One can see how this motif might be attractive to a certain type of reader, particularly those seeking some sort of synthesis between the intellectual and the moral / spiritual. In addition, Harris has pointed out that a sizable chunk of Peterson’s followers are young men. From what I’ve observed, men are generally more apt to struggle with concerns about meaninglessness, or are least more inclined to approach such concerns in an abstract / conceptual fashion. They also seem more likely to embrace the hero role. It is therefore unsurprising that males would comprise a larger portion of Peterson’s followers than females. Finally, those from a Christian background may appreciate his sympathies toward, and incorporation of, certain themes from Christianity.
I don’t think men are more apt to struggle with concerns about meaningless but rather women have a better defined B-plan role as mothers. But that is just a presumption.
Most of the archetypes are androgen or at least they manifest in pairs.
I was born in a culture where Christianity had a strong influence but I consider myself agnostic. Nevertheless, I do find religion very important because as professor Peterson proved it encapsulates more meaning than one would consider from a superficial analysis