The Hunger Games series

     I recently read the popular book trilogy written by Suzanne Collins, known as "The Hunger Games". I enjoyed them all, more than I thought I would, especially the second two.
     I had a friend approach me the other day, and he had the audacity to accuse Collins of being a feminist. I had to take some time to think about this, but I decided that I did not agree with him. A feminist is someone who believes that women should be treated as completely equal to men. Some feminists would take it farther and out-rightly say that women are superior and should therefore be in charge. I will say that I do not have a serious problem will women being in charge at times and even agree that they are better than men in SOME areas. My friend gave me a number of reasons why he believed the book was written by a feminist and I am going to be so bold as to disagree.
[Spoiler Alert]

      Friend: Throughout The Hunger Games Trilogy, it becomes apparent that Suzanne believes men should not be leaders, and that women in general do not need the men, except to have kids... This is shone as it becomes clear that ALL of the District Leaders in the rebellion are women, along with most of the leaders in the book. President Snow is the only exception, and he obviously is not to be looked upon as a good leader. He's twisted and evil, and the major Antagonist for the entirety of the series.
      I would say that simply having female leaders in the book doesn't make her a feminist. I personally know a number of women and men who are equally able to be good leaders, and if I was writing a book, I would also put female leaders in, though probably not as many. I also think that for characters to be important, they don't necessarily have to be the leaders. Collins shows a number of men and women, most of whom have equally serious problems.

     My friend then recounted to me how each of the male characters were deliberately shown to be failures and not true men, or true heroes:
     Friend: Gale was simply an angry young man, who though fully willing to take control and lead the rebels to victory like a hero, was not compassionate at all. He was more than willing to kill a few hundred innocent people in order to stop Snow. This cruelty somewhat ruined his character, especially for Katniss. He was a symbol of aggression and rebellion, an extremist.
     I agree that Gale was an extremist, and that he made several major mistakes, however, sometimes it takes an extremist to get a job done. If he had spared the hundred innocent people, would the Capital simply have killed them the next day? But then again, I'm using his justification process to decide would gets to live and who gets to die. That is a major difference between "good guys" and "bad guys". The bad don't care who they step on as they rise to power, which makes them evil. But the good are compassionate and do care, which makes them pure, if slightly unrealistic.

     Friend: Peeta could have been a leader, but was not given the chance. It was continually stated throughout the story that he should be the leader, because everyone liked him more than Katniss, and he always knew what to say. But he didn't really want to be the leader. All he wanted was to keep Katniss safe, which put him at her mercy. Though this could be considered "heroic" and honorable, he was not the strong specimen of a man that Gale was. He didn't do much in any of the games, physically or mentally, and was consistently getting in Katniss' way. In this way, Collins portrays him as weak.
     I agree that Peeta never really wanted to be the leader. That was because he already was. Everyone listened when he talked. He already controlled more than most of the rest of the characters. And yet, he didn't want to be like Coin, or Gale, and especially not Snow, who got the power and wanted more. Power corrupts and I believe Peeta was somehow aware of that. It is true he would have died for Katniss, but what girl doesn't want a man who would be willing to die for her? What more of a man do you need?

     Friend: Haymitch could also be considered a leader, but he hid from his past by getting drunk and staying unconscious. Again, though he did attempt to help Katniss and the Districts, he was not really one to look up to.
      All true, but don't we all know someone like this? His position may not be excusable, but it is understandable. The Games were pretty horrible.

     Friend: Finnick was one of the manliest figures from the series, but still not enough. He acts like a pervert in the beginning, but Collins explains the reasons for that later, since he was used by the Capital as "sex symbol".  Finnick was also in love with a crazy girl. Would a strong guy like him really fall for an infirm?
     Finnick's love for Annie shows that he had a very tender side, and it gave us more compassion for his predicament. He also dies a hero, which increases our love for him as a character. I don't see anything unmanly about him.

     My friend, of course, skipped my favorite character in the book, Cinna, who I believe is the greatest symbol of a man. He openly showed his rebellion against the Capital, but in a way that 1) caused him to be the only one physically hurt, 2) helped the Districts immensely, and 3) he thought ahead to what would be needed at later times (such as the Mocking Jay suit) before his time came. He was not a creep to Katniss, and truly cared about her and the Districts. He wasn't greedy for power. He wanted to make a statement with his life, before it ended. I would say he definitely succeeded. Unlike Gale, he kept himself even-headed at all times, and thought about how his actions would affect everyone. Unlike Haymitch, he was willing to face the facts, and take the consequences, knowing full well that he would die. Unlike Finnick and Peeta, he had no family or friends to miss. He was one man making a stand. If Collins was a feminist, she would have made Cinna female, because if any of the characters in the books are to be considered real heroes/heroines, it would be him.

     Friend: Coin, leader of District 13, was obviously the head of the show. She called all the shots and took credit for organizing the rebellion in the first place, or at least to kept it going. No-one questioned her, and she made everything run smoothly.
     True, however, Coin was not perfect. She was not everyone's favorite and did not have the power to run the "show" by herself. She made this pretty clear when she explained that she needed Katniss to be the face of the rebellion. Also, Coin was greedy for power. Like I said earlier, power corrupts. When she thought she had enough, she no longer cared about the safety of Katniss, or Peeta, or the children in the Capital. Katniss/Collins obviously agreed or else she would not have taken her life prematurely.

     Friend: Of course, when Coin's life was suddenly and unexpectedly ended, Paylor, leader of District 8, took command. She was also a strong, able-bodied woman, who took no flack, and organized things to run smoothly. Why didn't Plutarch take command?
     Paylor was much like Coin, except not quite as power hungry. She had proved herself earlier in taking care of District 8 that she was competent, and I don't believe the rebellion leaders would have elected her had she been power hungry. Plutarch, the Head Gamemaker, had enough problems. The newly conquered Capital and Districts would not have been trusted by the community at large, since he had been chiefly involved with Snow earlier on.

     Friend: Last, but not least, there was Katniss, who told the story through her eyes. She was an arrogant feminist, who believed that she could do it all herself. She didn't want Peeta or Gale, except when it was convenient, and she constantly complained of how Peeta constantly got into her way. She disobeyed orders, because like most teenagers, she thought she knew best. As was repeatedly pointed out in the book, she wasn't even well liked, except by what Peeta said about her, and how the cameras helped her.
     Here, I pointed out that my friend had dug his one grave, so-to-speak. If Collins had been a feminist, she would have showed how Katniss succeeded by herself too, or with only the help of other women. That obviously wasn't the case. Peeta and Gale helped her throughout most of the book. Finnick saves her life by giving his own. Cinna helped her as much as anyone. Also, even before the end, she realizes that she does need Peeta. She wants him to hold her and tell her she was safe. She wants him to protect her. And though she does carry herself for most of the book as though she was better and superior to most of the people around her, she knew she wasn't.

     There are other instances throughout the series which show that Suzanne Collins was no feminist. Since she took on the view of an arrogant teenage girl, the "invincible, I-can-do-it-myself" traits are to be expected. Also Katniss, like many girls her age and adults, had been deeply hurt as a child. In response, she closed the world out, and decided that she couldn't trust anyone else, without fear of getting hurt. Thus her "superiority" came more from her fear of being hurt again than from anything else. In truth, this is probably where feminism came from in the first place: a group of women who had been hurt and whose husbands/father's/etc would not help them or protect. If the men would rise up and take care of their wives and daughters, I doubt feminists would even exist. In that case, we need more people like Peeta and Cinna.