That particular definition of racism has been in use for at least 25 years. You might recall it as a key plot point from the first season of MTV's reality show, The Real World, for instance.
Well, even if you agree that the term "racism" has somehow been redefined to mean "prejudice + power", it's awfully hard to _still_ argue that feminists don't have more power than just about anybody in academia, the press, entertainment industry and most business as well.
>it's awfully hard to _still_ argue that feminists don't have more power than just about anybody in academia, the press, entertainment industry and most business as well.
It's definitely not. What's the ratio of male to female CEOs in fortune 500 companies (it's around 20 to 1). What's the ratio of male to female members of congress? (~4 to 1). How many Presidents were women? Supreme Court Justices?
It definitely has been around a while. It's important to note that the "power" is not the power the individual holds, but rather "institutional" power that a person holds simply by virtue of being of a particular collective. For instance, if you are a hiring manager at a repair shop and you decide "this Asian must be good at math, so he won't be interested in working on cars" that's racist and you hold demonstrable power. That's not the same thing as institutional power, since that definition of racism would allow a black hiring manager to discriminate against that candidate on the basis of the black collective holding less institutional power than the Asian collective.
If one is simply racist or not racist because of what collective their a member of, it negates individual agency and dehumanizes everyone.
This leaves us with some possibilities:
One, racism is an immoral act committed by an individual, and the individual's conduct is the principal determining factor.
Two, we can just blame it all on the patriarchy at which point racism as a concept is pointless.
Three, you could claim that only white people have moral agency, which even white nationalists would disavow.
Four, something between one and two, which is probably what the left prefers. And the moral of Jeong case is that it leads to a blatant double standard based on your political stance that is worse about undermining the notion of racism than #2.