Peterson has become wildly successful because he tells lost and confused men some harsh and bitter truths about themselves. He attacks the red pillers, the incels, the MGTOWers as males who have failed to understand how the world and life really works, how their own personal failings have destroyed their lives, and, as a consequence, rage out at women and society over it.
So far so good.
But where he fails, terribly, is in his understanding of feminism and patriarchy. I think, primarily, he cannot see these perspectives because he is a Jungian and Jungian archetypes are civilisational tropes perceived through an early 20th century, western masculine lense. They are the visions of patriarchy.
For example, for many cultures across time, the figure of the father is one of absence. There's no connection with authority or power because fathers do not exist within the home culture. They are, instead, individuals that may appear once every ten years, say, and bring some goods because they are traders, sailors or warriors. 19th century Greek Island society was like this; the entire population was almost entirely women, the economy was women working the land, and often the only male would be the orthodox priest.
So authority in these cultures was matriarchal. It was, to all intents and purposes, the grandmother (in a kind of materfamilias system) which is a very different kettle of fish to the notion that authority is the father (pretty much the paterfamilias Roman system that Victorians decided to adopt wholesale).
But Peterson just cannot see this. And, I think, he refuses to see this.
Again, the whole hunter-gatherer thing pisses me off. I was under the impression that, these days, it was largely thought that women not only gathered but also trapped small animals. Why there is this myth that men went out to hunt huge animals for days while women picked leaves waiting for them, I do not know. It's as though everyone has forgotten humans eat birds and rabbits.