ICE Killed A White Mother. Why Are Trump And Other White Men Cheering?

[B.See]

In this article, author Dr. Stacey Patton makes some interesting and rather pointed observations about the MAGA demonization of Renee Good, the vile, mean spirited misogynistic nature of it, and the ideology behind it.

Which, frankly, figures, considering many Republicans are even now, in 2026, QUESTIONING a women's right to vote.

The four paragraphs excerpted below don't even BEGIN to cover this piece. And no doubt there are more complexities to the story, but I found the author's take on the MAGA male psyche,

and how long sustained right wing attacks upon women and women's right seem to have now come full circle, spot on.

ICE Killed A White Mother. Why Are The President And Other White Men Cheering? -Newsone What happened to Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis made clear that the protection white women were promised is only conditional.

The killing of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis on Tuesday is not just another case of militarized immigration enforcement gone wrong. It is a rupture in a social contract that long promised white women safety in exchange for compliance. And it is also a chilling illustration of just how quickly that promise evaporates when women challenge authority. 

[White women] were taught by law, culture, and by proximity to whiteness that their bodies were protected terrain. That their compliance would be rewarded with safety. That motherhood softened force. That respectability functioned as armor. That even when the state was brutal, it was brutal elsewhere.

The speed and ferocity with which her killing has been defended and mocked, most loudly by white men invoking obedience, law, and order, and amplified by Donald Trump’s cruelty, reveals a deeper reality. The protections tied to whiteness, womanhood, and motherhood are thinning fast in an authoritarian culture increasingly comfortable with brute force. 

What has made this moment so unmistakably vicious is not just the defense of Good’s killing, but that it has been so saturated with misogynistic pleasure. The comments I’ve seen across my own social media timelines and threads are gleeful. I’m seeing white men say things like “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.” “FAFO.”  I’m seeing mostly white men congratulating themselves on the neatness of her death, on the clarity of the punishment, on the satisfaction of watching a woman be made an example of. 

[sop]

1. Good had a wife, used pronouns and wrote poetry.

[OldBaldy1701E]

18. Bingo!

And, defied a 'man'.

[RockCreek]

2. I think the fact that she was married to a woman came to play a big part in this.

Whether or not they were aware of that at the time of the shooting, it would have been clear and known to them within minutes.

And a pretty blond women rejecting their male god-organs is one pf the most horrific sins there is to some people. Cognitive Dissonance.

I have no idea if that played a role in the shooting. I do think it plays a role in the aftermath (consciously or not).

I also think that white women are, in general, not safe.

[USS_Dauntless]

7. American conservative men largly view women as property.

Thanks to redpill media and Christianity.

[Marie Marie]

3. Women mean as little to them as people of color or differing religions or political affiliation.

[Sympthsical]

4. This doesn't require an essay. It's ideological tribalism.

That's it. That's the mystery. This essay is an ideological narrative shaping exercise, but it exchanges clarity for pseudo-intellectual jargon.

We are an increasingly polarized society. Race can have a strong component of it. But as we've seen in Latino communities, race is not necessarily controlling. Ideology. Political identification. Religion. Sexuality. All of these exert various amounts of force in influencing identity.

That the Right has certain opinions about certain kinds of white women is not new. This author is behaving as if she's covering some kind of new ground in the wake of this incident. Except the construct she's explaining has existed as long as I've been an adult at least. The Right even has a term for it (that I will not repeat here).

One of the great mistakes the Left is making is seeing components such as race as having a near totality of identity determination. This is decreasingly the case. Political lines are becoming less homogenous. The older demographic orders are crumbling.

Just this past week, I just watched two things that bear this out.

1. Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang had the audacity to not like Jasmine Crockett for Senate. They had an opinion about a primary. They were met with waves of racism and homophobia. Their sexuality and Bowen's non-whiteness came into play for all the wrong reasons. It did not quiet the ideological reaction. And this then rippled out into talking about gay men and Asians in general in less than flattering terms. This came wholly from the Left on social media.

2. New York politicians, including AOC and Mayor Mamdani, condemned a protest supporting Hamas in a Jewish neighborhood. People went scorched earth on them on social media. Just look it up. It is absolutely unhinged behavior. The racism was wild. It was almost feral. Being a woman of color and the first Muslim mayor not only didn't mitigate the hatred, it became an opportunity to expand upon it.

We are becoming a nation where political and ideological allegiance will override all other considerations. The Right has very strong opinions about liberal white suburban women. Very strong opinions. And they've had them for a very long time. So the killing of Renee Good is not some paradigm shift. You're not going to persuade white women on the Right that some immunity this author thinks existed is suddenly vaporized. Because white women on the Right share that opinion of Renee Good. The minute she showed up to protest ICE, she signaled she was out of their club and their empathy for her evaporated.

That's how this works now. There are no people as such. Just the loyal and the traitorous. And race, sex, gender, and orientation are secondary to whether or not you have signaled sufficient group loyalty.

That's the mystery. That's our biggest problem electorally now. And the minute you see it, you start to see it everywhere. Even here, I'll be perusing a thread and see all kinds of sexism and racism that are totally fine as long as it's directed at "the correct target." I see that cop's Filipina wife coming in for some . . . commentary. And lemme tell you. As the partner of a Filipino with Filipino in-laws who I adore - I abhor this bullshit with my whole soul. It's on days like that where I start questioning my own identification with a group.

But the media bubble ecosystems promote this stuff, so it's not going away anytime soon. Which means our politics will be fucked for the foreseeable.

The Internet was a mistake.

[B.See]

6. Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but

the author's thoughts (or perhaps, argument) seemed pretty clear to me. Nothing particularly "intellectual" about it, "psuedo" or otherwise. And I've already acknowledged (in my intro) that there are more complexities to what is transpiring in this country.

Nor am I in agreement that race (or as you write, race as an identity determinant) is becoming less of a factor (if I correctly understand your meaning), in spite of your cited examples to the contrary (which I'll not address as they perhaps deserve a thread of their own).

As for persuading Republican women, I don't think that was the purpose of the article (though I will acknowledge your comments regarding their "club" )... as much as it was to make an observation/connection between Good's murder, the ensuing hateful rhetoric coming from the right, and the various ways in which women's rights, prior to her murder, had already undergone erosion via right winged attacks upon such rights, and the mentality/ideology behind it.

Political ideology, ideological tribalism, the examination of such - all of it has been and will be the subject of... 'essays.' It's the nature of journalism. Our option is to choose what to ignore.

[Sympthsical]

17. I honestly don't expect many people here to agree with me

Because the shift is more generational than anything else. Millennials started divorcing immutable identity characteristics with ideology, and Gen Z has been speeding that up. Latinos and Democrats. The young and Democrats. These bright lines that people would take as axiom are no longer default truths. And people are getting mad about it. Again, Bowen and Matt were assumed to have one opinion because of who they are, and when that didn't mesh, the blowback was vicious. Traitors. AOC and Mamdani. Progressive. Said the most anodyne thing, "Hamas support is no good." Instant hatred. They thought his Islamic background demanded ideological conformity. Renee Good, opposed ICE, earned the Right's hatred.

The world doesn't run along reductive ideologies.

My disagreement with this author (to name one) is that she is writing from a place of racial ideology. It does not comport with the real world. She is writing from a place of assuming her ideological statements are obvious facts, when no such thing is in evidence. And that resting foundational assumption places cracks in the entire rest of the piece. Her view of white women is through an incredibly ideological lens, and while it might be interesting to watch her do combat with her own assumptions, it's not particularly helpful.

And you can see where she almost, almost gets it. She correctly identifies FOX News and right-wing social media reducing Good to a ideological identity. She has the receipts, and I have eyes. We all see the misogyny. But then the author herself goes right ahead and does the same. So close to awareness there. How does someone write, "Through workplace retaliation, harassment campaigns, doxxing, and blacklisting. Through the steady message that dissent will cost you your livelihood," and just keep going as if anyone outside of the choir isn't going, "Uhm, funny thing about that . . ."

Self-awareness needs to be a thing. And it's just not anymore.

I could write paragraphs about this, but to keep it succinct (way too late). This idea of "white woman immunity" is a construct that both the Right and Left share. The right-wing's criticisms of white liberal women are based on the assumption they think they have this immunity. And the Left's idea that they absolutely have this immunity and are complicit in all of the crimes is so parallel to the Right's views, it's kind of wacky to watch. You could play the game "Who said it?" and try to figure out if it was the Left or Right on the issue.

The author does an excellent job of calling out the Right and their reaction to her killing. However, Renee Good deserves better than this reduction to identity. We all do. It's something we need to stop doing. It's unhelpful conversation at this point. The world is not that anymore and hasn't been in some time.

We can do better than this stuff. And to put it extremely plainly: using a dead woman for identity political football is just icky. It should feel dirty. And to people who aren't already ideological disposed in this way, I can't imagine this article going over well.

"Because it confirms that the war on women has reached a stage where even whiteness and motherhood no longer guarantee safety."

It never did. And I cannot believe anyone in America - certainly no one who identifies as liberal - could not be aware of that. That in itself almost feels like misogyny. It's a dismissal of women's lived experiences. It plugs ideological fantasy in the place where real women, women who have suffered, exist.

This stuff's icky.

[B.See]

24. Thank you for you response.

Some might think it (what was the term?) "pseudo intellectual" (j.k ) but that would be unworthy of the care and thought you obviously took in sharing your opinion.

1. Re shifts (generational and otherwise) in identity / ideological characteristics, defaut truths and such. Yes I agree that is occurring in ways that blur the lines. Bottom line though, come election time, one has to choose between two distinct futures, more distinct now than ever before. And for the ideologically vague, confused, undecided, bothsiders, the not quite sure and such, the wrong choice, or no choice at all, can be costly... even DEADLY. As we are now learning only too well.

Yes, some went low on Bowen and Matt. Which I condemn. But others (including myself) simply didn't think they were the ones who should be telling us who to support or contribute to. We thought they had neither the experience nor the credentials. We thought it did us a disservice. Had nothing to do with who or what they are.

2. Re. the author of the linked op-ed. Yes, it is written through the lens of her own experiences, and on a platform geared toward a certain audience. Newsone is a Black online news site. And Dr. Patton (as you may recall) was the target of similar racists attacks, as well as threats to her life when she and some of her colleagues were placed on a "professors watchlist" compiled by Kirk and his "Turning Point USA." So yes, I'd agree, she writes from a certain... perspective. A certain "awareness" if you will.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacey_Patton

3. Re. the construct of "white woman immunity" I'd agree it is a construct that is, at best, not nearly as infallible or sacrosanct as some would think, but nevertheless, a construct upon which a whole lot of otherwise inexplicable actions are based.

Otherwise, how else to explain a woman calling cops on a Black homeowner she thinks doesn't live there, or falsely accusing another of having stolen something that turns up in her pocketbook, or dozens upon dozens of other incidents where women, who at least PRESUMED themselves to be of privilege, harassed, intimidated, acted out against, and/or falsely accused someone of something they did not do? And to make such charges without fear of repercussions.

4. Re. 'Renee deserves better than reduction to identity.' We all do." TRUE. But the right has already done that. And wasted no time doing so. Identity politics is the name of their game.

5. "The world is not that anymore and hasn't been in some time." Here I respectfully disagree. It very MUCH is that. THEY, Trump, MAGA, used a dead woman for identity political football. THEY, dismissed a women's lived experiences.

IMO. Patton merely called out what THEY did, and called it par for the COURSE.

[Sympthsical]

29. I appreciate the engagement

A few quick responses (peds rotation begins tomorrow, so skedaddling time)

1. I agree with you both sides are distinct. Come voting time, you and I have a clear Democratic preference - the sides aren't even close. But in the Bowen/Matt/AOC/Mamdani examples, this viciousness is intraparty. It's shots being fired inside the house for any position or opinion that smidged even an inch out of line. The reason I brought it up is to illustrate how this ideological hyperpolarization is now the overriding characteristic driving rage in our current politics. It's not identity - it's this stuff. I'm not saying identity isn't a component - it's just not nearly as controlling as the author clearly assumes. (As far as B/M having an opinion, that's kind of a thin rationale. Everyone had an opinion about the NYC mayor's race. And I doubt any non-Texan supporting Crockett would be attacked by these same people for the same reason. Let's be a little honest here. They're adults. They can have an opinion. I don't even know what "credentials" would look like in the case of permission to have a political opinion about an election. DU couldn't exist if we started extending these standards).

2. After my second response, I looked up who Dr. Patton was. That last line about guaranteed safety bugged me enough to look. I had three assumptions. Non-white, academic, probably talks about intersectionality a lot. The kind of undertone of venom about white women is a hallmark of a certain space in academia. I threw in a fourth guess for fun - that I could look at her social media and find something really, really alienating and dumb within 60 seconds. I was right on all four counts. I promise I'm not magic. It's just that it's so predictable, tiresome, and worn out to be this . . . intellectually lazy when it comes to these smooth-tread ideological statements. (She describes asking someone how to be a better ally as "violence". C'mon now.) We need better arguments than a gear stuck in 2012. It's time to evolve. We haven't in the age of Trump, and I think that's a deep part of why we can't get as much electoral traction as you'd think when the Right has completely melted down. It's because people who can be persuaded turn to us and get rhetoric like this, and it's an instant, "Ugh, nevermind. This is insufferable."

I do not know who this article is for. I agree with how she calls out the Right. 100%. And then she trips right over her own ideology. It almost feels like a self-soothing exercise. A confirmation prayer. A recitation of faith.

We need people who want to pull back from hyperpolarization rather than stoke it. Dr. Patton's a stoker. I just don't find it useful at this moment, I guess.

3. Very quickly, because I've run out of time. We all agree entitled white women are a thing. On social media. Social media loves this stuff and posts about it. Posts stories about it. Shares it all around - because it is acceptable. I have met these women myself. I've also met men and non-white people who come flying out with the same sense of entitlement. Crazy meltdowns. Abuse of service workers. Rage over nothing. But that isn't as fun a social media currency. For a variety of reasons, Karen became the acceptable national pinata. Everyone, Right and Left, agrees that having a go at white women is the best of times. Dr. Patton strikes me as the kind of person who is likely to have participated in that way. I've read some of her stuff, and that's the vibe. Which is probably why this article struck me the way it did.

And I'm not saying this entitlement from privilege isn't a thing. As you mention, some people feel a lot safer than others involving law enforcement in disputes. You make a great, undeniable point. Yeah, some people are just that insulated (although I'd argue a lot of this is heavily class-based as well. The word "suburban" surfaces often).

But I do think people need to take a hard look at the foundational assumptions they're using as springboards in these discussions. The underlying venom was unmistakable to me. And that line I quoted in particular. Only someone coming at it from prejudice would've written that.

This stuff isn't how Trump and the Right get beat. Either they self-destruct entirely (and take a lot of innocents with them) or we evolve and start using better words and more inclusive ideologies that don't seek to divide our own side into their component parts. We need to not be at each other's throats, and stuff like this just isn't helpful in that regard.

[B.See]

33. Points taken. I think we both know where

we've found agreement and where we still disagree so nothing more to add, with the exception of one clarification.

When I speak of credentials re. Yang (and the other guy, whose name I forget, and not inclined to look it up just now) I don't mean to say they are not entitled to an opinion.

But I too detest the infighting, have often said so, and I believe when people of celebrity status start telling people not to contribute to a candidate, that goes way beyond just having an opinion. Like I said, I think it does our party a disservice. So did a lot of people, apparently.

Otherwise, am pleased to have had the opportunity to exchange thoughts with you. Take care.

[AZProgressive]

27. I'm strongly in favor of Palestinian rights

but I also favor Mamdani/AOC. I know AOC received blow back for supporting the Iron Dome but I knew she supported that policy going back several years and even though the Dome enables Israel to aggressively attack its neighbors, I don't support more casualties on all sides.

I respect Mamdani for sticking with support for Palestinian rights despite the national media and his opponents including the party establishment trying to turn that support into a scandal.

With wide ranges of opinions I'm sure you can find something from somebody that is a little bit wacky but especially on the Republican side. I'm sure you could easily write many paragraphs on this but I don't see this issue as widespread as you see it.

[Sympthsical]

30. Look at AOC's Jan. 9th post on Twitter about Hamas

Scroll through the replies.

And that's just Twitter responses to one post. It certainly wasn't the only social media space that had a nice, long go at her. But it certainly was . . . something.

[AZProgressive]

31. I don't visit much Social Media

I have an account on BlueSky but I mostly retweet. I deleted my Twitter account before Musk took it over and am not a big fan of the people on Twitter and even the left that are still on there seem addicted to the site.

She does get a lot of blow back on Twitter, I have seen it myself. I remember when a third string NFL running back was attacking her over something Jimmy Dore was pushing which was Force the Vote which was really just an excuse to not vote for Pelosi for Speaker of the House following the 2020 election. What followed that was a very toxic online mob attacking her which is one of the reasons why I don't have a Twitter account anymore.

That part is nothing new and is mostly people that spend too much time online. When I went to the Fight the Oligarchy Tour in Tempe most of the people there weren't like that at all. They weren't even like many here at DU and they were actually further left than me based on their T-shirt messages. I'm not quite bold enough to wear political messages in public.

[TBF]

5. White women are promised NOTHING -

maybe women of extreme privilege, but even then, I doubt it.

I'm a white woman who descends from german/english roots going way back (and most of my ancestors came to this country more than 100 years ago, some as far back as 1620). I can tell you that white men do not promise any sort of protection, and in fact are usually our first abusers - whether verbal, physical, and/or sexual. There might be some sort of implied protection for you in certain families if you are 100% compliant from the day you are born. But the reality is that most white women find out as toddlers that any step out of line will incur their wrath.

At a political level you can see it just as clearly - Hillary Clinton was attacked just as harshly as Michelle Obama and Kamala Harris.

[B.See]

8. You are absolutely correct...

as you wrote:

"white men do not promise any sort of protection, and in fact are usually our first abusers - whether verbal, physical, and/or sexual. There might be some sort of implied protection for you in certain families if you are 100% compliant from the day you are born. But the reality is that most white women find out as toddlers that any step out of line will incur their wrath.

At a political level you can see it just as clearly - Hillary Clinton was attacked just as harshly as Michelle Obama and Kamala Harris."

which perhaps was the author's point. The promise was always an illusion.

[TBF]

25. "the promise was always an illusion" - that's just it, I don't believe there is any promise

perhaps other white women differ in their view. Maybe republican women feel like they can keep themselves safe if they back up their men, so to speak. I've never harbored such illusions.

[Zackzzzz]

11. Yes, from the day you are born.

In my mind, as a child, as a toddler, I did not understand being female or male.

"I could have been a contender.",
but not in my family, or in the world at large.
I still don't understand why being born a sexual type makes such a difference.

Females are definitely short changed.

[unblock]

32. "Protecting women," just as "protecting children," is just an excuse they use to control and attack

They attack trans women on the basis of "protecting women" despite the fact that no one has ever heard of a trans woman attacking a cis-woman in a bathroom. Maybe that's happened once or twice, but they act as if it's a national epidemic.

They're not protecting women, it's just an excuse to attack an "other" group.

Generally, they overplay "dangers" in order to justify violence and toxic male control. They love being in charge, in control, and respected as heroes and create situations that let them play out that fantasy.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

9. lol why WOULDN'T they cheer??

[B.See]

13. I don't get your meaning.

Surely you aren't saying this is something one should cheer about.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

14. I'm saying why wouldn't these white supremacist men cheer about the death of someone who was doing her part

to not conform to white supremacy?

[B.See]

15. Ah. Knew there had to be more to it

than just what you'd written. So from me (and whoever else didn't follow) thanks for clarifying.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

16. No problem -- I'm always happy to clarify. Thanks for being generous and giving me a chance to.

[RB77]

10. I'm a white man !!

And I’m not cheering. Kristi Noem, Pam Bondi, Karoline Leavitt etc. are not white men, but they are cheering. I’m 71 years old, (yes, an old white man) and getting tired of being offended by folks who are supposed to be on the same team as myself.

[TBF]

20. A common refrain -

if you personally don't do these things to others you feel you shouldn't have to hear about it. Too bad. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

[Quiet Em]

23. It shouldn't offend you to acknowlege that many white men are cheering.

You are correct that there are also some white women cheering, but you can't ignore the countless number of white men who are doing so. The people who are cheering this murder are the people you should find offensive, including the many white men who are doing so.

[Torchlight]

28. The offense you take is no more than the offense you choose

This pasty, fish-bellied midde aged guy took the the spirit of the OP for it was intended. Same team, indeed.

[Kaleva]

12. Same reason why a significant percentage of white women are cheering

[Initech]

19. Because we are being run by some seriously demented psychopaths who want absolute power.

[flvegan]

21. "across my own social media timelines" Found the problem.

Trash people turn that trashiness up to 11 on social media. They're safe, somewhat anonymous (depending) and can act like complete assholes JUST for the sake of being assholes. See also: skankhunt42

[milestogo]

22. BECAUSE THEY HATE WOMEN.

[marble falls]

26. Because they killed a women. They're giddy little cretins.

[kacekwl]

36. Because they would have

to admit wrongdoing.