remain unexplained. Among the questions we have not had a good answer for: Why do toddlers ask &quot;Why?&quot; all of the time. It&apos;s a brutal phase, and I&apos;ve yet to meet a parent who hasn&apos;t had to endure months and months of getting that one-word reply. I&apos;ve heard various strategies for getting around it, including nonsense answers that seek to break the cycle and rules that bar one-word questions. But getting around the &quot;why&quot; phase doesn&apos;t answer the question: why? Why is &quot;why&quot; so fundamental to toddlers? But in research published this month, we&apos;re beginning to get a sense of some answers. A research team from University of Hawaii and the University of Michigan found that kids&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=e1869988204c9bd1914965a5b549b106&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=e1869988204c9bd1914965a5b549b106&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://a.rfihub.com/eus.gif?eui=2221&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<link>http://feeds.voices.washingtonpost.com/click.phdo?i=e1869988204c9bd1914965a5b549b106</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2009/11/understanding_why_toddlers_say.html?wprss=parenting</pheedo:origLink>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://voices.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2009/11/understanding_why_toddlers_say.html</guid>
			<category>Preschoolers</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:00:30 -0500</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Raising little artists when dad is artistically challenged</title>
			<description>One of the best parts of adulthood is that I am no longer graded on my ability to draw. For whatever reason, I never really got past the stick-figure stage. Fortunately, I now live in an adult world where PowerPoint can cover up my freehand liabilities and stick figures are more or less acceptable on those rare occasions when I absolutely must communicate visually. But this leaves me a bit stuck when it comes to playing an active role in exposing my kids to visual arts. I&apos;m a passable musician, so I&apos;m capable of giving some guidance there. But when it comes to art, I&apos;m at a loss. I&apos;m now trying a three-pronged approach. The first is to buy as many art supplies as I possibly can -- paint, markers, easels, modeling clay. You name it, we have it in the basement somewhere, easily accessible. The second prong is to&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=522eda1d3295adcb51b26cce7a6573ec&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=522eda1d3295adcb51b26cce7a6573ec&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://a.rfihub.com/eus.gif?eui=2221&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<link>http://feeds.voices.washingtonpost.com/click.phdo?i=522eda1d3295adcb51b26cce7a6573ec</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2009/11/raising_little_artists_when_da.html?wprss=parenting</pheedo:origLink>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://voices.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2009/11/raising_little_artists_when_da.html</guid>
			<category>Education</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 07:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Cooking with gas: The first 5 solo recipes for the elementary-aged</title>
			<description>Last week, my oldest had her braces adjusted, which ushered in a 48-hour period in which she&apos;d wince at the sight of anything firmer than a banana. Being an occasionally short-sighted parent, I hadn&apos;t adjusted the dinner menus to reflect her opposition to chewing. So with the hour getting late, and the little one beginning to melt down, I thrust my older a box of mac and cheese and told her to get cracking. &quot;Dad,&quot; she pleaded. &quot;I&apos;ve never made this stuff. What do I do?&quot; I was momentarily awestruck by my poor parenting -- mac and cheese is a skill every bit as important as learning multiplication tables. I hastily pointed out the instructions; she was (more or less) on her way. The whole episode made me realize that despite our forays into the culinary arts, she hadn&apos;t yet mastered the basics of cooking. She could absolutely follow a&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=6f9a4686e08ccfbac80c39db6526bb1f&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=6f9a4686e08ccfbac80c39db6526bb1f&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://a.rfihub.com/eus.gif?eui=2221&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<link>http://feeds.voices.washingtonpost.com/click.phdo?i=6f9a4686e08ccfbac80c39db6526bb1f</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2009/11/cooking_with_gas_the_first_5_s.html?wprss=parenting</pheedo:origLink>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://voices.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2009/11/cooking_with_gas_the_first_5_s.html</guid>
			<category></category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:00:58 -0500</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>&apos;Sesame Street&apos; at 40: Over the hill?</title>
			<description>This week marked a pop culture watershed. Big Bird and his crew turned 40. Surviving 40 years in TV land is tough and getting tougher. &quot;Reading Rainbow&quot; never made it to middle age. The Teletubbies lasted four years. &quot;Dora&quot; hasn&apos;t hit double-digits (and yet is still desperately trying to hang onto its audience). And my assessment of the Halloween costumes on the kids here suggests that kindergartners are done with &quot;Power Rangers.&quot; What&apos;s more, I&apos;ve never heard of &quot;Sesame Street&quot; backlash. My oldest, wisely but disingenuously, will deny up and down that she ever willingly watched Barney and Friends. But she&apos;ll cop to tuning into see Super Grover as a preschooler. Ask anyone -- kids, high-school students, adults of a certain age -- and they&apos;ll be more than happy to give you skits, tunes or plot points from their formative years of Sesame Street. I know a number of people&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=b2c1de4641e537465a64b5dc30a01a56&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=b2c1de4641e537465a64b5dc30a01a56&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://a.rfihub.com/eus.gif?eui=2221&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<link>http://feeds.voices.washingtonpost.com/click.phdo?i=b2c1de4641e537465a64b5dc30a01a56</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2009/11/sesame_street_at_40_over_the_h.html?wprss=parenting</pheedo:origLink>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://voices.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2009/11/sesame_street_at_40_over_the_h.html</guid>
			<category>Preschoolers</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:00:05 -0500</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Slipping us a new Mickey</title>
			<description>Mickey Mouse, the way he was. (Disney Enterprises) Apparently, we Americans -- particularly our kids -- don&apos;t think much of Mickey Mouse anymore. It&apos;s not that we can&apos;t stand the remarkably high-pitched sound of his voice. It&apos;s more that we have stopped listening altogether. That&apos;s why -- as reported last week by the New York Times -- the people at Disney are in the process of reinventing their iconic character, attempting to make him feistier and more relevant to today&apos;s young&apos;uns. In other words, M-I-C-K-E-Y may eventually spell badass. I am not a huge fan of kiddie character makeovers. I wasn&apos;t particularly jazzed when Strawberry Shortcake was robbed of her bloomers and turned into a pre-teeny bopper who looks like she just got back from a shopping spree at Forever 21. And that sentiment goes double for the reimagined Holly Hobbie. But Mickey Mouse is in another stratosphere. He&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=f79119b5556a0db06c7f38bc18f48a9e&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=f79119b5556a0db06c7f38bc18f48a9e&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://a.rfihub.com/eus.gif?eui=2221&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<link>http://feeds.voices.washingtonpost.com/click.phdo?i=f79119b5556a0db06c7f38bc18f48a9e</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2009/11/slipping_us_a_new_mickey.html?wprss=parenting</pheedo:origLink>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://voices.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2009/11/slipping_us_a_new_mickey.html</guid>
			<category>Entertainment</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Featured Advertiser]]></title>
			<link>http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=f79119b5556a0db06c7f38bc18f48a9e&amp;p=4</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">f79119b5556a0db06c7f38bc18f48a9e</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=f79119b5556a0db06c7f38bc18f48a9e&amp;p=4"><img alt="" style="border: 0;" border="0" src="http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=f79119b5556a0db06c7f38bc18f48a9e&amp;p=4"/></a>]]></description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Understanding Veterans Day, belatedly </title>
			<description>Growing up, Veterans Day was a holiday I never entirely understood. Because it is fastened to a specific date on the calendar, it seemed to jump around, making it an unpredictable day off in the middle the November. And while my town celebrated Memorial Day with great fanfare -- a parade to all of the local cemeteries, with gun salutes at all of them -- adults didn&apos;t seem to take any notice on Veterans Day. Flags flew at half mast and parents scrambled to deal with child care issues. Those were the only outward signs of the holiday. Contributing to that lack of attention was the fact that I grew up during a time of relative peace between Vietnam and the first Gulf War. That&apos;s not to say that there weren&apos;t vets in my midst, but the sacrifices they made seemed remote. My kids don&apos;t have the benefit of that&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=0c80bd7fcdac6957dd99b9ec211629b1&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=0c80bd7fcdac6957dd99b9ec211629b1&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://a.rfihub.com/eus.gif?eui=2221&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<link>http://feeds.voices.washingtonpost.com/click.phdo?i=0c80bd7fcdac6957dd99b9ec211629b1</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2009/11/understanding_veterans_day_bel.html?wprss=parenting</pheedo:origLink>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://voices.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2009/11/understanding_veterans_day_bel.html</guid>
			<category></category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:00:54 -0500</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Cell phones: How early is too early?</title>
			<description>It&apos;s only been in the last year that my 15-year-old babysitter got her own cell phone, and while I was happy to have a direct route of connection with the person who makes my date nights possible, my mind reeled at the idea that a kid who is still a year away from driving would need a phone of her own. So it goes without saying that I&apos;m even more puzzled by even younger children fully wired up. And yet the cell phone culture has gone from early adopters to the college kids to the high school kids to the tweens, and every passing year marks another new age group that is toting mobile phones. According to data put out by Nielsen, the average age at which a child gets a cell phone dropped to 9.7 years in the first quarter of this year. One in five 8-year-olds are cell&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=35c3981746a1dc0c24dd9dbdb3d3e6f4&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=35c3981746a1dc0c24dd9dbdb3d3e6f4&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://a.rfihub.com/eus.gif?eui=2221&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<link>http://feeds.voices.washingtonpost.com/click.phdo?i=35c3981746a1dc0c24dd9dbdb3d3e6f4</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2009/11/cell_phones_how_early_is_too_e.html?wprss=parenting</pheedo:origLink>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://voices.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2009/11/cell_phones_how_early_is_too_e.html</guid>
			<category>Teens</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:00:14 -0500</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Dressed for success, pre-school style</title>
			<description>About 6 months ago, in the interest of household harmony, I stopped fighting the morning battle with my preschooler about what clothes she would wear. Now, with broad guidance from me, she gets to pick what she is going to wear, and I live with it. Most days, this works out just fine, though we have a tendency to wear the same favorites over and over. And there are other drawbacks: some days she throws together combinations of colors and patterns that I fear might make people go blind if they look directly at her. (In her defense, I am slightly color-blind and basically fashion inept, so this was a risk even when I was the one dressing her.) The broad guidelines I set are designed to make sure she&apos;s comfortable at preschool: short sleeves when it&apos;s hot, closed-toe shoes for the playground, hats when it&apos;s freezing, and so forth.&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=d602c434122c24c4cbe07fdc897f043b&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=d602c434122c24c4cbe07fdc897f043b&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://a.rfihub.com/eus.gif?eui=2221&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<link>http://feeds.voices.washingtonpost.com/click.phdo?i=d602c434122c24c4cbe07fdc897f043b</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2009/11/dressed_for_success_pre-school.html?wprss=parenting</pheedo:origLink>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://voices.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2009/11/dressed_for_success_pre-school.html</guid>
			<category>Preschoolers</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>How to get your kids to bond with your parents (even if your bond isn&apos;t so strong)</title>
			<description>I&apos;m traveling this week with my wife, a professional trip that meant that the kids needed to stay home. Fortunately, Grammy is keeping an eye on the girls this week. Earlier in the year, the other grandparents bailed me out by watching the kids when I was on the road. We&apos;re not physically close to family, so getting this help takes some logistical juggling, but we can make it work. Not everyone is so lucky. As we were preparing to leave, an old classmate flashed me a wry smile when I told him that my mother-in-law was holding down the fort. He was somewhat estranged from his parents, not in the never-see-them sense, but in the sense that his family rifts had grown so large that he dared not ask his parents to step in. Part of it was a lack of trust, he said, and part of it was&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=25ff22923500d88105854ac6a7273d37&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=25ff22923500d88105854ac6a7273d37&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://a.rfihub.com/eus.gif?eui=2221&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<link>http://feeds.voices.washingtonpost.com/click.phdo?i=25ff22923500d88105854ac6a7273d37</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2009/11/how_to_get_your_kids_to_bond_w.html?wprss=parenting</pheedo:origLink>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://voices.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2009/11/how_to_get_your_kids_to_bond_w.html</guid>
			<category>Relationships</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:56:21 -0500</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Holiday cheer, the cheap way</title>
			<description>Most of us may still be consuming the last reminders of Halloween -- miniature-sized Snickers, itty-bitty bags of Skittles -- during our afternoon (and morning, and evening, and midnight) snacks. But if TV commercials, Friday&apos;s release of &quot;Disney&apos;s A Christmas Carol&quot; and the recent release of the Toys &quot;R&quot; Us Big Toy Book are any indication, the holiday season is more or less upon us. With its arrival comes this survey conducted by Consumer Reports, which finds that one-third of adults plan to spend less money on holiday gifts this year than they did in 2008. Two-thirds of the 1,000 people questioned also said they intend to trim holiday expenses on a broader scale, including cut backs on travel and decorations. And worst of all -- at least if you&apos;re Jerry Seinfeld and you&apos;ve just received a label maker from Tim Whatley -- is the fact that more grown-ups say&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=277b124c1ada2198f62db38ec7d4d5b9&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=277b124c1ada2198f62db38ec7d4d5b9&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://a.rfihub.com/eus.gif?eui=2221&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<link>http://feeds.voices.washingtonpost.com/click.phdo?i=277b124c1ada2198f62db38ec7d4d5b9</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2009/11/holiday_cheer_the_cheap_way.html?wprss=parenting</pheedo:origLink>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://voices.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2009/11/holiday_cheer_the_cheap_way.html</guid>
			<category>Family Finances</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:18:35 -0500</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Why I fear the first bra</title>
			<description>My oldest has begun to excitedly ask me when I think that she&apos;ll get to 5 feet tall (she has a few inches to go yet). She seems to think that breaking the 5-foot barrier marks some sort of milestone on the progression to young adulthood. I have to be honest: It&apos;s not hitting 5 feet that worries me. It&apos;s all of the other indicators of creeping young adulthood. Among the biggest, to me, is the bra: a cloth marker of the passage from childhood into adolescence. The bra is also tricky for me, because it marks the departure from a stage of her life that I understand relatively well into one that is far more murky. I have no idea when a girl needs to start thinking about adding an undergarment to the usual wardrobe, and I have even less of an idea how to be any assistance in&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;br clear=&quot;both&quot; style=&quot;clear: both;&quot;/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=5d2f9d4b102a5d37246b6a412619ef0c&amp;p=1&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;border: 0;&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; src=&quot;http://ads.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=5d2f9d4b102a5d37246b6a412619ef0c&amp;p=1&quot;/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; height=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;0&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; style=&quot;display:none&quot; src=&quot;http://a.rfihub.com/eus.gif?eui=2221&quot;/&gt;</description>
			<link>http://feeds.voices.washingtonpost.com/click.phdo?i=5d2f9d4b102a5d37246b6a412619ef0c</link>
			<pheedo:origLink>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2009/11/why_i_fear_the_first_bra.html?wprss=parenting</pheedo:origLink>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://voices.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2009/11/why_i_fear_the_first_bra.html</guid>
			<category>Child Development</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:00:30 -0500</pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>