I'm happy for you that you got over Jordan Peterson. IMO you drew the wrong conclusions about him though. From what I've heard/read of Peterson, he is usually correct in his observation/analyses, BUT only within the framework of very conservative role models. The point here is that he doesn't even add original ideas.

I think what makes him so popular among his fans is that he lends scientific credence to embracing reactionary role models. Some men (and even a few women) seem to feel deeply insecure without a very explicit set of rules of how to interact with the opposite sex, how to live even. Maybe some men feel threatened by emancipated women or maybe they can't find their place in a society that places few constraints on what to do after growing up.

Peterson spells out for them in detail how to conform to the traditional gender roles historically endorsed by the church, but he substitutes the foundation of christian moralism with evolutionary theory and sociology. He's handing his disciples a step by step guide to building a family. Why this brand of "neo-conservatism" can be popular in a secular world, one where science offers explanations once received through faith, but fails to provide the comfort and sense of belonging that Christianity built its success on ever since its humble beginnings as an obscure, persecuted underground cult in the Roman Empire, doesn't need much explanation.

Believe it or not, there are in fact women subscribing to these old school values. It's not like Peterson is forcing anyone to roll back the achievements of feminism or promoting inequality, just some archaic ideas that still work well enough for some to embrace them as a template for their lives.

What's so toxic or controversial about that?