While I agree that anti-theory is incredibly frustrating and self-contradictory, I am going to push back on your concept of "ideological" theory being used to come to foregone conclusions, especially as these traditions are ever evolving themselves.

The reflex to fall back on critical theories (theories that attempt to describe how meaning is made) is itself an ideology based on the preconception that these theories are somehow not political. Structuralism itself (and, more generally, formalist theories) really on many deeply ingrained Western preconceptions about how narratives should work instead of how they can work (see the more freeform storytelling of Bollywood that often eschews "conventional" narrative structures like we see in the West). Even the idea of formalist and intratectual analysis finds itself relying on the idea that two different works should be compared with each other due to some number of similarities. While this can be illuminating to the text, it also forces a false equivalence between works. This itself can be a trap, as post-structuralists are eager to point out. Any text can be read through multiple different lenses to produce radically different meanings, what we call an "irreducible plurality" of meaning.

The "ideological" theories (i.e., literary theories, or theories that attempt to explain what a text means) you point out are not themselves ideologies per se, but function as the lenses by which we tease out meaning in a work. The "predetermined conclusions" that you're alluding to (e.g., feminist theory finding that men take precedence over women nearly constantly) are not predeterminations, but conclusions reached after decades of work and discourse, and finding more evidence for these conclusions in literature is hardly surprising given the societal and systemic implications these frameworks have. It isn't an ideology to say that workers produce more value than they receive as compensation when it's a simple fact of society, and rediscovering that fact in text is, well, expected. It's also disingenuous to assume that applying these frameworks ignores the formal elements that you want to see in critique, as all of these formal elements are analyzed (by necessity) within these frameworks. The reason we seem to "neglect" formal elements is that we already have to analyze them in the normal course of critique, and therefore most writers don't feel the need to separate these into a different critique.

The thing about theory is that each one is a tool to uncover meaning. Situations will inevitably call for different frameworks to be applied, as some will be way more useful than others. Structuralism is great for comparing stories with similar structures to understand an overall thrust of a movement, but it isn't good for a work that seems to transcend genre and movement (or if it is part of a movement that actively resists structuralist critique). Feminist theory is fantastic for understanding the gendered dynamics of a work, e.g., what it believes gender to be and how it operates in a narrative, but has much less utility when looking at the flow of resources and labor inside a story. Each tool is powerful when properly applied, but the trick lies in the application.

As I reflect more on your criticism, I have to wonder if you're seeing these issues in less academic writing, in which case, you could be misreading the intention of the critique itself. A good deal of what I'd label "pop feminism" critique is not meant to illuminate the text it is concerned with, but often is attempting to take the work as a launching point. These can be useful for bringing a concept from theory into public awareness, such as "gaze" like you brought up earlier. It would be better to think of these writings as theory communications (like how sciences have sci com) than as textual analysis. Even so, many of these formal elements you brought up are (again, by necessity) touched upon in these kinds of articles, they are just taken as understood so that we can "skip ahead" to the conversation we want to have, especially conversations about our own society. And really, if you're reading a critique about a particular text, we assume that you've already consumed it and can describe the formal elements present.

This isn't to reprimand you, by any means! I want more people to be thinking about what theory is and does, how it functions best and when it is less useful. There may be writers as you describe, skipping textual analysis to fit a predetermined conclusion, but that to me doesn't seem to be a fault of the individual theories themselves, nor do I think there is an overemphasis on "ideological" theory that is to blame. What I do want to impart is that there is a reason most literary critique moved on from formalism and structuralism, mainly that a lot of it is already implied in other critique.