I just listened to a  "how could this happen?" discussion on NPR of the recent gang rape and beating in Richmond, where bystanders either cheered, participated, or did nothing while a 15 year old girl was raped after the prom (except the ones who finally did something, it should be noted, and called 911.  After 2 1/2 hours. . .  Not cause for gloating as a species, exactly, but it's something.)

Several things come to mind when hearing this horrific story.  Aside from the proven "diffusion of responsibility" phenomenon caused by a large group of bystanders, there's the unavoidable fact that many were enjoying or joining in the assault. 

Which brings up the issue of rape and misogyny.  And the issue of altruism vs. cruelty, one we ALL struggle with. 

Below are references to studies I heard about years ago, where both men and women felt rape is sometimes justifiable, and a study where over half of 300-some male college students admitted they would consider rape if they knew they would get away with it.  

(Addendum:  I take this study with a large grain of salt; I CERTAINLY don't think half of the men I know would rape, given the chance.  As Nick points out below, it's a hypothetical question, and we don't know how it was presented.  I'm just trying to address the fascination rape holds for our culture.)

This is pretty horrifying, requiring, as it does, suspension of empathy for the victim.  There is, however, something primal about rape - both men's and women's fantasies about it (NOT to be confused with wanting it to happen; this is an important distinction).  At the risk of being strung up by my fellow feminists,  I submit that sexual arousal around domination is somewhat hardwired into us. 

 And, biologically, you could make a case for rape being adaptive.  When the goal of humanity was to be physically strong enough to survive nature, the strongest male would impregnate women and produce strong progeny.  Men survived by being strong, women survived by being attractive to strong men (hence the historic competitive tendencies of women regarding attractiveness, and obsession therewith).

But there's also the pesky issue of cruelty.  Of, for lack of a better name, evil.

Violence and rage toward women goes back as far as history (in European/Middle East/Asian culture, anyway; Native Americans seem to have been free of it, from what I can tell).  I've not been able to make sense out of this, but I suspect it stems from lust; from the power being desired gives a woman; from the male archetype of being powerful and the ability of a "weak", female, unavailable object of  desire to deflate that archetype.

Much cruelty is, I suspect, just this normal desire for strength - gone bad.  At the far end of the strength continuum is enjoyment of power in any form, including sadism.  (Would that we could breed THAT gene out of the pool. . .  Gals: just say no to sadistic guys!)

Being physically strong is no longer so adaptive, at least when that strength is not tempered by compassionate, rational behavior.  But I suspect there is some residual hardwiring.

Ideally, in a new world where our survival depends more on cooperation than domination, our capacity for compassion and empathy overpowers our hardwiring.  But we also live in a world where, increasingly, power and material gain are glorified over kindness.  We haven't shed our vestigial love for power, or our sense that it's necessary to our survival (a self-fulfilling prophecy, alas, for us as a species). 

Growing up in a dangerous, hostile, materialistic world, and being deprived of the tempering influence of affectionate, effective parenting, sometimes combine, with horrific results.

In rough neighborhoods such as Richmond, less-educated/less-privileged/less-nurtured, and thus less self-directed young people are a) subjected to constant media images of "the good life" - meaning lots of money, power, good likker, and sexy women - and, b) aware they are not likely to attain such a life. 

A kid in a such a neighborhood who is also deprived of good parenting - made likely by the fact that their parents are living in the same high-stress/low-hope environment - becomes fertile ground for violence springing from frustrated desires, lack of empathy, and perceived humiliation by people who have something they want.

Much as I'd like to see those onlookers as evil, I suspect they're just, well, human.   And not entirely unlike me.  There is a long continnum of "when do I intervene" questions - on one end physical violence, on the other social cruelty. 

I sometimes struggle with how much to intervene when there is mean-spirited gossip where I work.  I'm pulled in two directions, as I suspect all of us are in such a situation: one, feeling sorry for the object of the gossip, and two, either being afraid of crossing the group that is ganging up on the victim (fearing I could be next), or relief that I'm part of the group in power, vs. the one being (verbally) stomped.  These are the same feelings that come into play when the violence is physical rather than social.  

We're not so different.

I've been on both sides of this moral equation; usually I speak up - I attribute this to an upbringing that included a lot of affection and empathy for MY emotions, and the message that I'm strong enough to do what's right.  And sometimes I feel too vulnerable or shy to say anything.  Or I don't like the person, either.  Or I'm glad it's them, and not me.

In short, we're all capable of being either monsters or heroes.  A life of skewed values and emotional famine, as experienced by many kids growing up in hopeless, chronically impoverished neighborhoods, tilts the odds toward the former, alas.

I don't know what we can do about these kids who are growing up violent, without empathy.  Sometimes I despair about it.  What I'm sure of, though, is that, to break this cycle, we as a society have to decide that we value people more than stuff.  We can challenge the rights of corporations that abuse workers in third world countries to feel our national appetite for new, cheap things.   We can, instead, return to  making what we use here, and paying a decent wage for it.  We can ensure that the right to healthcare supercedes the right to corporate profits.

We who are more rational, who get to decide how we behave, can exercise our "hero" muscles in many ways - by defending those who can't defend themselves, either because of weakness or absence; by striving for understanding of our fellow humans, even those we find repugnant; and by working to change what we as a culture value, from wealth and power to compassion.

Let's be heroes.

 (CLIP:)