> Do you think it's healthy

"All models are wrong; some models are useful."

Yes. It is essential & useful for struggling boys to internalize the values of male expendability. If anything, Peterson's "go on a hero's journey & prioritize self-improvement" way of phrasing it is fairly optimistic and hopeful.

The question isn't "how should men with already healthy co-ed social circles structure their lives?". Those men don't need Peterson. They already have a functioning model of the world. The question is "how do chronically unsuccessful men with zero potential partners avoid spiralling into a cycle of depression, nihilism & misogyny?".

Peterson's "Women behave in ways that perfectly align with their constraints and incentives." message implies that "There is a light at the end of the tunnel if you can grow in ways that align with women, they may reward you with attention and intimacy." Now this might not be a correct view of the world, but it is a useful model for pulling people out of a bad spot into something productive. The more nuanced views of the world will come later, but at least these people are out of their rut for now. It also humanizes women in that "Just like men, women are greedily looking for interactions that enrich their lives". It preemptively dismantles the 'nice guy attack pattern' which places blame on women.

I am not entirely sure women fully realize the extent to which the societal behaviors of single-straight men revolve around finding a romantic partner. The degree of desired promiscuity varies, but it is foundational to male-female interactions for men in their 20s. This is especially true the more starved the men are. "Starved" is the perfect word for it too, because just like food, those living in abundance of it can forget just how desperate a famine can feel.

> men are violent and angry

I'd say it is the opposite. The inability to make peace with male expendability is exactly what leads to the male entitlement, which in turn leads to violence and anger. The old 'patriarchal' image of man was progressively mocked and dismantled, but it was replaced with nothing. Certain toxic parts of the manosphere prey on these empty men, but the real question is why that emptiness has suddenly arisen in the 21st century.

> beyond trying to act tough by building walls around them.

It makes me wonder if you've only ever experienced the meme version of Peterson. He is among the most emotionally intune and vulnerable men I've seen. I mean, just read the the 12 rules he has come up with in his proverbial bible.

"Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street."

"Make friends with people who want the best for you."

"Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today."

"Pursue what is meaningful"

It is literally timeless ideas rephrased for a modern person. There is nothing offensive about them. If anything, the one valid criticism I can think of is "duh, aren't these super obvious"? To which I'd say, not for the target audience.

> I actually love the men in my life and I want better for them

Advice for 'Persons' and advice for 'People' are different things. These books are written for 'People'. You are talking about 'Persons' in your life. Advice for People must by definition be generic. Advice for Persons can often contrast 'generic People advice' because you know specifics about what works for them and their circumstances. Then, it is okay for them to be in conflict. It does not invalidate either.

> They need to feel like they are valued and loved so that they can open themselves up to more possibilities

I would genuinely appreciate if you could elaborate on what you mean here. Vague platitudes are one thing. But, universal specific advice is incredibly hard to phrase. If you could phrase a new positive counter-model for these 'disenfranchised men' to follow, then I am all ears.