Peterson's 12 Rules For Life, have you heard of this?

[robvalue]

If Peterson actually believes the stuff he writes about women in this book, he's beyond sexist and more into delusional projections. I suspect at least some of it is part of the game. Finding out what he really thinks, about anything, is almost impossible due to the amount of caveats he uses. This may be the "new him" though, the one that wants to maximize his audience by not excluding anyone.

Except women that is. If a single woman finds this book anything other than hugely patronizing and misinformed, I'd be very surprised. It's clearly aimed at males only, and this makes me suspect it's not all an act.

I do not own the book.  Would you mind giving one or two examples?

As I've shown a couple of times in this thread, googling some of the "controversial" things he's said immediately brought up a lot of confirming evidence, much of it written by women in a professional setting.

Are you sure he's not just telling the truth as he has learned it in an academic capacity, and that people aren't comfortable with it?

The book is saturated with it. One of his main themes is to equate chaos with the feminine, and order with the masculine. He starts off talking about symbolism but quickly dives into the literal. I'll type up most of the second paragraph, from p41:

Chaos, the eternal feminine, is also the crushing force of sexual selection. Women are choosy maters (unlike female chimps, their closest animal counterparts). Most men do not meet female human standards. It is for this reason that women on dating sites rate 85 percent of men as below average in attractiveness.

...

It is Woman as Nature who looks at half of all men and says, "No!" For the men, that's a direct encounter with chaos, and it occurs with devastating force every time they are turned down for a date. Human female choosiness is also why we are very different from the common ancestor we shared with our chimpanzee cousins, while the latter are very much the same. Women's proclivity to say no, more than any other force, has shaped our evolution into the creative, industrious, upright, large-brained (competitive, aggressive, domineering) creatures that we are. It is Nature as Women who says, "Well, Bucko, you're good enough for a friend, but my experience of you so far has not indicated the suitability of your genetic material for continued propagation."

As well as being misogynistic tripe, this is also a complete load of balls. The idea of women saying "no" and men respecting that is a very recent concept, so can't possibly have accounted for our evolution in the way he claims.