Visited a secondhand bookstore and found Exploring Masculinities: Identity, Inequality, Continuity, and Change (2016) by Pascoe and Bridges!
Whereas we often easily recognize women's lives as gendered (in fact we have established entire classes, departments, and bodies of scholarship around women's studies), masculinity is less easy to recognize and often seems invisible. Men's lives, however, are just as organized by gender as are women's. We too often fail to appreciate this. Why? Because power renders certain identities and structures less visible than others. The mechanisms that afford privilege are often invisible to those on the receiving end of that privilege; meanwhile, what makes people marginalized is all too apparent to the marginalized. As Michael Kimmel writes, "Marginality is visible and painfully visceral. Privilege is invisible and painlessly pleasant" (1990:94). When privilege is "working," those most advantaged by systems of power and inequality are relatively unaware of their advantages (e.g., McIntosh 1988).
So why is it so important to recognize men as gendered? Because gender is one of the major ways through which power structures, privilege, and inequality are reproduced—in addition to (and in combination with) race and class. Therefore, it is important to see men as gendered because masculinity replicates power and affords power to those with that identity. It is important to investigate masculinity to understand the ways in which politics, the state, institutions of school and work, religion, family, and nationality are infused with, and themselves shape, masculinity.
i’d like to start w a (not so) vague description of his state in five different stages:
pre-studio band
early studio band
late studio band
withdrawal
reunion + comeback
pre–studio band andrew is defined by insecurity rather than obsession. his ambition exists, but it has not yet hardened into a survival mechanism. he is highly self-conscious, tentative, and deeply aware of his own replaceability, which manifests as passivity rather than arrogance.
this insecurity is given shape in the moment where andrew watches the studio band through the door, positioned physically outside of the space he longs to occupy. greatness appears distant, enclosed, and sacred, something to be observed rather than inhabited. in this moment, his desire is not informed by an understanding of cost, but by an idealized vision of belonging and purpose.
the barrier of the door encourages reverence rather than skepticism. the studio band represents meaning, validation, and inclusion, not yet psychological violence. his yearning is human and unexamined, rooted in hope rather than self-erasure.
at this stage, andrew still experiences anxiety as an internal conflict rather than a directive. he wants greatness, but he has not yet accepted suffering as the necessary price for it. discomfort still registers as something wrong, not something meaningful.
he is socially withdrawn but not emotionally vacant. his reserve comes from fear of judgment rather than lack of empathy. he seeks approval – especially from authority figures – but has not earned it yet.
importantly, pre–studio band andrew still maintains a distinction between self and performance. failure threatens his confidence, but it does not yet erase his sense of personhood. his identity is fragile, but it is not fully collapsed into drumming.
that makes the studio band transition feel like a psychological rupture rather than a natural escalation. it marks the moment where insecurity stops being something andrew feels and becomes something he organizes his entire existence around.
when andrew is given the opportunity to play in studio band for the first time, his nervousness briefly transforms into excitement. fletcher’s earlier speech reframes the moment as a rare gateway to greatness, making andrew feel chosen rather than tested. the excitement does not come from musical joy, but from proximity to validation.
except, the excitement does not last. fletcher’s sudden yelling abruptly withdraws the sense of approval Andrew has just received. what moments earlier felt like recognition is revealed to be conditional and unstable.
this reversal teaches andrew that worth is not only external but volatile. validation can be granted and revoked without explanation, making security impossible. the psychological whiplash (no pun intended) trains andrew to remain in a constant state of vigilance.
rather than discouraging him, the outburst intensifies andrew’s determination. the loss of approval creates urgency, reinforcing the belief that he must work harder to regain what was taken. this moment marks a transition from characterization into psychological examination.
by the late studio band phase, andrew’s life collapses almost entirely into the practice room. moving his belongings into the space signals the erosion of any boundary between living and training. practice is no longer something he returns to; it becomes the environment he inhabits.
this physical relocation mirrors a psychological one. andrew no longer alternates between roles or identities – everything is organized around performance. rest, comfort, and privacy are treated as indulgences rather than necessities, reinforcing the belief that total immersion is synonymous with seriousness.
andrew’s approach to practice reflects this shift. his sessions are no longer structured around musical refinement but around endurance. he repeatedly crosses physical and psychological limits, not because they are required for improvement, but because they function as proof of commitment. pain becomes a metric.
this escalation occurs immediately after andrew achieves temporary security within the studio band. becoming a core member offers brief confirmation that his sacrifices have meaning. for a moment, stability appears possible.
that sense of arrival is immediately complicated by the reintroduction of internal competition within the band, ryan connolly returns. his presence reframes andrew’s success as temporary rather than definitive, reinforcing the belief that position and worth are perpetually under review. achievement is revealed to be reversible.
psychologically, the car crash is the moment andrew’s internal hierarchy becomes unmistakable. faced with bodily injury and disorientation, his first priority is not survival or recovery, but performance. the instinct to reach the stage overrides all other considerations.
andrew’s sense of self is so bound to drumming that failing to perform would retroactively invalidate every sacrifice that preceded it. stopping would not simply mean missing a performance – it would mean confronting the possibility that the suffering was meaningless.
the crash exposes how completely bodily limits have been subordinated to psychological necessity. injury no longer registers as a signal to stop, but as an obstacle to be managed. the body becomes disposable in service of maintaining coherence of identity.
seen in this light, the later breakup with nicole is not a sudden turn but a continuation of the same logic. the crash demonstrates that andrew has already ranked performance above survival; emotional connection never stood a chance.
andrew frames the relationship as a distraction, but the deeper issue is that emotional connection introduces vulnerability that cannot be controlled or optimized. intimacy becomes incompatible with a worldview that reduces value to measurable output and external validation.
importantly, this rejection of intimacy is not rooted in emotional absence but in suppression. andrew does not stop feeling; he actively disciplines feeling out of himself. relationships, comfort, and even bodily limits are no longer costs to be weighed, but obstacles to be eliminated.
after the car accident and public failure, andrew is confronted with sean casey’s death and asked whether his name meant anything to him. this moment reframes his suffering retroactively, forcing him to recognize that the system he endured has already produced irreversible damage. for the first time, the cost of greatness is no longer abstract or hypothetical.
andrew’s decision to testify against fletcher and leave the conservatory is not an act of empowerment so much as an act of psychic exhaustion. he does not reject fletcher’s ideology because he has outgrown it, but because he can no longer survive within it. withdrawal replaces ambition, not clarity.
the scene in which andrew breaks down is crucial because it reveals what remains after the system is removed. he does not cry out of relief, but out of loss. without drumming, he is not free – he is unmoored. the structure that harmed him also gave his life coherence, purpose, and identity.
fundamentally, andrew still misses drumming, even knowing the damage it caused. this attachment complicates any reading of the dropout as healing. his grief is not just for the abuse, but for the meaning that abuse provided. pain and purpose have become psychologically entangled.
in this phase, andrew is neither obsessed nor ambitious. he is hollowed out. the absence of pressure does not restore balance; it exposes how completely his sense of self had been outsourced to performance. what remains is not peace, but vacancy.
andrew’s reunion with fletcher does not represent closure or forgiveness, but re-entry into a familiar psychological structure. fletcher offers andrew something he has lacked since dropping out: a clear hierarchy, a defined role, and the promise of meaning through performance. the pull is not emotional attachment but psychological coherence.
although andrew initially approaches the situation with distance, the invitation to perform reactivates the same conditional logic that once governed him. fletcher once again positions himself as the arbiter of legitimacy, reestablishing the dynamic of approval and threat. andrew is not naïve to this manipulation, but awareness does not equal immunity.
the final performance functions as a culmination of andrew’s internalized conditioning. his return to the stage initially appears catastrophic, but it quickly becomes something else. by cutting fletcher off and initiating the final piece himself, andrew seizes control of the performance. for the first time, he is not reacting to fletcher’s cues but imposing his own.
the exchange of recognition between andrew and fletcher at the end does not signal mutual respect or resolution. it reflects shared belief: that greatness is forged through annihilation. andrew is not freed from fletcher; he temporarily surpasses him by embodying his ideology more completely than fletcher himself.
the final exchange of recognition reflects this shift. fletcher does not regain control, but he recognizes himself in andrew. andrew’s victory is real, but it is achieved entirely within the system that once destroyed him.
having traced andrew’s behavioral arc, it becomes possible to examine the psychological mechanisms that sustain it. what appears, on the surface, as ambition or obsession is better understood as a gradual restructuring of identity, motivation, and meaning.
andrew’s psychological structure initially rests on an insecure but differentiated ego. he experiences himself as lacking, but that lack is comparative rather than existential. inadequacy is painful, yet it does not threaten the continuity of selfhood. desire for excellence operates as an extension of identity, not its sole justification. the ego, while fragile, remains plural.
as pressure intensifies, insecurity is no longer tolerated as passive discomfort and is reorganized into vigilance. the ego begins to orient itself around anticipation rather than reflection. evaluation is no longer episodic; it becomes ambient. this marks the first shift from identity as experience to identity as performance-monitoring system.
psychoanalytically, this is where the superego begins to dominate. initially externalized as authority, it is gradually internalized and amplified. the superego does not merely prohibit failure; it demands suffering as proof of legitimacy. its voice is absolute, punitive, and uninterested in proportion. effort must hurt, or it does not count.
andrew’s psychological destabilization is accelerated by the strategic alternation between deprivation and recognition. rare praise does not function as reassurance; it functions as exposure. each instance of approval temporarily lowers his psychological defenses, creating a fleeting sense of safety that has not been structurally earned. this induced vulnerability makes subsequent castigation more severe.
because affirmation is infrequent and disproportionate, it carries excessive emotional weight. when it appears, it suspends threat long enough for hope to surface. the psyche momentarily believes coherence is possible. this belief is then abruptly withdrawn, intensifying shame and urgency. the injury is not merely the criticism itself, but the collapse of the safety that briefly seemed attainable.
at this stage, self-worth becomes contingent. the ego loses temporal continuity and is reconstructed moment to moment through outcomes. success produces brief integration; failure results in fragmentation. there is no stable internal object to return to, only oscillation between coherence and collapse. this creates a dependency on constant activity, as stillness threatens disintegration.
clinically, this pattern resembles a compulsive achievement schema reinforced by intermittent validation. the unpredictability of reward intensifies attachment to the system that delivers it. uncertainty does not weaken commitment; it deepens it. the psyche learns that proximity to approval is more tolerable than certainty of absence.
this cycle produces a trauma bond rather than allegiance. attachment forms not through care, but through oscillation between threat and relief. the psyche becomes oriented toward the source of both harm and validation, interpreting endurance as loyalty and suffering as proximity. escape feels less tolerable than continued exposure, because exposure at least preserves the possibility of recognition.
as internalization completes, external authority becomes redundant. the superego now operates autonomously, surveilling thought, sensation, and behavior without interruption. this produces chronic hyperarousal. the nervous system remains in a state of anticipatory threat response. calm is reinterpreted as vulnerability. rest becomes suspect.
the body’s role shifts accordingly. somatic signals lose their regulatory meaning. pain, fatigue, and injury are no longer interpreted as boundaries but as challenges to be overridden. the body is reframed as an instrument rather than a subject. this reflects a process of self-objectification in which embodiment is subordinated to symbolic continuity.
philosophically, this marks the triumph of instrumental reason applied inward. the self is no longer an end in itself, but a means toward an abstract ideal of greatness. what cannot be optimized is devalued. what resists measurement is eliminated. plurality is treated as inefficiency.
relational capacity deteriorates in parallel. intimacy requires mutual recognition, unpredictability, and shared vulnerability. these conditions destabilize hierarchical value systems. attachment introduces needs that cannot be scheduled or subordinated. as a result, emotional connection is not merely deprioritized but actively disciplined out of awareness.
this suppression does not indicate emotional absence. affect remains intact but unexpressed, diverted into performance. feeling is allowed only insofar as it fuels output. grief, tenderness, fear, and longing are treated as noise unless they can be transmuted into discipline. this creates emotional compression rather than emotional loss.
over time, identity collapses fully into function. there is no longer a distinction between self and role. existence is justified retroactively through endurance. meaning is derived not from fulfillment, but from survival within the system. suffering becomes the primary narrative thread through which coherence is maintained.
this dynamic generates moral injury. andrew is compelled to violate his own emerging values in order to remain viable within the system. empathy, relational responsibility, and self-preservation are repeatedly subordinated to performance. the harm is not limited to what is done to him, but extends to what he must consent to becoming. guilt accumulates not from failure, but from survival.
as these violations repeat, the psyche adapts through learned self-erasure. aspects of the self that interfere with endurance are gradually suppressed. tenderness, ambivalence, and need are not resolved; they are disciplined out of awareness. identity is narrowed not by loss of capacity, but by strategic disavowal.
this process does not eliminate vulnerability; it privatizes it. distress is no longer expressed relationally but metabolized internally as discipline. suffering becomes silent, efficient, and self-directed. the self learns to disappear without dying.
eventually, the system exceeds the psyche’s regulatory capacity. withdrawal from structured evaluation does not produce relief but vacancy. the ego, long scaffolded by threat and reward, loses orientation. affective flooding occurs as suppressed emotion resurfaces without containment. distress emerges not because the damage has ended, but because the organizing principle has dissolved.
psychoanalytically, this phase reflects ego depletion rather than insight. the superego loosens not through resolution but exhaustion. ambition does not transform into self-compassion; it collapses into absence. what remains is not freedom, but unstructured grief.
this vacancy creates susceptibility to reattachment. when a familiar evaluative structure reappears, it is experienced as coherence rather than danger. the psyche gravitates toward the known architecture of meaning, even when that architecture has proven destructive. awareness of harm does not negate the need for structure; it merely complicates it.
in the final stage, the ideology no longer requires enforcement. it has been fully assimilated. control appears internal and autonomous. assertion replaces submission, but the value system remains intact. worth is still conditional. sacrifice is still mandatory. annihilation is still reframed as transcendence.
philosophically, this represents completion rather than liberation. the self achieves coherence by eliminating everything that cannot be instrumentalized. ambiguity is resolved. plurality is abandoned. what is gained is clarity and intensity. what is lost is humanity understood as multiplicity.
andrew’s progression is not a descent into madness, nor a rise into greatness, but a narrowing. the psyche stabilizes around a single organizing principle that consumes all others. he does not disappear; he becomes exact.
the tragedy is not that he suffers, but that suffering becomes the language through which his existence is allowed to mean something.
I'm going to be entering a new lab! For security reasons, I can't share the name of it, but I'm going to be studying identity formation and intelligence acquisition. If anyone has any good resources, please share!
Identity formation: studying the formation and maintenance cycles of identity. I have experience with DID systems both in real life and online spaces, so I'm excited to use that knowledge in this space.
Intelligence acquisition: This isn't AI, this is studying how humans as a whole learn in order to make a more efficient system than the ones that wastes so much resources. I've heard the lab has yet to be successful with this project at all, so it must be a difficult task!
I got in because I have expertise in machine learning basics and a minor in psychology and mathematics. :) My previous projects were: co-creative game design AI processes, AI in education, and a religious LLM model that I trained to answer religious inquiries! I'm excited to be switching my focus from AI to more mathematical systems (mostly because AI, since I started researching it back in its infancy, has become such a hot topic button I want to start steering away from it)
I hope to learn lots at this new opportunity! I love talking, so feel free to dm me with any questions! No stupid questions, we are all learning :)
Character analysis on steve? If you're okay with it...
Ah, Steve. We like Steve.
Seriously, Steve is probably my second favorite character (behind Will). I see Steve as a triumph of character development. His Season 1 arc was a redemption angle done right. He accepted his flaws and mistakes, and he took steps to make things right with the people he hurt (Nancy and Jonathan). Steve is also a good character to use for the identity development post I wanted to make.
Identity development is a part of personal growth that generally starts around early adolescence. This process is often considered to be complete by late adolescence, but can actually continue into what we can call “emerging adulthood” (like the years spent in college, for example). I’ll be using the theory described by James Marcia, as a follow up to Erik Erikson’s theory of developmental stages. Marcia described two components to identity development: the identity crisis and identity commitment. These two components result in four different “stages” of identity formation: diffusion, foreclosure, moratorium, and achievement.
Identity Diffusion is where a youth has not committed to any distinct identity, nor has he/she experienced any sort of identity crisis that would result in exploration. They go through life somewhat aimlessly, not having any clear goals or sense of self. It’s a rather passive look at life. I consider El to be in this stage, at least until Max comes into her life.
Identity Foreclosure is where a youth has not had any sort of identity crisis that resulted in exploration, but has still made a commitment. This is generally the result of simply going with what family, culture, society, etc. have set down as “correct.” Think the kid who goes into the family business simply because he accepts that it’s what he is meant to do. Or the small-town woman who settles down with a nice man, regardless of her feelings, because she’s told that’s her role in life. This is not necessarily unhealthy, but since it comes at the cost of exploration, it can result in unhappiness. I consider Karen Wheeler to be here due to the many regrets she seems to have. This is also a stage I feel Steve was in when we first met him.
Identity Moratorium is where a youth is actively exploring possibilities, but has not made a commitment. This is the result of an identity crisis (not necessarily as dire as it sounds) that has caused the youth to question life as he or she knows it. He or she is beginning to challenge the expectations set down for him/her, testing boundaries, and considering that previous “truths” may not be what he/she thought they were. This can be common after a major life change, such as moving to a new home or going to college, that reveals previously unknown possibilities. Many young adolescents in America go through this stage, but it is not universal. This is where I see El shifting to after Max urges her to “try things on,” and it’s where I think Steve ended up in Season 2.
Identity Achievement is the final stage, and it represents a youth having given a great deal of thought and exploration to who he or she is before coming to a conclusion. Goals, values, and ideals have been established as a result of thorough exploration. This is not a finish line really, as future identity crises can disrupt this and result in a shift to one of the other stages (depending on how the individual reacts). I’m not sure any of the characters are definitively in this stage, but I do think we’ve gotten a good look at Steve at least heading in this direction.
When we first meet Steve, he is the typical high school alpha male. He was popular, from a well-off family, handsome, and charming. He seems to be playing the part very well and in all of its superficial glory. Despite the power and influence he wants to exude, we can see how fragile it all really is. Most of his horrible behavior is done in the presence of his friends, which suggests he’s doing it to impress them, not because he really sees himself that way. When we see him away from them, there’s a goofy, boyish guy who is actually charming, and this is probably the version that Nancy is attracted to. Steve isn’t really the asshole he seems to be, but rather he’s acting the way he thinks he’s supposed to.
We see cracks in Steve’s identity foreclosure when he tells off his friends. He’s not in full-fledged crisis, as he’s still considering himself as “King Steve,” but it’s a sign of things to come. We can see the nice guy he really is underneath the mask when goes to the Byers’ house to apologize to Jonathan, and again when he charges back into the house despite knowing the danger.
It isn’t until Season 2 that he actually hits a crisis that results in identity exploration. This is where two main life events happen: he gets dumped by Nancy, and Billy shows up to challenge his social superiority. Everything he thought he knew about himself is now in doubt. Even before this we see his uncertainty when Nancy is critiquing his college essay. Everything had come so easily to Steve before, but now it’s all starting to crash down around him. He goes off on his mission with Dustin after attempting to apologize to Nancy. He didn’t know what he was apologizing for, but rather he was trying to cling to what he was losing. It’s while he’s with Dustin (and eventually Lucas and Max) that he starts to consider aspects of life he didn’t before. He actually starts to enjoy having these kids around, regardless of how much he pretends not to. It’s a natural fit for his goofy and caring personality. “It turns out I’m a pretty damn good babysitter” is a funny line, but it’s also a sign that he’s embracing the role.
In Season 3, there’s still some signs of old Steve, but they are weak. His attempts to flirt with ladies who come in for ice cream fall flat and seem very forced. This is a sign that this part of Steve’s life is over, but that he’s not fully let it go yet. His adorably dorky greeting ritual with Dustin is a reminder of his new self, and let’s us know that he genuinely enjoys spending time with Dustin (and possibly the others), and has accepted his big brother role. Still, Steve is continuously knocked and challenged, particularly by Dustin and Robin. This is essentially the final chipping away of his old identity. His selflessness comes out fully as he takes on soldiers to protect the others. He tells Robin how he’s come to like her, despite her not being the kind of trophy girl he used to go for, and takes it with grace and good humor when she explains why they won’t work. Steve is essentially a brand new person, and it is portrayed in such a wonderful manner.
We can’t say for sure that Steve has reached Identity Achievement. I’d say he’s well on his way to it though. We can see that he has values, but does he have any plans for his future? That was another issue for him in Season 3, as he found out he couldn’t even get into tech. What I can say is that Steve has made great progress. I look forward to seeing more from Steve in Season 4.
Correction: Steve was unable to get into tech, not community college. The post has been edited to account for this.
Above is a call for participants for a research project that I am currently working on. Please consider participating if you are eligible, and please share/reblog if you’re comfortable so that I can recruit as many people and as many experiences as possible!
i’m too tired to type up a long post about this, but it is vitally important that you curate what you let seep into your identity. ANY word that you let define yourself becomes part of you until you decide to let it go, and if the words that you choose to use are harmful to you or make you into a worse person it can be hard to notice because you feel like you’re just being yourself.
So, I recognise this ask may enter two different disciplines, but I feel like I should ask here too. One of my OC's is transgender and I started defining his story after a friend of mine told me abt how one of her friends wanted to go through transition in order to be comfortable with their bodies again (they were sexually abused when younger), so I wanted to represent this side of the transgender community. More importantly, I wanna do it right and be respectful. Do you have any tips? Tysm
Honestly, I do not believe that this story could be written respectfully unless it was someone writing about their own experience, or projecting their own experience onto a character and being transparent about that.
There are a lot of trans people whose identities were formed from or within trauma, and there are a lot of trans people who do not have a way of knowing if this is where their identities came from. (This ultimately does not matter, because the “reasons” someone has for feeling that certain gender identity labels fit them don’t change that they are who they are now.)
Reasons that people medically transition, or socially transition, or even just come out, will always be complicated, multifaceted, and never as simple as, “it helped with the trauma.” These reasons can play a part, but they are seldom the full picture.
While many trans people do find medical transition to help with coping with sexual assault related trauma, it’s highly unlikely that the friend of a friend you’re talking about here used that as the only reason motivating transition.
For one, it’s not likely any medical personnel would allow them to access hormones or surgery using that as their reasoning. They would likely be deferred to therapy (in a way that is reminiscent of conversion therapy because most cis medical professionals would not believe that person is “really trans”, and would likely see it as an unhealthy coping mechanism or “attention seeking behaviour” or a delusion somehow, as many doctors I have had have done) or deal with significant gatekeeping even aside from that.
Ethically, I do not think it would be appropriate for you to write this story. It would inevitably be taken into the wrong hands. It would be distorted to push narratives claiming that transness born out of trauma is the universal kind of transness. TERFs are particularly fond of this narrative. They use it to claim that all CAFAB trans people are just misled, that we’ve been brainwashed into making ~brash decisions~ for our bodies by “the transcult”. They’ve even invented the condition they call “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria” to try and say that realizing and naming gender dysphoria is actually just falling for propaganda and it comes on rapidly, out of nowhere.
There is not enough self-led dialogue by people who experience this for someone who does not to be able to possibly understand it enough to write it.
To represent this kind of story, you need more than something a friend of a friend told you. To represent this kind of story and do kind by these people, you should seek out to learn rather than talk about it as a major narrative that you do not intimately understand.
This thing your friend told you about their friend, is playing a game of playground telephone. And taking the segment of the story that got to you as being inspiration for a story. It’s hard enough for someone to communicate half of the complicated reasons they want to transition, if that’s something they want to do. It gets lost in translation even when you hear it directly from the source.
If you want to write anything that involves this topic, I would advise you omit their “reasons” for transitioning (getting caught up in reasoning is generally more something cis people do than trans people, although we do question ourselves to heck and back). Either that, or only feature this idea as “it also helps with trauma coping” as a supplement for other reasons.
