Would I Walk Away From Omelas? REVISED

There are many undesirable events and circumstances that happen in today's world that the majority of people are ignorant to. It pains me to know that there are still terrible times for people in the world today, but I ask myself: Am I trying to help? Do I change my habits in order to make better moral choices? I might once in a while, when I think about it. 
I do not see myself an entirely ignorant person, just busy. Sometimes I am left with no alternative than to buy an imported good or to shop somewhere that has items made by children. I do not make the best choices, but every once in a while, I stop and think about what I am doing, what I am supporting, and why I am doing it? This leaves me to think that I may be one of the many people in Omelas who “…would like to do something for the child”, but think “…there is nothing they can do” (Le Guin 3).

I wonder if the people of Omelas thought the same thing when deciding whether or not to walk away: What are they supporting by staying? In many ways, their upbringings are similar to most of ours. As children, just like the children of Omelas, we do not know all of the cruelness and tragedies of the world we live in; but as we grow older, we begin to understand just how far we have, or have not, developed as a society or as a community. 
The boy, (we'll say it's a boy), kept in the small room in the city of Omelas can represent many things: the news, child labour, dictation, third world countries and more. The boy, to me, represents many things in different cultures that are not necessarily accepted, but things that are challenged, undiscovered, misunderstood or unfair. All the things that don’t have to be, but are relevant problems in our world.

I dearly want to say that I would be one of the few who would walk away, in a silent protest to the barbaric ways of the world I lived in. I want to say that I would stand up and make a change for the better, and help myself by relieving my conscience at the thought of doing something different, something right and makes a little bit more sense than what I had previously done. Unfortunately, I cannot say exactly what I would do in Omelas. For me, it falls under the category of  ‘you have to be there to understand’. Get it? No, I have not protested against the cruelty to animals or fought for different child labour laws. I feel like those whose “tears at the bitter injustice dry when they begin to perceive the terrible justice of reality…” (4). It’s just that so many bad things have been happening for so long, and now it’s hard to imagine life without them. Take Walmart – it’s such a large, successful company, incredibly useful, but can I see it ever being shut down? Too many people are ‘dependent’ upon these labourious companies. But another half of me thinks that if I was there to see the whole process first hand, things would be different, my actions would be different. I might feel like I should at least try to help shut it down, no matter the consequences.

I feel that I am not directly involved in the cruelty and injustice that goes on where those products come from and do not feel directly responsible. And for these reasons, I am partly under fault. I am no better than the people of Omelas who stay in the city. I am grown and know of some of the terrible things that the world has to offer, but I am not one of the people who go to visit the boy, to see for themselves what is really happening in their world; I am one who is “content merely to know it is there” (3).                 

It would perhaps be the better decision to leave, but by staying, I would still have the

comfort of the familiar. I suppose by staying you could say that I am putting my loved ones, familiarity and my comfort before what is truly right in my society. I would turn to ignorance and neglect, and live the life I knew how to. Perhaps that would change as the years wore on. Who is to say in the future I won't become a great activist and stand up for what I believe is right. What I say now could change, who knows? Regrettably, if I view the parallels from the story and apply them to my life, I can see that I am contently sitting at the festival in Omelas, wondering what the following day at school will bring, and little more.

"Big Sister"?

Imagine a speaker. A male. Tall, dark, physically strong, deep voiced. He has a stern face, and an incredibly commanding presence. He can be speaking of almost anything, and yet you are still attentive because of his mere appearance. Now, imagine another male. He is short, boney, has a sunken and wilted appearance, high voice and is a very shy, quiet speaker. Given the single word 'Masculine', which of the males would you associate it to more strongly?
We've all seen or heard of it happening. When a boy or man does not look or act a certain "masculine" way, like being big, courageous, or daring, they are 'demoted' towards being more feminine or simply not portraying very many masculinities. If we think about figure heads, and totalitarian campaign ads, most often we think about a certain command of attention that the subject puts forth. Winston Smith, a rebel of the regulated time of "1984" does not entirely meet the standards of a leader. Being a particularly affected and quiet man, one person oddly encouraging of his deeds is a woman, Julia.
Relating masculine qualities to woman is, of course possible, yet imaging a woman's face on the "Big Brother" posters can still be followed by a small discrimination. Especially during George Orwell's time, and during the time of the books publication in 1949, women were seen as delicate creatures. Having a woman as the omnipresence of Big Brother would not be taken seriously as a Totalitarian  leader, because at the time, few masculinities were linked to women. In today's world, we see many masculinities in women. We are slowly being accepted into more male dominated workplaces, becoming leaders, running for Office, going to war, and generally showing our strengths and how men and women are not too different. Julia herself works at a higher rank than Winston, and often shows more daring, such as setting up their secret meetings together, and being firm and caring when Winston needs. She seems the more composed masculine figure in their relationship.
The thought of masculineness or masculinities as certain traits or characteristics only pertaining to the male is slowly but surely rubbing off on feminine perceptions. There is little in these times that a woman wouldn't do that a man is capable of.