Good thread on that terrific @NellieBowles profile of Jordan Peterson. One important take-away is that myth analysis (even Jungian informed myth analysis) shouldn't be left to the dingbats.
You can be a Canadian who writes Jung-inflected myth analysis and teaches at the University of Toronto without being a dingbat. I mean, Northrop Frye did it. Because he understood myths existed in imaginative, not objective, realm.
The difference between Frye & Peterson is important. Both believed that primordial archetypes, found in myths & religious texts, shape perception. But Frye didn't claim these archetypes corresponded with objective reality. Nor did he think they were unchanging or monophonic
I'm sympathetic to Peterson's claim that witches are real (which everyone is treating as pure whackadoodle). Imaginative constructs do have a type of existence. Numbers are real. The idea of human equality is real. But you can't touch either of them. 
Yes, witches are real: they are a powerful imaginative construct that has shaped perception in west for centuries. Problem is Peterson has flat idea of witches (they stand for chaos). But idea of witches can be used for all sorts of purposes: including idea of female empowerment
