Masculinity, as treated across the depth-psychology corpus, is not a biological given but a psychic potential — variable, contested, and frequently imperiled. The literature ranges across at least four distinct registers: the archetypal-structural (Moore, Neumann), the mythopoeic-initiatory (Bly, Hollis), the contrasexual-symbolic (Woodman, Hillman), and the critical-revisionary (Samuels, Fromm). Moore and his collaborators insist that mature masculinity consists of four archetypal energies — King, Warrior, Magician, Lover — whose healthy activation requires intact initiatory transmission; their absence produces the pathological Boy psychology visible in contemporary men. Neumann traces the developmental arc of masculine consciousness as a heroic separation from the uroboric maternal, a drama enacted culturally in initiation rites and mythologically in the dragon fight. Bly reads the same drama through folk narrative and personal wound, arguing that the absent father and the mother-identified son together produce a softened, ungrounded masculinity. Hollis frames the wounding of men in specifically Saturnine terms: shame, fear of inadequacy, and the devouring mother complex. Woodman and Hillman insist that masculinity and femininity are psychic rather than somatic categories, distributed across both sexes as animus and anima. Running through all positions is a central tension: whether masculinity is an endangered essence requiring recovery or a socially constructed polarity requiring critical deconstruction.