It is what it is, so he who doesn't like the name can just accept it as it is.

That's the gender-agnostic "he", by the way. Which you'd better also accept, because it is what it is. Right? Or not?

So are you sure it's just a gotcha instead of being a sizable initial hurdle that needs to be overcome? We've spent a couple of generations now training people to be hyperaware of this kind of thing.

Anyway, I wasn't saying that Peterson is without problem. Rather, I was saying that moving people away from Tate towards Peterson and then from Peterson to a less patriarchal view (possibly even one with "fem" in the name) seems a lot more achievable than doing it in one go. Whether or not Peterson gets his lobster facts right isn't really relevant--the point is that his message is pro-social in many ways in which Tate is anti-social. Tate's self-improvement message is largely selfish: be big, be strong, get what you want. Occasionally he tosses in something that sounds slightly noble if looked at from exactly the right angle, but it's rare. Peterson's is largely about meeting the minimum requirements to be a productive member of society (of the sort he envisions): get your house in order and take on as many responsibilities as you can. You can work with the latter by pointing out how society isn't quite what Peterson thinks, getting one's house in order doesn't necessarily happen the way he says, and there are different responsibilities than he talks about which are also important. I don't see how one can work with the former.

Now, I think you might be right that emotionally you might be able to shake more semi-committed guys free from Tate than from Peterson. But that doesn't help the more-committed guys, it probably won't be very reliable, and also, it will work even less well if there isn't a sufficiently compelling alternative...and right now there doesn't seem to be a particularly empowering-for-guys third wave feminist one.