Depiction of feminism and equality in recent media is regarded as both a courageous cultural movement and an illogical attempt to use political correctness to empower what does not need to be empowered.

Both stances are, of course, correct and valid in their own subjective point of view.

But what has really interested me is how differently the idea of equality can be depicted in media. And of course, the importance these depictions hold over influencing audiences.

For me, currently, the best example of subtly depicting equality is in The Hunger Games series.

I figure its best to sound my sentiment in the wise words of Natalie Dormer

“I’m not so much interested in waving the girl power flag. I’m more interested in feminism meaning equality, and what’s interesting to me are roles that are interchangeable. Where it’s irrelevant whether they are male or female. I think that’s what were really aiming for. ”

And yes, the roles are gender reversible in ‘The Hunger Games.’ The actions and choices of characters are never gendered or based on their sexuality… largely.

I mean, yeah, there’s literally a romantic love triangle somewhere in there, but that is such an infinitesimally minute part of The Hunger Games. How I largely remember the books is oppression, uprising, rebellion, and war. And the choices the characters make during this time.

It was so brilliant to me that gender never plays a part in any of it. Katniss is not a ‘masculine’ or super-strong hunter-provider. She’s just a teenage girl. And the Games themselves are such a good portrayal of gender neutrality. I mean, they take an equal ratio of male and female tributes. And there are female victors. The question of female tributes being at a disadvantage to male tributes is never imagined. Because even in this raw fight-to-survive scenario, we are shown that physicality is not all that matters. Just to take the example of some female tributes and victors, who are depicted in the stories:

• Rue and Foxface survive for a long time because they keep a distance. They use a lot of wit. They use what is at their disposal, which ‘shockingly’ is not useless.
• Lucy Gray hides and uses poison. These are the major things she did that ensured her survival.
• Even Katniss, the warrior, always kept a distance.

These girls know they don’t stand a chance hand-to-hand with a guy. And they do not have to. There is always a means of survival and even going offensive without having to be better at physically overpowering an opponent.

And apart from physical dominance, women are in no way depicted as superior to or more able than men in the series. That depiction, adopted by modern popular media, is not only impractical but simply untrue. Collins writes plain equality, beautifully interwoven with exquisite grace.

In District 12, some women work alongside the men in the mines. Only some. As is predominantly observed in our own world, with jobs that require more masculine strength.

In the political game, it is not so much of interest that Alma Coin ‘democratically’ rose to power in District 13, or that she was a strong, cunning, and capable enough President to lead her district and the rest of the districts to a war and win it. It is entirely more interesting that a female leader like Alma Coin is just as liable to ruthless corruption and evil as was Coriolanus Snow.

Another small thing that made me happy was the fact that Katniss providing for her family is not a display of ultra-powerful-independent-female.

The depiction in the story goes like this: there was a mine accident. Several miners were killed. In order to support their now fatherless households, the eldest children bore the responsibility of hunting to provide food for their families. These so happened to be an eldest son, Gale, for the Hawthorne’s, and an eldest daughter, Katniss, for the Everdeen’s.

It’s just circumstances. And real people in them.

There. Just like that. No show of embezzled empowerment or physical dominance. Just immaculate storytelling.

But this is in no way our world, or at least not how our world is depicted.

Our world is a patriarchal one. In 2 ways (according to me)

1. Literally being a society constructed to promote male dominance and power.
2. The depiction of our society as a male-centered one in all forms of media.

 Let’s take a step back here. ‘Cause we know all too well how conversations can derail when patriarchy enters the chat.

Sociologist Allan G. Johnson in his book The Gender Knot: Unraveling our Patriarchal Legacy, writes

“A society is patriarchal to the degree its male dominated, male centered, male identified, and organized around an obsession with control.”

I mean, doesn’t clear out much, but hey, we got a definition there.

Does a patriarchal society mean that positions of top power are reserved for men? No. They are reserved for the best qualified. But even then, most of the top positions are occupied by men. So does this mean women are incompetent in general? No.

It is the institutions constructed by a patriarchal society that limit the opportunities for women to get to the same position as men. These are ideological strongholds, misogynist brainwashing carried through generations that uphold male entitlement and the innate sense that women, at some point, inevitably have to sacrifice.

Even if political correctness and marches for equality do make some dents in the noise, the structure still holds. Women are not given the same chances as men in the world overall. It’s not about quotas or employment ratios. It’s that fundamentally each one of us has been indoctrinated to believe in the weaker sex in some faint, minuscule, undetectable yet present form.

And because of the always-present prevalence to choose the male for the job or give him more credit for it, chances for women are not erased; they’re lessened. So only the best of the best can get a seat at the table. This makes the competition among women much more severe. A mediocre man does not have to check a lot of boxes; he will be just fine (a gross oversimplification). But a mediocre woman must work unimaginably harder to be able to rival other far more intelligent, smart or well-equipped women for that one seat at the table.

The table did not reject a woman’s dreams; it raised the bar to achieve them, impossibly high. Because the table is male-dominated.

Here I’d like to quote the YouTube Channel ‘Pop Culture Detective’ from their video on Patriarchy depicted in the Barbie (2025) film.

“…But even when a woman eventually wins that position (President of a country), it will not mean that patriarchy is over. Because patriarchy is a dynamic and resilient system. It has evolved and changed over the decades and indeed centuries, thanks to the countless women who have fought hard for a few seats at the table. But the table is still male-dominated. ”

Just like how Punjab, Pakistan currently has a female Chief Minister. Or heck even when Pakistan had a female Prime Minister, the system of patriarchy and acts of misogyny were and are not eradicated. That needs time, generations.

But let us not fret upon these matters.

For us women have posed our arguments for longevities of time.

But apart from the fun one-liners, feminism and battling patriarchy is not a war of men against women. It is a human problem that humans must come together to solve. And one day, perhaps we will get something akin to what Collins depicted in The Hunger Games series. Just the equality I mean. Just that. Really, I mean.

It is indeed fanciful to ponder about such times.

Thank you for your reading time, I wish upon you even more satisfying reads and a respectably equal shot at a seat at the table.