Women have hips, but somehow it's not enough

            “That whole obsession with hip is like collecting records or whatever. It’s more of a male thing.”

– Kim Gordon

            Hip, as I’ve defined it this semester, is gender-blind. If hip is the reinvention of self as an expression of individuality, without regard to the past or the future, and involving knowledge or awareness not common to all, then anyone can be hip. Regardless of race. Regardless of political party affiliation. Regardless of religious beliefs. Regardless of gender.

It is interesting to me that John Leland chose to devote a whole chapter to women in his book, Hip: The History, just to say that women play a minor or side role, while at the same time declaring that hip is more feminine than masculine. Huh? 

            Perhaps this is just one more way of exploring the contradictions of hip, and the blurring of lines between different things. Certainly, in many ways, there are more differences between the genders than there could possibly be between races.

            Case in point: our discussion on the differences between men and women in ability to simply walk away from their offspring, and so cut themselves off from both past action and future consequence.

            In looking at “hip” as the creative force of popular culture, and asking the question “Is Hip indeed a sexist, misogynistic, male-dominated playground, or is there more to Hip than that?” I agree with the viewpoint that was expressed in class that since Hip is a reflection of popular culture, and our American culture has historically been male-dominated (with related complications of sexism and misogynism), Hip can’t help but reflect those influences.

            I think Kim Gordon’s answer to the question of hip is the perfect reply. She is basically saying, “I’m a woman and I don’t even care if all these men are focused on what is hip. It does not have any bearing on me.”