Moore's move here is worth sitting with carefully, because it cuts both ways. The claim that patriarchy expresses Boy psychology rather than mature masculinity is meant as a defense of masculinity against its worst manifestations — and at one level it works. It refuses the collapse of maleness into its pathologies, insisting that what wounds is not depth but its absence, not rootedness but fixation.

But the diagnostic logic deserves pressure. "Fixation at immature levels" carries the developmental assumption that maturity is always on its way, that the problem is arrest rather than something more structural. The four archetypes Moore maps — King, Warrior, Magician, Lover — are a taxonomy of function, each with its shadow pole, and the architecture is genuinely useful for naming what goes wrong when power operates without accountability. The risk is that the frame promises a developmental arc the soul cannot simply decide to complete. Knowing you are operating from Boy psychology does not automatically unlock King psychology; the fixation is not primarily cognitive. Moore is pointing at real clinical terrain — shame-driven dominance, entitled fragility, the authoritarian who cannot bear challenge — but the map quietly implies that recognizing the immaturity is already most of the journey, and that is where it deserves to be read most skeptically.