Isla Vista, an idyllic backdrop for Rodger's crimesGlenn Beltz

For people who have been following the debate that was sparked by Elliot Rodger’s killing spree, his disturbed, misogynistic videos and his 140-page manifesto, it seems like almost everything has been said in the past few weeks: teenage hormones have been blamed, irresponsible gun laws have been blamed, Hollywood culture has been blamed, and Rodger’s mental health has been blamed (he suffered from Asperger’s Syndrome). But the hottest topic has certainly been the role of misogyny in his decision to pick up a gun and kill in an attempt to “punish you girls”.

On 23 May, Rodger killed four men and two women, and injured several more. Spree killings are something we are used to hearing about, and this one is far from having claimed the most victims, but somehow it has lit up a wildfire of debate.

In the news coverage immediately after the event, readers were shocked by the media’s failure to acknowledge Rodger’s evident hatred of women and the possibility that this was a hate crime. The BBC’s first article displayed an inexplicable refusal to refer, even briefly, to Rodger’s misogynistic tendencies: “Investigators are analysing a YouTube video in which a young man who identifies himself as Elliot Rodger sits in a car and says he is going to take his revenge against humanity. In a so-called manifesto published online, Rodger said he was born in London and spent the first five years of his life in Sussex.” For those who have watched or read any of Rodger’s online postings, this seems akin to writing a summary of the Harry Potter series without mentioning magic.

Ed West wrote an article in the Spectator entitled 'The California spree killer: why is that loser’s face all over the media?', asserting that constructing an extreme misogynist narrative to explain Rodger’s actions is misguided: “such explanations are unhelpful because spree killings are an anomaly”. True, this kind of event is still relatively rare, and true, we must always be careful about drawing inferences about wider society based on the actions of individuals. But surely there’s danger in turning our backs on analysis? Ignoring spree shootings may avoid giving killers glorification, but it inhibits society’s ability to learn and, possibly, prevent fresh incidents. Spree killings may be anomalies, but in some cases they are the diagnostic symptoms of a systematic illness.

Brian Levinson writes: “It’s easy to mock Rodger’s assertion that he ‘deserved’ a girlfriend. But the only system he understood was one in which good behavior was rewarded, and bad behavior was punished. Punished for what he thought was nice-guy behavior, he responded with self-pity, which gradually gave way to anger.” Dexter Thomas on Al Jazeera theorises that Rodger’s fixation was really based in his racial insecurities, and notes that in the manifesto “Elliot wasn’t talking about women at all. He was talking about men. Specifically, white men.”

To be fair to Ed West, Elliot Rodger was seeking attention, and he was acutely aware of the power of the media, which encouraged him to feel that he had support and would not be acting in vain. The YouTube videos in which he describes his loneliness are haunting: in the aftermath they seem to be making a case for his actions. Perhaps more chilling, because they reflect a wider circle, are the websites for organised misogyny that Rodger frequented; afterwards, some comment feeds contained praise of the spree such as “God bless you,” and “You truly tried.”

But the idea that misogyny is a killer was ignored by many news outlets, at least until the cry of feminist bloggers became too loud to ignore. Is it too much to handle, too distasteful to align the general population with Elliot Rodger to even a small degree, or are we unwilling to address systtematic problems in gender politics? Even if misogyny was not the primary cause of Rodger’s actions, shouldn’t we leap to scrutinise society for possible damaging undercurrents?

If we isolate spree shooters from the rest of society, then the impetus behind their actions has to be something intrinsic to themselves, an initial mental instability. This means that we are arguing that mental illness leads to murder in a significantly causal way. The Santa Barbara County Sherriff was quick to say that it was “obviously the work of a madman.” But so what? Lots of people with mental health issues do not commit such crimes. One in four British adults will experience mental health issues in their lifetime. One in 100 people live with autism in Britain. Are we really so terrified of taking a close look at our gender politics that we would rather nonchalantly accept that all of these people are Elliot Rodgers in waiting? It begs the question: what are we hiding?