Masculine wounding occupies a pivotal position in depth-psychological writing on male development, functioning simultaneously as pathology, initiatory necessity, and gateway to individuation. The corpus reveals a productive tension between two registers: wounding as something inflicted upon men by culture, family, and the demands of socialization (Hollis), and wounding as an archetypal imperative without which consciousness cannot quicken (Bly, Moore). Hollis, writing squarely within Jungian clinical tradition, insists that ‘male wounding is both necessary and, sometimes, appalling’—a formulation that refuses to sentimentalize the phenomenon even as it grants it teleological weight. Bly’s mythopoetic approach treats the wound as a door: the site of descent into deeper selfhood, the means by which soul-work becomes unavoidable. Moore situates the wounding within initiation rites, reading the ritual mutilation of the boy as the archetypal mechanism by which the masculine ego dies into a larger identity. Hillman complicates the picture by relocating wounding within puer psychology, showing that laming, betrayal, and depression are structurally embedded in the myths of ambitious masculine consciousness. Edinger extends the concept beyond gender, demonstrating that wounding by the Self is an absolute feature of individuation. The Fisher King’s genital wound, Philoctetes’ festering leg, the boy’s torn fingertip in Iron John—these mythic images converge on a single depth-psychological claim: that male healing is inseparable from, and must pass through, acknowledged injury.