I love her for exactly the same reasons. Her emotional detachment is the obvious result of having to provide for herself and her sister when her mother shut herself off from them following the death of her husband. Katniss isn't totally aloof - her treatment of Rue in the first book is enough of a clue - but she has…

Might I suggest that Katniss is such a well-rounded woman character precisely because she is polyamorous?

That's exactly why I like Peeta so much. I think it was a brave move to make one of the two main love interests more or less a complete opposite of what's generally seen as a man worthy of getting the girl. I believe it could make people rethink gendered assumptions about heterosexual relationships.

In defense of the female characters in the movies: without the benefit of the books I had quite a lot of difficulty keeping tabs on who the male characters actually were; particularly in Catching Fire. Were it not for the fact that Gloss (?) from District 1 had previously been Aquaman in Smallville (and thus I could…

Er. If you've read the books, it becomes apparent that her primary interest is not the choice of mate, but survival.

She really doesn't choose till the end. At least to me it felt like she didn't want to be in a relationship while trying not to get killed and wanting to save the people she loved.

Interesting article, but I don't really see Katniss performing different gender with these dudes—either in the books or in the movies. Katniss is always Katniss and she does not have time for lovey dovey stuff.

Yes, yes, yes, and yes. Thank you.

'Maybe her partner will change so that they can both experience the "masculine" and "feminine" roles.'

The media narrative has started to focus on this "Peeta = girlfriend' idea, but if you read the books, it doesn't hold up constantly. Peeta makes decision after decision in order to…

THANK YOU! I'm probably way more worked up about this than I need to be, but it drives me fucking crazy when people prefer Gale. It always boils down to Peeta not being masculine enough. Meanwhile, Gale is basically a terrorist. It is amazing to me that even on a feminist website, terrorist trumps beta male for some…

I've always seen Gale and Peeta's roles as not being a flippant love-triangle, and it sickens me a little that that is the part of the books we focus on. There's a revolution going on and lives are at stake, yet the romance is what people notice? That's not the point of the series.

OH SWEET EVERYTHING thank you for articulating this clearly.

People keep talking about the movies as if the story is over. NO. The story is complete at the end of Mockingjay. Yes, you can argue about whatever is going on in Catching Fire, but jumping to conclusions about who Katniss "should" end up with now is silly…

I'm disappointed that she can't maintain whichever gender she chooses while doing whatever she wants. I am a woman, I identify as a woman, but many of the things that I do would put me into the "masculine" role. I don't do "feminine" things. I do things that suit me. That doesn't stop me from identifying as a woman or…

SPOILERS AHOY- BE FOREWARNED

I agree. I understand that it's natural for people to focus on love triangles, but that's not the primary conflict in the books. Throughout them, Katniss is far more focused on taking care of herself, her family, and eventually her people. The romance angle comes behind that, and as a teenager, she often seems awkward…

So, book spoilers and all.

I totally read the Gale/Peeta conflict as Katniss being forced choose not between her masculine and feminine sides, but between her inner warrior and her inner pacifist.

Peeta is, as mentioned, in the traditional female role. It's interesting to consider that when thinking about all the heroines who we are told are strong, and need constant saving.

SPOILERS: I'm talking about the whole series. Mockingjay and all.

I know, right? I was all set for a "hey, look at the intersection of gender performance and sex" and suddenly it's all "you've been lied to! monogamy is a sham!"