I can't access the link. But that comment could be taken two ways just from reading it. Did he say it out of frustration that women can't be oppressed as easily as in the past? Or did he say it with admiration? As in "no one is going to force these women back into the kitchen! They are amazing athletes!"?

I'm with notadamsel - what was the tone?

If he meant it the way many anti-feminists would, three cheers for those runners! They've not only completed a marathon, which is quite a feat itself, they also frustrated a male chauvinist!

And even if he had been joking, I would still be pissed off. My ex used to make jokes like that around me, and I knew that he was being 100% satirical/sarcastic when he said it, so I wouldn't get mad ("What?" he'd ask playfully, "You really think a PhD. is better than a succulant roast? You just haven't spent enough time in the kitchen! Who needs money, prestige and respect when you could have a roast in the oven!") But I have to know a person pretty well before I can trust that they are in fact being satirical.
I'd be willing to bet that 90% of people who say they're being satirical are just using that as a front for their misogynist world views.

/End slightly off-topic rant.

I couldn't read the LA times article because I have to be a subscriber, but I sure as hell hope that the times grilled him for what he said.

If you don't want to sign up to access the link, try using www.bugmenot.com to get a username and password for the LA Times.

From the article, it doesn't seem that Burke wasn't going for the "you go girl" type sentiment. And, at the time the story ran, Burke wasn't commenting.

As a marathoner I must say that there is absolutely no point in dividing male and female runners. It is an unbelievable feat to race 26.2 miles. The training alone is a full-time job.

I have always loved distance running because of the co-ed environment. Giving women marathoners kudos for running "despite" their sex is totally unnecessary -- it's laudable whether you're male or female.

I was wondering the same thing, notadamsel.

Why is it always BACK in the kitchen. Some of us were never in there to begin with!

Sadly, I was watching Make Me A Supermodel (I hoped for it to be Project Runway quality, but no...) and one of the GQ reps said this about one of the female models: "I don't want to admire her... I just want to sleep with her."

Vomit and turn off the tv.

Relating to sexism --
I have a special Facebook account that is just for work (I do a lot of work on my organization's social networking sites, including all of their Facebook pages, causes, etc.) I logged in one day and saw this:

(See: http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/mwcbatchick/PinkShopaholicChaseCard.jpg )

WTF?! First of all, it's pink, because only women like pink, right? *gag* Why do colors have to be gender-identified? blue vs. pink. What the hell? Why do yellow and green get to be "gender-neutral?" Where does orange fall?

Secondly, it's horrid to think that women are the only stereotypical consumers. I was reading this article from Frugal For Life about gender and shopping. Yes, it's true that women in our society like to shop; however, men are the ones who typically shop for expensive items like new electronics, gadgets, etc. (I haven't forgotten about the niche market for women and high-end bags and shoes)

What this all boils down to: I think it's wrong for Chase to advertise a credit card --a PINK card no less! -- specifically aimed at women. You could argue that they were focusing on young women, maybe college-age, since they advertised on Facebook. If this was a card that donates proceeds to breast cancer research or something, then I'd be less offended, but I was pretty floored when I logged into my account at work and saw this.