The article contradicts itself. It states how it's problematic to assign animals to specific gender stereotypes. Then evidence is given to argue that men who have cats are "better" at this and that. What I conclude from the article is that the author believes dogs are inferior to cats and therefore men who prefer dogs are likewise inferior to men who own cats. I personally find this insulting to dogs.
I don't dislike cats or see them as "chick pets". I'll pet a cat, and they're cool in their own ways. But I just prefer owning dogs. Dogs are more athletic and are willing to learn ways to work with you. And by work, I'm not referring to winning your affection; I'm talking about actual work. Basically dogs are useful in a multitude of ways that cats can never measure up to. That's why I view dogs as a superior pet (careful not to confuse this with being a superior animal in general). I guess if you just want a cutesy little cuddle buddy around the house, then cats are cool. But I like taking a dog to the park and playing Frisbee or a game of swim and fetch at the lake, or going for a run, etc. I see no connection to enjoying this type of connection to an animal and my intelligence or income or masculinity, "toxic" or not. Many women prefer dogs to cats for these same reasons.
The author should've just stuck to the point that it's acceptable for men to own cats and bond with cats, which is a step towards eliminating gender stereotypes. He didn't need to go a step further and imply that cats and men who own cats are somehow "better".
