WIIITBY FREE PRESS. WEDNESDAY, JJLY 31, 1985, PAGE 5 "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson THE CROW'S NEST by Michael Knell Like most journalists, I'm not office bound. Most days of the week you'll find me out in the community, talking to people, taking photographs and doing all those other things that reporters do. And because I spend so much time in my car, I do a great deal of listening to the radio. Last week, I was listening to CKEY when my ears fell upon this short clip on a woman (Ive forgotten her name) who has written a book for other women on how to find a husband in 30 days. The entire thurst of the interview concerned how to "catch" a man, get him "interested", keep him "interested", and, most importantly, how to "get him to the church on time". Something about the interview and the book (PIl freely admit that I haven't read it) annoys me. The way this author (if you want to call her that) treats both men and women offends me deeply. From the substance of the interview I got the distinct impression that this woman thinks of men not as human beings but as a machine whose purpose in life is to make another woman as comfortable as possible in a life style that she would become accustomed to. The advise she gave to women looking for a husband dealt with the following sorts of things: to keep him interested in her, she should take on interest in things he likes. For example, if he likes football, she should take in a few games with him and allow him to invite his friends to her place to watch a game. Then she should perform catering services for them in a effort to please the man of her choice. She also gives specific advise like: on the third date invite him to her place for dinner. While I suppose there is nothing particularly wrong with the advise this woman gives, it irks me that, at this point in the 20th century, some people (men and women) are still willing to treat marriage as a game to be played with the first prize being the swearing of "I Do" at the alter. I would think that any sensible person would be offended by these sorts of suggestions. Throughout the interview there are some things this woman never men- tioned: love, understanding, compassion, tolerance and the deep sense of caring that two people can find for each other. I'm not going to play "Dear Abby" - even for a second - but I think it's impor- tant to dispel some of the myths this woman is propogating. Most of us, I'm sure, have seen a few truly successful marriages. But, have you ever stopped to consider why they are so successful. I know of several, but I'd like to describe one for you. There's this one couple I know who have been through hell and back together and in the process acquired so deep and so caring an insight of each other that I can never imagine them as being anything other than they are. I don't think their marriage is succesful because they always anticipate each other's thoughts (although they do) but because they have learnt that marriage- is a shared experience. Marriage is not just the good times, it isn't the role playing to keep him or her "interested", or acquiring an unwanted interest in the interests of your partner. Marriage is also the bad times. Marriage is strengthened during times of emotional turmoil. The strength of a marriage lies in being willing to be there when your partner needs you. Marriage is more than a tumble in the hay. Marriage is being there to witness and share in the birth of a child (that came as a result of that tumble) and then getting up at ungodly hours to attend to that child's needs. And I think that's why there marriage has stood the test of time. They are in tune with each other. They have a deep understanding of each other and a great committment to each other's wellbeing. When push comes to shove, they stand together - against the entire world, if necessary. They live with each other and live for each other. They share everything - the good and the bad. And that is what really irked me more than anything about that insipid radio interview. This person made marriage out to be a game. She reduced it to role playing. How to "catch" a man, Pfui! It stank. What this woman doesn't realize is that marriage existed long before the priests, lawyers and politicians got their hands on it. Marriage, in whatever form it takes (and the customs surrounding it vary all over the world) is part of mankind's survival gear. It is as useful to a human being as eyes and hands and as necessary as bread in one's belly. A successful marriage doesn't need a contract, it doesn't need to be regulated by laws and one certainly doesn't happen thanks to the ideas that woman was proclaiming on the radio. Despite what the fundamentalists and the right wing politicians are saying, I don't think that the institution of marriage is in all that much trouble. If anything, the institution of marriage (how I hate that phrase), is adapting to the nuclear, technological age we are living in. After all, the monogamistic life- time marriage we have now wasn't always the norm in all parts of the world a few centuries ago. Even in the last century, polygamies were common - even in North America. The forms and the customs change, but the idea and basic sensibility of marriage doesn't appear to have changed. It is still the best way to raise children. It is still the best way to find contentment and happiness with another human being. More damage to human relationships is caused by books that tell women how to "catch" a man in 30 days than the technological advancements we have made. Successful marriages exist and continue to thrive despite the rhetoric and idiocy that we are often forced to endure. WITH OUR FEET UP By Bill Swan Among the many problems besetting my poor mind this week is one typically Canadian. Americans may have their Rambo, a well- rounded American Tarzan crazed by overindulgen- ce of Big Macs, who inflicts civilization on the third world. But ah! We Canadians have that perennial problem: infant car seats, provincial or federal responsibility? The problem began with the British North American Act. (Known commonly as the BNA Act, and pronounced Bee En Eh? Act, as though it were something odd, say like Uncle Charlie.) In Canadian politics everything was invented af- ter the BNA Act, but the jurisdiction for it was laid down with stunning cleverness by the Fathers of Confederation. Take television and radio, for instance. Yee Olde Fathers of Confederation, clever enough to avoid mentioning it by name in The Act lest voters confuse the Charlottetown conference for a Star Trek convention, nevertheless laid down the ground rules which state: radio and television are a federal responsibility. The same with automobiles. Somewhere in the hidden committee reports making up the background to the BNA Act lies a paragraph which states: Automobiles, when invented, will be a (federal or provincial) responsibility. I forgot now which. And highways, those ribbons of asphalt that automobiles ride on, were already invented and were a provincial duty. (With exceptions which will in the future be noted.) And child restraints in automotive vehicles: when invented, these will be handled by the provinces or Ottawa -- take your pick. Since cars are federal for trade, and provincial for safety, and except in places like national parks travel on provincial roads, and obey laws on the road that are provincial; and since passengers in cars by law (provincial) must wear seat belts ... does this get as convoluted as i think? ... then child restraints in cars must fall under provincial jurisdiction. Logical? He who believes logic dominates the bureaucratic mind doesn't think logically. Child restraints are a federal responsibility. Which means that if you have a child under 20 pounds in weight you must strap him (ber) into a rear-facing seat attached to the car by lap seat belts. And if you have a child from 20 to 40 pounds you must belt her (him) in position in a seat anchored to the car by lap belts and in some cases a tether bolted to the frame of the car. And if you go to buy one of these seats, and find out some require tethers but don't come equipped with them, and others don't require tethers but do come equipped with them -- you may end up a mite confused. And if you ask a sales clerk for information, you end up with a sales pitch but no information. The clerk's job, after all, is to sell the things, not educate dumb parents. And if you read alarming things on the upholstery warning tag like: NOT FOR USE IN A SEAT THAT FOLDS DOWN -- and all the seats in your car fold down, then you may be excused for feeling a little more confused. You may at this point call an automobile dealer, but they sell cars, not infant seats, and you will learn nothing. Except, maybe, that this whole thing is a gover- nment responsibility. Which brings us back to the Canadian question: a provincial or federal jurisdiction? The answer? federal -- according to provincial authorities. Which means, if you don't have your child properly protected in a federally approved child restraint while driving on a provincial highway, you may be charged by a provincial police officer and be required to appear in a provincial court. You would also eventually learn that the federal government overlooks the safety standards of the seats, so that there is uniformity from one province to another. But their use is a strictly provincial respon- sibility. And if your car seats all fold down, don't worry. What that stern warning means is that if you car seats fold down as did the front seats on two-door cars prior to 1971, without a restraining lock, then don't use a child seat. That would still allow you to strap the restraint in the rear seat. Stay tuned. Next week we'll give a run-down on how the BNA Act laid the foundation for the con- spiracy of silence around the UFO invasion.