vwytche
I'm willing to bet someone will be along before the end of the day (probabaly ban or DMJ) to prove my point for me. Or would have been if I hadn't tipped my hand just now.
Prove your point, how? By calling you a feminazi? I don't think I've ever applied that language towards anyone, and certainly not seriously.
I think the problem with your analysis is that people can talk about race and gender relations if they can communicate clearly and fluently about the subject. Possibly one issue is that I believe Votaro does not have English as a first language, and thus has difficulty with communicating clearly. Also pretty sure he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but whatever. The second issue is that I'm not offended, and I don't think deadman is either. If I was offended, I might be reacting to it with something other than humor. The point is to make fun of Votaro for saying something stupid.
Specifically, he said that the fact that people stereotype others "can't be changed" and so those stereotyped groups should change, and take it as the impetus for "self-betterment." This a stupid thing to say, because instead of trying to get at the problem (the fact that people make broad generalizations on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, et cetera) it says that that people who are the targets of this prejudice have to work twice as hard to disprove those bigots. Of course, it also assumes that stereotyping is always based on some sort of actual widespread characteristic, which isn't always true, or that it always focuses on a negative characteristic, which isn't true. That doesn't make the practice less harmful.
So, given all that, yes, Votaro did not exactly say it's the fault of blacks for creating the stereotype of blacks as criminals. However, he did say it's "based on observable data" and it should be their responsibility to disprove the notion, which makes it sound like stereotypes are presumptively valid, rather than despicable. So, there's a lot of material to make of that for jokes.
Turning to your analysis, a woman who is weak is just weak. She can be weak. She doesn't have to hit the gym five times a week to prove girls can be tough, too. I'm not sure why that's "perpetuating a negative stereotype for her own motives." Lots of people don't exercise and don't want to. I suppose you can call that an "earned reputation" if you like, though I'm not sure what the same woman complaining about the stereotype of weak women adds to the hypothetical. Seems like a valid complaint. The fact that a particular woman is weak doesn't change the fact that the generalization is unjust. I'm a white guy who can't dance; that doesn't change the fact that I know plenty of white guys who can dance and it is unfair to say they can't.