i think we all understand the difference that one was a joke to someones face which implies friendship and the other was behind her back which implies...indifference shall we say. but i agree with poster above. if the basis for this being a sexist issue is the trivialization of a violent act of holding a womans head underwater until she drowns (presumably) then that is prevalent in both cases. the narrative we keep hearing is 'whether a joke or not, that kind of talk subconsciously affects those that hear it makes them more inclined to engage in violence and is therefore unacceptable'. i'm not sure how much scientific backing there is for that but surely if that's the case then both cases are similar enough to attract similar scrutiny. i don't think the difference between them is that one is sexist and one is not.
We are branching out here though. It starts with the offense caused being different between the two. Then when you point out why one is offensive and the other not, then the narrative turns to those who say one is sexist and the other is not, or one is violent towards women and the other is not.
You say you think we all understand the difference initially, but that hasn't been the case for much of this discussion.
So one is a joke and one is a bit spiteful, perhaps bullying because of their contexts - glad to check that one off.
Sexism - I don't know. I've said on the surface that it probably wasn't. It has been received that way by Caro, apparently because of the history between them. I'm not sure any of us can argue this point on the same level as her as the recipient.
Violence towards women - probably convenient. Technically they are talking/joking about an act of violence towards a woman, but the fact she is a woman seems redundant in the context of the discussion. They could just as easily have been talking about a man.
Do we have to elementise this to reach somewhere near the violence against women sphere?
Malice - check? Possible sexist history between the two - Maybe. If you combine the two, can you stretch this out to something else .... how high must your feasibility scale reach to make that stick? I really don't know and doubt I have the understanding.
When Eddie made that King Kong joke in relation to Goodes, he wasn't actually reaffirming the ape jibe that young girl made. It was in fact making light of a serious issue without meaning to. The explanation received is that even casual talk like this is a form of racism which trivialises the problem.
I am assuming this is where the violence angle is coming from. He is not actually promoting violence against women, or violence against Caro because she is a woman, but using lazy language that possibly trivialises violence against women and reduces it to a joke. No doubt his history with her adds a layer to this.