The Father Wound in Women explores how paternal wounds shape women’s lives and how those patterns can be transformed. Why was this an important book for you to write?

I didn’t start this as a researcher — I started it as a man trying to understand a woman I loved, whose patterns of love and withdrawal made no sense to me until I went looking for the science behind them. I found literature that explained almost everything, but almost no book made it accessible to the people actually living inside it. When I looked for something to read on the subject myself, what existed either spoke only to the woman, leaving the partner out of the room entirely, or stayed at the level of pop-psychology generalizations without the research to back it up. I wanted something that could sit between two people — something a woman could read to understand what she might be subconsciously bringing to a relationship, and something a partner could read to understand what he’s actually looking at, without either feeling talked down to or diagnosed from a distance.

How did you balance psychological research with accessible, practical language?

I read for several years before I wrote a word — clinical literature on trauma and personality, longitudinal studies on childhood adversity, decades of attachment research — but I’m not a clinician, and I never wanted the book to sound like one. Every chapter has a “Recognize” section that translates the research into plain, observable behavior rather than diagnostic checklists, because I wanted readers to see themselves in the patterns, not to self-diagnose from them. I was also careful to say, throughout, where the evidence is strong, where it’s genuinely contested, and where I’m offering my own synthesis rather than settled science — the bibliography is tiered by strength of evidence for exactly that reason. And a clinical reviewer went through the manuscript in draft specifically to catch anywhere the research had been overstated or misread.

How can someone tell whether they are genuinely changing rather than simply understanding their patterns intellectually?

This is the trap I most wanted the book to name, because it’s so easy to fall into: you can spend years fluent in your own diagnosis — able to narrate your attachment style and your wounds in expert detail — and change nothing, because the naming itself starts to feel like the progress. Recognition is the precondition for healing, not the healing. The honest test isn’t how well you can explain yourself; it’s whether the explanation changes what you actually do the next time you’re triggered. I put it plainly in the book: visible movement matters more than stated potential. If the insight isn’t showing up as different behavior under pressure — not just different vocabulary — it hasn’t done its job yet.

What do you want partners to understand about women carrying paternal wounds?

Two things, mainly. First, what can look like irrational or dramatic behavior almost always has a comprehensible origin that predates the relationship by decades — it’s not a verdict on him, even when it’s aimed at him. Understanding that doesn’t mean absorbing everything without boundaries; it means telling the difference between a partner who is struggling and a partner who is harming, which I try to give people a real standard for: hard asks you to be patient; harmful asks you to disappear. Second, the most useful question isn’t “which label fits her” — it’s whether, in her calmer moments, she can genuinely see your perspective and take responsibility for what the pattern costs you. That capacity for mutuality, even amid real struggle, is the thing worth watching for.

Author Links: GoodReads | YouTube | Website | Amazon