Hmmm.

I'd phrase it differently. Unrealistic expectations of the opposite sex [^1] exist by both sexes, but that there outcomes for women when the stereotypes of men hold true are often more dangerous. One is saying it isn't sexist; the other is saying that there's a vast difference in risk. This becomes one of those tautological arguments where women can't be sexist because sexism is redefined to mean "it can only be sexist if it's men doing it."

The "Would you rather a bear or..." question could be reused in a very uncomfortable way. You could swap men with a group of yoing, black, inner city men and rural white men for women. But instead of demonstrating that men are the issue and women the victims, suddenly it'd be black men who are the victims and rural white men the problem. And, yet, the fear and the risk of confirmation of stereotypes is the same - only in this case, believing those stereotypes makes people racist.

These sorts of tautologies - only whites can be racist, only men can be sexist - is sloppy, lazy, and dangerous, because it prevents introspection and always externalizes blame. I'm not saying that you are arguing a tautology, but that's the essence of this thread: minimizing sexism against men in the basis that it can't be sexism if rape isn't involved. Which is exactly how this thread went, isn't it?

I want to reiterate that I agree that there's a false equivalency; consequences for women can be higher. My argument is that it doesn't make it not sexism to broadly brush all men with a demeaning funny little tweet.

Also: there should be a Godwin's Law for rape. The conversation was about household stereotypes. That was a bit of a leap.