I agree, good writing.
Indeed, it is simplistic to take times from tactical, non-rabbited races (e.g. ING NYCM) and compare them to paced affairs on rocket-fast courses. What seems to have been overlooked is comparative depth. There are simply a lot more really good male runners in the marathon than there are really good female runners. Depth drives the pack. Also, what has happened with women's marathon times seems somewhat typical of records. How recently was 2:20+ still the WR? And then when 2:20 finally was broken we saw more women follow suit. Radcliffe just took a big leap beyond that — I am not ready to remove her from possibly being grouped with the Chinese women of the '90s, either. It does make sense, though, that Radcliffe's WR may seem too daunting (see also: Beamon's LJ WR) and that performances would stagnate for a while following a breakthrough period. The less competitive depth there is in an event, the sooner that stagnation will come about.
I would like to see Tokyo, Rotterdam, and 2-3 others added to WMM, though I am not sure that would correct for general apathy about the WMM and its leaders. If only we could ditch the nationalism attached to the WC and OG and have the WMM serve as qualification races for those marathons.