This article puts the blame on toxic masculinity (frustrated, low status men not getting sex).
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/21/santa-fe-mass-shooting-misogyny
I've been around enough anti-SJW youtube videos to recognize the author (Jessica Vallenti) as being a fanatic feminist. You could've told me her name, and I'd would've known she'd blame it on toxic masculinity. That's like saying "Here's an article by Marx that blames $[social_problem] on the bourgiose class."
But let's assume for a moment that she's correct, that the problem is men feeling entitled to sex, and not getting it. I think that's a
way overly simplistic lens -- not least of all because she had to strech back nearly to a decade to list 4 incidents (
edit: and also because @Slumberfreeze didn't kill anyone) -- but it might be one contributing factor. First off, I'm not certain that qualifies as "misogyny", strictly speaking, since it actually places value on women, but I won't argue semantics here.
What I want to focus on is that, even within this conception of the problem, the solution offered is insufficient. If we're going to speak about women, via an economic metaphor, as not being an
entitlement, then we can't just teach men not to feel entitled. That's like telling a poor person they shouldn't feel entitled to the the fruits of someone else's labor. It may be true (unless you're a Marxist), but It doesn't help the poor person become a productive member of society. They have to be taught how to work hard, save, and earn a living.
Similarly, we would have to teach men how to
earn women (again, I'm speaking within her own conception of the problem). That would mean men need male mentors teaching them how to do this -- in a word,
fathers.
Or, in lieu of them, idk... maybe male dating coaches? Pickup artists? Did a feminist just prove the necessity of PUA's?