Anne Hathaway’s Catwoman could be purrfect

As soon as the first pictures were out of Anne Hathaway as Catwoman; doubt spread across the internet. Many thought the actor was an odd choice for  the role but my thoughts were always “wait and see”. Now, Will Brooker, a lecturer at my university, has critised Nolan’s Catwoman as being unrealistic and untrue to the character of Catwoman.

First of all, it seems Brooker does not know the character of Catwoman very well. I am currently reading the New 52 Catwoman comics, which have been deplored for turning Catwoman into a sex object because she has a ridiculous figure (like most females in comics) and because she shags Batman in issue #1 (coincidentally, that’s why I picked up issue #1). Let’s look at Selina Kyle, she’s what every female dreams of being, she’s the ultimate femme fatale, she’s sexy, confident, she’s athletic and has an impossibly good body. Yes, she’s the not ideal role model for little girls but she’s not intended to be. She’s fun, she’s the spanner in Bruce Wayne’s works that he can’t seem to quit because there’s something enticing about her. Catwoman has always been this way – she uses herself, even if that includes her body, to get what she wants.

That’s the comic book Catwoman, but Nolan is going for realism, every super-hero or super-villain thing has been tied down to the real world in some way which is what makes his films fantastic. Brooker argues Catwoman’s new outfit design is not realistic. Firstly he argues that Catwoman is poor and would not be able to afford such high-tech gear. Now let’s get one thing straight – Catwoman is not poor. She steals very valuable things for a living, and he’s right, she doesn’t do it for profit she does it for the challenge, for fun but it doesn’t mean she just chucks away the money – where does he think it goes? In the comics, Catwoman regularly goes to high-class parties in swanky, long, expensive-looking dresses in disguise. Her short black hair means she’s able to wear wigs of every colour and style to hide herself and seduce whoever she needs to to get what she wants. It’s rare for Catwoman to steal hugely expensive items, in one issue where she does get a big hit, she’s not careful with the money, instead she decides to go to a luxury spa – which leads her into trouble. Sure, Selina has never lived in a mansion, that doesn’t interest her but getting nice things that would make her job easier? I’m pretty sure that would catch her eye.

He also hates that’s she’s wearing a skin-tight catsuit, claiming she looks like a fetish model. But that’s what Catwoman is iconic for! Her outfit has come in a few different forms but at the end of the day it’s usually a skin-tight catsuit, the clue’s in the name. I sort of understand why he would complain about the silver stiletto heels, they don’t look great and comic Catwoman goes for the more comfortable Doc Martin style boots which makes much more sense. However, I think Brooker is misunderstanding Catwoman again and women in general for that matter. Selina is exactly the kind of girl who would try to pull a crime by running around in heels. Catwoman is smart but not always sensible, you’ve got to remember she’s similar to the Joker in the fact that, it’s all just a game to her which is why Batman and herself always clash so much. There’s no way she’d pull off a crime without looking good doing it.

But Catwoman is a character that has been portrayed in many different ways and I’m sure a lot of comic fans would disagree with my analysis of her. Women in comics aren’t represented very well, they are always sexed up with impossible huge tits and thighs and maybe Nolan should have made more of an effort to stray away from that but I fear if he did, Selina would have been unrecognisable. Plus it’s a damn sight better than Tim Burton’s Catwoman, who came across as just a crazy cat lady rather than a sexy jewel thief. There is no right answer on how to portray a superhero/villain but I think that maybe Batman fans should wait and see what Nolan has to offer before slamming it so early on.


Why is there a huge lack of split-screen games?


This past week has been spent with my boyfriend at his house. We both love to game and so, in the weeks before, we tried to find a new co-op game we could play together. We wanted something new that neither of us had played before so we could explore a new story together. However, we looked everywhere, on the backs of every box, and not one of them had split-screen co-op.

But, almost every single game had online co-op. Mass Effect 3 and Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City for example would have been perfect with split-screen co-op. Why then do they choose to do it online over local? The most obvious answer is that almost everyone has the internet now and with online gaming growing every minute, perhaps online gaming has become more popular than playing with someone in the same room as you. However, where’s the evidence to prove we don’t play with our “real” friends anymore? When I moved to university, I made gaming friends and we would buy (and still do) a game on the principle it’s local multiplayer – no one wants to come round and watch just one person game at a time. But there is a huge lack in these games and it’s becoming even more common to not have local multiplayer it seems to me games companies are missing out on a huge market. Families, students, couples…these are all the sorts of people that love to play games together and I feel that devs are missing out on targeting these groups.

It doesn’t make much sense to leave it out either. An online server costs money to run and maintain, and sometimes those servers eventually get shut down when they’re not so popular anymore to save money. A local version of this would cost them next to nothing in comparison, it would be so easy to implement so why don’t they? It seems we are being punished for having real life friends or playing with our families and that doesn’t seem right.


Local co-op can make a crap game good in some cases. Okay, some would argue the polar opposite but hear me out. My boyfriend and I finally found a game with local co-op during our week together. Neither of us had played it before and it was under a tenner so it was perfect. It was called Hunted: The Demon’s Forge and it had been given average reviews but we thought we’d give it a go. It was good fun but I think the experience wouldn’t be as fun if you were playing it alone.

There’s no evidence to suggest gamers have gotten more anti-social in the past few years, in fact the Wii has proven we love to play games together, so please developers, don’t leave us without local co-op when you include an online version.

Maxim’s “gamer girl” competition

Promotional girls for Xbox - making us girls look dumb.

As my American followers will know, Maxim are currently running a “gamer girl” competition. The winner will get a photo-shoot in the magazine and get to represent female gamers everywhere. Will Luton quite rightly wrote a disapproving article on the contest, stating it was showing that, yet again, for females to get ahead they have to take their kit off. And I agree, as you know from my previous posts I hugely disagree with taking your clothes off to get ahead but here’s something that may shock you.

I was going to enter the contest. Naturally, it’s for US residents only so I was slightly disappointed. ‘But you, a feminist, why would you enter!?’ Well, it was mainly going to be an experiment – i.e see how many votes I could get without showing any flesh. But it was also, partly to show what a real girl gamer looked like to the rest of the public. By “real girl gamer” I mean, your average girl next door who plays games, which is what I am. I’m not a model and I never will be, I’m not attractive enough, or maybe I should say, I’m not stereotypically what men find attractive. I’m no Jessica Nigri.

I was voting for someone I support yesterday, a gamer called Starslay3r. She made a youtube video calling out to her thousands of followers to vote for her because she’s a professional gamer (it’s true) who has been, and would be, a great spokesperson and promises not to take her clothes off. I hope this girl wins, I really do because I know she would be the kind of person if, even if she was forced, would flat-out refuse to do bikini shots if Maxim asked her to. At least, I hope she would anyway. If a girl like this wins, who’s fit to do the job and represent us girls properly I will be glad. There are however, a lot of girls on there who are squishing their boobs together for votes, literally. Some girls even have innocent pictures as their main image but when you go into their profile, their other pictures are them in a bikini or pulling down their hoodie zipper to show their boobs. Yes, you have boobs, congratulations so does every other woman here. The problem is, maybe not just with Maxim magazine, but with the girls who enter it who are just as bad – they’re happy to show skin to move up in a contest.

These aren’t the only girls who do us gamers a bad name either. I’m not a fan of Ami Nakajima (obviously not her real name) and Jessica Nigri (who I mentioned before). These two ladies represent certain games at gaming events. Ami represents Wipeout 2048 and Jessica is currently promoting Lollipop Chainsaw. These girls are at these events in skin tight, cleavage boosting outfits. They go out of their way to get male attention, they do ridiculous poses with them and they talk about the games. The funny thing is, when you actually sit down and talk to them, they’re great (well, I can only say this for Ami). She knows all about the game, she works in the industry and she’s, a little too much, obsessed with it. And that’s great! That’s what a female gamer should be but unfortunately when you wear outfits like that, every man in the room is too busy staring at your tits to really care what you’re saying and it makes us girls look crap. We turn up in out jeans and t-shirts thinking – is that the way I should be dressing just to get people to listen to me? The answer should be no.

This isn’t just me being a jealous girl and complaining, if a man can complain about Maxim’s competition, that makes me feel a lot better as a lot of people will see a girl complaining and laugh and say – oh they’re just jealous. This is not the case. A lot of people dislike the term “girl gamer” and I agree it has some negative connotations but I would like those to change. I want a girl, or group of girls, to represent us (and no, not the Fragdolls, please) who are normal girls who play games like any normal man. We don’t need women who look like models, who game in their bikinis or who think it’s sexy to lick a controller, just an average girl to represent us would be great.  Someone to prove you don’t need to show flesh in order to be popular. Is that really too big a request?

Are we jealous of Samantha Brick? Not really.


Today, a lady who writes for the Daily Mail (I’ve already ruined her reputation haven’t I?) said that it’s so difficult being beautiful because other women are so mean to her! Why? Because they’re jealous of course!

Let’s just make it clear what kind of woman this Samantha is. She’s the same woman who said she uses her sex appeal to get ahead at work and that any woman with sense should do the same. If that wasn’t bad enough she also said she was “sexually attentive” to her husband so she could go out and splurge his money on make-up and other luxury items. Well ladies and gentlemen, here is the female role model of the month. First of all, using your sexual charms to get ahead at work is just cheap, you should be moving up in the work place because you’re good at what you do, not because you flash your tits to the boss. Secondly, she treats sex with her husband like she’s a prostitute. She does it for money. Not for love or for her own, or his, enjoyment. For money. I haven’t heard anything more shameful.

Let’s get back to the current point at hand though – do women hate her because she’s beautiful? Well no they probably hate her because she uses her gender to get ahead in the work place. Now I’m not one to judge, I’m not a perfect picture myself but that face? That smile? It’s not good is it. It’s not attractive. No, if she does supposedly get attention from men like she says she does, it’s because she tries so hard to. Almost any man is going to admire a blonde in a short dress with her boobs out. That’s just a fact. Maybe they don’t even admire it, but godamn it’s distracting (even I can be distracted by cleavage and I have boobs). 


In my experience, women who say other women hate them because they’re attractive, say it to make them feel better about themselves. Those kinds of women go out not wearing much, tits out, arse out and they take the dirty looks to mean “they must be jealous of my awesome body”. Well no, when I see a woman dressed like that I’m not jealous. I like my body thank you very much, it’s not perfect but just because it’s pretty good doesn’t mean I want to show the world that. I actually look at those women and think you must have self esteem issues or I feel ashamed on behalf of them, on behalf of my gender. If I’m genuinely jealous of a woman’s looks or body I will say so out loud because I don’t bullshit and I speak my mind. I’m honest.

So women, next time you wonder why other women dislike you, take a look in the mirror. It’s more likely to do with the way you live your life, and not your looks. My gender is a naturally jealous bunch but I’d like to think it’s not always about looks.