I read it to see what all the fuss was about, and I can see why it would get controversial reviews. I don’t think it comes off as sexist or right-wing in the b

I read it to see what all the fuss was about, and I can see why it would get controversial reviews. I don’t think it comes off as sexist or right-wing in the big picture, in fact it seems like an extremely old fashioned self-help book founded on liberal (as in enlightenment) and Christian (mainly protestant) values. Considering the controversy already surrounding Peterson the author really does himself no favours. Of course it’s entirely possibly that it’s intentional. Especially the first two chapters would easily be perceived as sexist if you were inclined to feminism. Every positive story Peterson tells in those two chapters is about order (and he uses masculinity to portray it), and every negative story is about chaos (which he uses femininity to portray). It’s so deeply rooted that every positive example story is even about a man while every negative example story is about a woman. Then at the end of chapter two or three he makes turns that upside down by displaying the negative sides of order along with the positive sides of chaos, and makes it clear that too much of either is bad. The path to a “good” life lies within the balance, showing how he’s not actually sexist at all, but I personally suspect most readers who would be offended, have long quit in anger by then. Throughout the book he remains critical of left-leaning ideologies, and presents rhetorically sound but also provocative argumentation against them. I’m not sure why right-leaning ideologs see him as their hero though, as it seems very evident that he doesn’t like them either, but I think it is easy to see why the provocative tone will turn a lot of left-leaning readers off. Then there is the branching into areas where the author clearly isn’t an expert. Like how our ability to think forward is attributed to hunter-gathered society, when it’s commonly accepted that it happened with our transitioning into farming, where planning for the next season was vital. A minor error that ultimately has nothing to do with the point the author is trying to make, but it does make you wonder what else he’s wrong about. Which is generally something that doesn’t go over well with reviewers of non-fiction. Because they’ll find and expose those other holes. I personally think it was an enjoyable book and I think there’s some genuinely good advice in there, and it’s advice you aren’t likely to find anywhere else. I also think the book could have easily been half the length.