No, you didn’t. You’re deflecting.
You’re positing sexism as being in need of greater remediation than racism, so that you can stop having to talk about white supremacy.
But if sexism were the case—the predominant issue—white women would act for the benefit of non-white women before they did so for white men; i.e., this is what would tend to happen, much the way that if racism were what Black and white people both did, white people would broach the subject in public as often as Black people do.
Clearly, they do not, and clearly, they do not.
I’ve said already: Most females are non-white. Ask them if they suffer more because they are female, or because they are not white.
In the spirit of clarity, you should forego attempts at poetic, or soaring, speech, and, instead, just write simply.
I don’t understand what you are saying. Most of it appears to be an attempt at avoiding the discussion I urge, by my example, and that white people usually avoid: The discussion that racism is white supremacy.
For example, you say:
What in the world does this mean? That there has not been thirty-five-plus years of racist housing policy, here, not to mention elsewhere? Is that what you imagine? Is that the conversation that you don’t want to have?
In other words, what is your response to the contention that there has been 35 years of racist housing? Is your response, “You probably live OK, Harry. Do you want a bigger house”?
Making fun of non-white people is a very common racist tactic.
I’m not saying that you are a racist. I’m saying that, to the statement, “There have been thirty-five years of racist housing policy in the United States,” the response, “Well, what hovel have you been consigned to, now, in your quest for flashier and larger manse?” is the kind of thing a white supremacist would say.
They would say this for at least two reasons, that I can detect:
a) To minimize the non-white speaker, so as to put an already minimized person “in his place.”
b) To avoid having to talk about white supremacy, to the degree that talking about it leads to eliminating it.
Q: How do you know that your child is willing, capable, or honest in their efforts to clean their room?
A: When, an hour after you say, “Your room is dirty. Please go clean it,” they call you, say, “Take a look,” and it’s spotless.
What most white people do, instead, is say:
“If you didn’t talk about the dirt in room so much, it wouldn’t be a problem.”
“The room is dirty because you commit so much crime.”
“The problem isn’t the dirty room. The problem is we have a dirty ladies’ bathroom.”
“What hovel have you been consigned to, now, in your quest for flashier and larger manse?”
In other words, I believe that the white people who eliminate “Black subjugation” are willing, capable, and/or honest in their efforts to eliminate “Black subjugation.” No one else is credible, or yet credible.
I don’t know what you mean by “these coercive redefinitions.”
I think, for example, you mean when I say, Racism is white supremacy, or make statements of that nature; ones which take words, or ideas, around race, and “give” them another meaning.
But it’s not clear why this holds so much apparent distaste for you. As I said to @Danny, what you apparently mean, when you say “racism,” is not what I mean when I say racism. So, the only appropriate response you should have is, “What do you mean when you say ‘racism’?”
So, they are “redefinitions,” but of only the most benign sort.
As for them being “coercive,” you’re not bound to define racism as white supremacy. In fact, if you are a racist, you most likely will not do so. Further, if you’re not a racist, you don’t have to agree with my definition. If you don’t, I would simply ask you the same question: “What do you mean when you say ‘racism’?”
Now, because my notion is that racism functions, to a great extent, via words, I’m going to listen to what you say, and I’m going to say if I think that yours is a correct definition, or not, and why; i.e., does it help eliminate racism, or does it establish, maintain, expand, or refine it.
If you’re a person who truly seeks the elimination of white supremacy, you should welcome such a dialogue. If you’re a person who thinks that racism is better than the alternative—justice—perhaps because, directly or indirectly, you get benefits from being white, you will probably resent such a discussion. You might, to begin, pretend to be open to it. But this charade will, eventually, cease.
So, to the first part of your question: As it pertains to white people, my efforts regarding words seems to be going in the same way as usual; i.e., the ways demonstrated on this forum are blandly typical. However, white people are not my audience, primarily, either.
As it pertains to non-white people, many find that these truer meanings conform with their experiences. Others find them jarring. But I am always encouraged by non-white responses to these ideas, because they always seem deeply captivated by them.
I think, for many, this is the kind of conversation that they’ve always wanted to have on a life-defining subject—the life-defining subject, for many—but one they rarely get, if ever, from white people, who tend to dominate the discussion of life-defining subjects.