Nah, I think the point of the article comes across with crystal clarity. Whether the reader wants to hear it is another matter.

The only hyperbolic statement in the article I'm aware of is where I say that feminists might be justified not just in setting up social justice movements, but in physically eliminating all men as payback for thousands of years of patriarchy. The point of that rhetorical statement should be clear: I'm not coming at this conflict from a one-side, pro-male perspective. I reject both hypermasculinity and hyperfemininity.

You say the article is "full" of hyperbole. Are you mixing up hyperbolic with controversial statements? Hyperbole is the rhetorical strategy of intentional exaggeration.