Well, the problem would have to be a bit more multi-generational than that. The companion book "Fascinating Womanhood" was written by Aubrey's wife Helen in the 1960s, and remained the most popular "trad wife" bible for decades. Helen Andelin's book was in good part based on her success going through a rough patch in her marriage by following the advice offered in a set of volumes published in 1922 entitled "Fascinating Womanhood, or, The Art of Attracting Men: a practical course of lessons in the underlying principles by which women attract men, leading to the proposal and culminating in marriage."
From the publisher's introduction:
Thoughtful minded people have deplored the conditions which came as the aftermath of the Great War. In no respect were these conditions more deplorable than as they found expression in the "flapper," with her seeming disregard of all the social conventions that her elders had held sacred...Her flippancy and seeming immodesty is mostly pose-the result of wrong thinking or wrong teaching. Wrong thinking, arising from the cataclysmic overturning of conventions by experiences growing out of the Great War...
The Art of Attracting Men points out, in no uncertain terms, how the superficial errors of the generation may be avoided. It tells how the real attractiveness of genuine womanhood may be cultivated and expressed.It is a work that any good mother would be glad to place in the hands of her daughter.
From the first chapter:
When comparisons were made, however, these principles, which business men imagined they were the first to discover, were found to have been known for thousands of years. Orators since the days of Cicero and Demosthenes, dramatists since the days of Aeschylus and Sophocles, and clever women since the days of Ruth and Rebecca, had resorted to them constantly. In every ancient book on rhetoric, oratory, or the drama, they were expounded and dilated upon. The orator had to win his hearers, the dramatist his audience, and the woman her suitors; IN EVERY CASE THE PROBLEM WAS A PROBLEM OF WINNING MEN, AND IN EVERY CASE THE PRINCIPLES BY WHICH IT WAS SOLVED WERE FOUND TO BE ALIKE...
Whether you are an orator seeking to win men to your cause, a dramatist seeking to win men to your entertainment, a sales manager seeking to win men to your market, or a young lady seeking to win men to yourself, makes no difference so far as the principles are concerned. They are not so much the principles of oratory, of drama, of salesmanship, or of courtship, as THEY ARE THE PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN NATURE.
What I am trying to convey isn't that this school of advice is incorrect; I certainly have found it to be very effective to the extent I have made use of it myself. My point is that it is cyclical and can thus be viewed from a higher perspective of systems analysis. I respect Deida's take on this theory/practice more than Peterson's because he keeps his advice more in the realm of descriptive rather than prescriptive. For instance, Deida straightforwardly suggests that individuals who self-aware prefer a marriage based more on civilized companionship and low-key affection would likely not want to follow his advice for increasing the level of passion in their relationship by increasing sexual dichotomy.
Since Deida, unlike Andelin who retains mid-century Mormon perspective on such topics as homosexuality, recognizes that not every individual strongly identifies their physiological sexual designation with gender assignment, he suggests the following simple exercise to determine whether you are more core feminine or masculine. You imagine somebody with whom you are in love saying either "You are useless." or "You are ugly/stinky" (or converse might be "You are my hero." or "You are beautiful.")and if the first seems more hurtful, you are more core masculine, and if the second seems more hurtful then you are more core feminine.
My perspective is that gender is important in determining behavior, not unlike inherent temperament or personality. However, since hormonal levels and experience vary over the course of a lifetime, if you take this test again 10 years later, the results may somewhat change.
The important thing to note is that when you are imagining yourself being hurt by a criticism from a lover, that is really you talking to you. If you core believe that you are useful/purposeful and aesthetically/sensually pleasing then any comment will be like water on a duck's back, or simply clue to incompatibility. Let's split the difference between Preacher and Intellectual, and designate Peterson as a gifted Orator who is calling out to the multitudes who hold any level of self-doubt.
Anyways, I am core feminine, but also very drawn to my juvenile masculine quadrant, so there was a terrible event I experienced in couple's therapy a few years ago after I said "If I have to choose between being adored or being free, I choose being free!" and then both my '"ex"and the male therapist ganged up on me. Also, once again, because my masculine energy only rises to being about 12 years old, I am in danger of having my projects and life-energy taken over by more assertive men. I thought interacting with multiple dominants would sort of serve to scramble all of their instructions into white noise, but no such luck. Probably the only way I am ever going to complete my projects the way I want to complete them in alignment with MY purpose is to choose to be sexually and romantically celibate until at least Harvest 2022. So, anything I have to say in the realm of sexual dichotomy theory at this juncture should be taken with a grain of salt.