While I understand your complaint, I also think it's worth at least entertaining the idea that critical theory ought to be considered theoretical (i.e., not factual) and open to critique (i.e., not canonized as law). So, while I understand why positing "toxic femininity", as a kind of complement to toxic masculinity, is considered a false equivalence, I do support the article's suggestion that acquired notions of normative femininity can (and do) lead to patterns of psychologically abusive behaviour in women, which are ultimately damaging to all genders. True, the author's anecdotal framing points exclusively to romantic relationships, but I don't think it takes much for the reader to extend these into non-romantic situations (i.e., the general application of "passive strategies" to manipulate others). Now, whether such behaviour is ultimately a symptom of toxic masculinity (or at least patriarchy), rather than a cause in itself, is another question, but I support the author's right to at least explore these ideas, rather than simply applying 100-level critical theory as a kind of formula for correct thinking, or worse, as a cudgel for enforcing intellectual unanimity and compliance—an intellectual bad-habit of epidemic proportions these days, imo.