Are we really still having this discussion in 2016? Get a grip Muirfield.

My late step-mother, Dorothy Kerr, teeing off at Galt Country Club on the occasion of her 100th birthday - club champion and pioneer in securing equal playing rights for women.

A long time ago, in a land far away (OK. It was actually just a few miles from here and in the mid '80s) I was one of two finalists for a great job in the Canadian national golf business. If successful, I would be responsible for all marketing and communications for our national professional golf association. It was, at the time, my dream job. 

The interviewing process was prolonged and thorough. Many references were sought and all checked out. At the penultimate interview, my prospects look solid and the executive search fellow representing me reported that his reading of the tea leaves looked like a positive outcome would ensue. 

One last hurdle remained - an interview with the association's board of directors. I recall clearly making my way to the Mies Van Der Rohe designed TD Towers in downtown Toronto and rehearsing, as best I could, my performance. I dressed conservatively - these were traditional golfers after all - and my shoes were shined!

Just the right amount of nerves kept me alert and I entered the room of gentlemen golfers with confidence. 

It all went swimmingly. The directors were cordial. We appeared to achieve unity of thought on a variety of strategies and principles.

Until this question was posed: "What policy would you recommend the association adopt with regard to equal membership rights and playing times for female golfers?"

I failed to recognize the treacherous ground my response could lead me toward. Should I be honest and reflect my personal views on the subject or, more prudently, should I attempt to  provide a response anticipating the likely point of view of this died-in-the-blue-wool of conservatism's collection of older men?

My wife accuses me of having difficulty with filters.

I can't really argue with her. I am of the disposition that if you tell the truth built on a solid foundation of humane and respectable belief you can't go wrong.

Wrong!

My response was fundamentally this - if clubs have determined to accept the membership fees of women if those fees are no different than the fees paid by male members, and if the clubs are in sync with societal norms then the playing rights and privileges of the women should be identical to those of the men.

It suddenly got very cold in the room.

The Executive Director of the association blanched. Other members of the board turned red.

Clearly I had gotten this one wrong.

The right answer should have been that membership was a privilege and right for men and women were granted entrance only under restricted conditions that would not interfere with the men's ability to play when and where they wanted. Men first please - now and always.

You probably realize now that I didn't get the job.

I am, to this day, disappointed.

I am not, however, disappointed with my answer - except from this perspective - had I provided the answer the board clearly sought perhaps I could have more effectively lobbied for change from within.

I will never know.

Mercifully, much of the Canadian golf scene now recognizes men and women as equals. There remain a few hold outs but hell, even Augusta National admitted female members in the last while.

So, it was with surprise that I read this piece by Marina Hyde in the May 20, 2016, on-line edition of The Guardian. 

The introductory headline to the article reads:

Ms. Hyde goes on to expound on the situation and one of my favourite passages is this:

"A legendary commentator (Peter Alliss) - though sadly not a mythical one - the 85-year-old Alliss was always going to react to the push for equality much as an incontinent old dog might react to a rug."