I think a lot of the time people deciding that someone doesn't represent a 'female' perspective don't realise the haughtiness and perhaps ignorance in assuming they speak for all women, or even for the best interests of all women.
Ummm, I suspect my post has been misunderstood.
What I mean is that the foundation that Peterson uses to base his readings of the psyche and the world is inherently patriarchal. It's the realm of Campbell's monomyth and a pantheon of mythic archetypes ... supposed eternal "truths" that, when you consider them, are actually male perspectives upon the human experience.
You can see this very clearly when Campbell was asked what the female version of the hero's journey was, and he said there wasn't one -- because the female was the point of the (male) hero's journey; she signified "home". In short, in the world of Campbell, women don't have "journeys"; they exist as rewards/goals for the male transition into adulthood.
This is not just saying women should behave in a certain way or whatever, this is saying that women do not, can not and should not have agency. And I very much doubt that supporting the idea that women, on a fundamental basis by virtue of their sex, do not and should not have agency is remotely good for any woman at all.
When you look at Jung, you realise his ideology is very much a projection of his own experiences and perspectives. And the way he explains these psyche artifacts is to use mythic achetypes that map back onto an ancient patriarchal world view, the same sea that the monomyth swims in.
And this influences Peterson on a fundamental level.
For example, there's a lecture he does where he talks about Circe to illustrate the archetype of the sorceress/seductress -- and at first glance, this seems viable.
Until you realise that the entire legend of Circe and her portrayal as a seductress/poisoner, and the "danger" she encapsulates, is a story entirely portrayed from the perspective of a male sailor who rocks up on Circe's island, where she lives alone, with his crew and expects to be fed, watered and housed ... and god's knows what else.
From a female perspective, the story looks a lot different. A single woman, living alone, in the middle of nowhere, feeding herself from her own garden and fold, suddenly finds twelve starved, raucous soldier-sailors at her door, demanding grub? It's like something out of Straw Dogs. At best, they will eat her out of house and home; at worst, she'll end up dead after a gang rape. In that scenario, would anyone be surprised if she considered her options and decided to play along and then poison them before they could do her harm? She didn't even kill them, fcs.
So what, then, is Circe? The archetype of a dangerous seductress or the archetype of a hard-headed, pragmatic survivalist who values her own life?
It's this sort of deep questioning that Peterson never even thinks to consider. He just accepts the dangerous seductress archetype and uses it, further embedding these perspectives into culture and society.
That is what I have a problem with. That's why I say he sees from a male perspective and his work is drenched with it. And that is why I say his ideas map onto male experiences and not so well onto female experiences.
I mean, how many women have experienced the "danger" of a "seductress poisoner" in their lives? Compare this to how many women have experienced being alone and vulnerable in a situation, suddenly surrounded by potential threats to their safety.
One could argue then, that there is a male "version" of Circe and a female "version" of Circe. But Peterson just cannot see this, and his work depends upon not being able to see it.