Peterson recently engaged in a dialogue with dissident feminist Camille Paglia. You can view it here. Here's the most controversial segment.

After the 37-minute mark of the video, Peterson claims that there is an “underlying threat of physicality” in “real conversations” between men which “keeps the things civilized to some degree.”

“Here’s the problem, I know how to stand up to a man who’s unfairly trespassed against me and the reason I know that is because the parameters for my resistance are quite well-defined, which is: we talk, we argue, we push, and then it becomes physical. If we move beyond the boundaries of civil discourse, we know what the next step is,” he claims. “That’s forbidden in discourse with women and so I don’t think that men can control crazy women. I really don’t believe it.”

Peterson concludes that “sane women” should “stand up against their crazy sisters.”

source

It's not entirely true that men are forbidden from ever engaging in violence against women. For example there was a controversy last year when a man slapped a woman after she hit him in the head on the NY subway. Though he was arrested he wasn't charged, as there was clear video evidence of the initial assault. Whoopi Goldberg even defended the man on The View.

However as most of us are aware, 99 times out of a hundred if a man physically assaults a woman he will be arrested and charged. It doesn't matter if she initially assaulted him. This is rather unfair, since self defense should be a human right, and in some cases the man is simply responding in an instinctual "fight or flight" manner.

This is not to suggest, obviously, that violence against women should be encouraged. Ideally when a woman attacks you you should restrain her or walk away, but men aren't robots and we can't be expected to behave with 100 percent restraint 100 percent of the time. Moreover, in some situations physical violence is literally required, eg if a woman is trying to stab you.

Despite feminist claims, physical violence by men against women has never been "encouraged". Even in the most extreme patriarchal societies where eg a husband has the legal right to slap his wife, such violence is looked upon as degrading and dishonorable by men. They hold themselves to a code of honor, and indeed will often suffer a great deal of physical abuse by their wives before fighting back. Male on female violence is further proscribed because other men will immediately intercede when they see a man attacking a woman and often brutalize the man in question.

As noted by Christina Hoff Sommers:

In America, there have been laws against wife beating since before the Revolution. By 1870, it was illegal in almost every state; but even before then, wife-beaters were arrested and punished for assault and battery. The historian and feminist Elizabeth Pleck observes in a scholarly article entitled "Wife-Battering in Nineteenth-Century America":

It has often been claimed that wife-beating in nineteenth-century America was legal... Actually, though, several states passed statutes legally prohibiting wife-beating; and at least one statute even predates the American Revolution. The Massachusetts Bay Colony prohibited wife-beating as early as 1655. The edict states: "No man shall strike his wife nor any woman her husband on penalty of such fine not exceeding ten pounds for one offense, or such corporal punishment as the County shall determine."

[Pleck] points out that punishments for wife-beaters could be severe: according to an 1882 Maryland statute, the culprit could receive forty lashes at the whipping post; in Delaware, the number was thirty. In New Mexico, fines ranging from $225 to $1000 were levied, or sentences of one to five years in prison imposed. For most of our history, in fact, wife-beating has been considered a sin comparable to to thievery or adultery. Religious groups -- especially Protestant groups such as Quakers, Methodists, and Baptists -- punished, shunned, and excommunicated wife-beaters. Husbands, brothers, and neighbors often took vengence against the batterer. Vigilante parties sometimes abducted wife-beaters and whipped them.

source

We really don't need to teach boys not to hit girls. They find such behavior instinctually repulsive anyway. If anything we should be teaching girls not to hit boys and women not to hit men, if for no other reason than their own safety.

Anyway, it seems obvious to me that Peterson was not lamenting the fact that men can't legally hit women; rather he was suggesting that men are hamstrung in dealing with crazy women, and that sane women need to do a better job of reining them in.

The modern feminist movement, which has gone from being oppressive to downright sadistic, is proof positive that women are failing in this task.

Peterson is demanding agency from women, which is a big no no for feminists. Despite claiming to be "strong and empowered" they have a tendency to view men as "actors" and women as "acted upon" in virtually every situation. The anarchist Bob Black went so far as to characterize the feminist view of women as that of "cringing near-vegetables, passive victims of male contempt and coercion."

So feminists (including a bunch of white knights) responded to Peterson's comments thusly:

Jordan Peterson laments that you can’t resort to violence against “crazy women” https://t.co/pq3cmKO37f

— Scary Steve (@iD4RO) October 6, 2017

Jordan Peterson identifies as grown man with a PhD but I’ll stay strong in referring to him as Tyler, the toughest kid in 5th grade English. https://t.co/XUnP2rIPTS

— Tabatha Southey (@TabathaSouthey) October 5, 2017

When you sit and think about his ideas (feminism is killing us because we can’t punch women) you realize he’s just another angry, sad dude.

— Justin Ling (@Justin_Ling) October 6, 2017

Jordan Peterson doesn’t know how to speak to women because…he’s not allowed to fight them? Wut https://t.co/H3jrtqj06k

— Craig Who Is A Ghost (@Craigish) October 5, 2017

Etc. Etc.

source

Edit: After having just watched the whole exchange, Peterson actually said something at least as controversial, namely that "we're living in the delusional fantasy of a naive thirteen year old girl, that basically sums up our culture."