Here is the problem with your article.

Go back and read the link that you sited. Here is what I assume you were refering to:

“The idea that women were oppressed throughout history is an appalling theory.”

Your claim: Peterson denies that women were ever oppressed.

Then a few paragraphs down in your article, you claim the exact same thing as Peterson. Historically, men and women both share their roles in oppression and being oppressed. From the article you linked to:

Contrary to common belief, research shows that the patriarchy isn’t some kind of “natural order of things” — it hasn’t always been prevalent and may in fact disappear eventually. Hunter-gatherer communities may have been relatively egalitarian, at least compared to some of the regimes that followed. And female leaders and matriarchal societies have always existed.

If Peterson said some of the other things the author of that article said, you would be outraged. Yet, these quotes are completely in line with what I understand Peterson’s position to be.

Where cattle-keeping evolved, the local population had to defend herds of livestock from raiding, leading to high levels of warfare. As women weren’t as successful as men in combat, being physically weaker, this role fell increasingly to men, helping them gain power and leaving them in charge of the resources they were defending

…

Social inequality sometimes emerged if leaders (usually male) provided some benefits to the population, perhaps in warfare or serving the public good in some other way. The general population, both male and female, therefore often tolerated these elites in return for help hanging on to what they had.

…

So it was males who needed that wealth to compete for marriage partners (whereas females acquired resources needed to reproduce through their husband). If parents wanted to maximise their number of grandchildren, it made sense for them to give their wealth to their sons rather than their daughters.

Again, these quotes are NOT from Peterson, but from the article that you cited. In the context of the woman author, you don’t find these justifications of the genesis of patriarchy offensive, in Peterson’s mouth apparently it’s outrageous.

Needless to say i didn’t read the rest of your article, your hatred blinds you from actually bothering to understand what the person you are writing about actually says. I’m not even a Peterson fan, but if I were writing an article about him, critical of his positions, I would actually, you know, understand his positions first and actually comment on what he says rather than what my peer group thinks he says.

Finally, please do not take my comments as a lack of recognition of an issue where women are oppression here in western civilization as well as around the world. Please note that men dominate the populations of the jails, the unemployment lines, the homeless, and the “dirty” jobs no one else wants to do. It’s like the worst patriarchy ever. Where you see an outlandish patriarchy, I see a sociopathocracy (sociopathy affects men 3–6 times more than women, now look at the demographics of the government, may also explain the jail situation), who put in rules to create large and growing socio-economic disparities that keep their positions and status intact, regardless of party, regardless of gender, regardless of religion.