That isn't just "how it reads", because it isn't how it reads to me (and I can explain to you in great detail if you wish why your interpretation should NOT be the favored one even if it does leave that open as a possibility).

Making the point that the author should do better to clarify what he does mean (and do better at giving an accurate impression readers who skim the material) is fair. I think he did a pretty mediocre job at that. And his response to you was childish (not the "you literally said the thing that the article was saying wasn't adequate" response as that was reasonable, but the "doesn't revolve" one). And I think that his offering the complaint without any real suggestion of good ways to fix it is, well, less helpful than if it came with actionable solutions (but sometimes raising the issue is the best one can do).

But saying that it clearly reads as excusing creepy harrassment of women is not fair. For instance, can you defend the idea that he clearly did NOT mean that men should be given additional emotional support and strategies for dealing with rejection? Why not give it a try--see if you can come up with a compelling argument.