Man, you probably shouldn't caution about generalities after lumping everything into a generality, yourself. It's just not cool. I literally came up with four examples of DIFFERENT portrayals of femininity (and they ARE perceive feminine traits, regardless of whether we want them to be or not), and you're trying to roll them all into one to make your point, which is a terrible way to discuss things. It requires deliberately ignoring the point to be irate, instead of considering the idea that, yes, there are different degrees and portrayals presented.
Sure, Katniss could hate all things feminine and never put on a dress and never do any of those things and still be a strong woman. But people need to quit erasing that she DID all those things, and it was painful and a lot harder than she expected, and was still a strong woman. Rue, despite being a little girl, was clever and in her own way strong. And Prim, as well, with her compassion and stereotypical healer/caring mindset again in an ENTIRELY different way was a total badass. Effie's focus on "silly" things was a paraphrase from how she's described in the books - I believe that was the way Katniss described her, as silly, though I admit I do not have the book on hand to double-check the exact wording. Katniss starts out really dismissive of Effie's focus on manners, and appearances, and so on, and ignores her value because of those perceived feminine traits. She does over time realize that this was a mistake, and that despite being stereotypical feminine, Effie has value as a person.
Anyway, my point being, these women are all strong capable and kick-ass in their own ways, and also all have traits that are from both the "kick ass" and "feminine" pot. People need to stop treating The Hunger Games like it's on the far end of the unfeminine spectrum, becasue it's not. I could list more examples of a binary system not working specifically in regards to femininity in the Hunger Games - hellsbells, Peeta makes cakes and bread, for example, I could probably write entire papers on this - but there's no point. It was an example of why the attempt to make a scale doesn't work - neither of the "extreme" ends are.
I'll add that the author seems to have put his foot in his mouth a few times. I looked at his Amazon profile, which does wander toward pretension, as well. I am always wary of people having sour grapes, but I can see where everyone is coming from on this in particular - it galls, because it shows a lack of genre-savvy, and because it does collectively dismiss other YA as less complex and overly-feminine. He's hardly the first guy to slam the YA genre before then writing in it - nor the first to try to save YA from perceived trivialities. Despite that, I think the book will speak for itself. If it's good, it'll get read, regardless. After all, people still read Ender's Game.
