We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
The interviewer was poor but JP turned it into a good interview. He is a very careful speaker - and in that way the opposite in style to Pres. Trump. Yet they are both so effective in getting their messages across.
The outrage arises more from one fact than any other: 91% of his viewership is said to be male. That's intolerable. I have yet to listen to an interview in which that point didn't get made within the first few minutes, generally with a smirk. Often a follow-up question is whether he thinks young men are in crisis, with an overt or implicit point that worrying about young men is unfair to young women.
If men and women were equally drawn to his videos, more critics might be able to listen to what he's actually saying--but then I suppose the moaning would begin over the fact that his audience was disproportionately conservative. Identity politics is all about ignoring the message and obsessing on the identity of either the lecturer or the audience.
I'm a woman and I'm a regular viewer of JP! We do exist. I've even seen him speak live twice and met the man himself once.
I suspect women don't feel as drawn to him because we have a wide number of platforms that are supposed to enfranchise us and make us feel that our voices are heard. These avenues don't exist as intentionally or prevalently for men. That the free choices of men and women to watch or not to watch his content is heavy on the male side speaks nothing to the suggestion (read: accusation) that he panders to the patriarchy and is dog-whistling to covert sexists.
He treats people as people and recognizes their empirically-tracked, historical differences without pigeonholing or mandating them to stay in traditional gender roles. He is a humanist. It's really that simple. I wish more people would take the time to recognize that.