The weird thing is, decrying "sexy" (or revealing would be more accurate? but not always the case...) clothing and design as slutty and how that's a bad thing is kind of an anti-feminist stance, anyway. Slut-shaming is one of the big hurdles that movement has spent decades trying to leap.
The comparison is problematic because we're not talking about real people here. These aren't empowered women who decided to flaunt their sexuality. They're not even human. They're cartoons.
I think your point would be apt if the artist were female, but since we're talking about a male artist I really don't think it's fair to compare it to slut-shaming.
Anyhow. Having chewed it over a bit, on the whole I understand the blog's point but, like everybody else, find the tone utterly off-putting. I mean, I'm the last guy in the world who should be saying "Don't be insulting and condescending toward people you disagree with"; I just think it's a matter of degree.
If you're looking at, say, Rob Liefeld, or whoever the hell designed the Bratz, then the tone of the article is absolutely appropriate. That's self-evidently ugly shit.
But precisely BECAUSE Reynolds's (alleged) bias is more subtle, the response to it should be correspondingly measured.
I'm not going to take the tack that the writer should ignore guys like Reynolds and only go after more obvious, overt sexism -- going after more difficult and less obvious targets is actually perfectly reasonable, and I DO think frequent and casual cleavage and midriffs do exhibit a casual sexism even if it's not nearly as bad as the norm. It's a perfectly valid topic for discussion. But again, the fact that it's not as bad as the norm means the criticism shouldn't be as strong as for the norm; if she'd addressed the whole thing as "Hey guys, this is still an issue right here" instead of being so damn nasty about it, it would be a lot easier to acknowledge her point.
There's also the issue of going directly after the artist and not spending much time acknowledging editorial pressure. Sex sells, and there's a whole lot of pressure from editorial/marketing/the target audience to play it up.
One thing I will say: Without a doubt, the artists who seem to be best at capturing the true female form are women. get more of these and you'll see better results (and I assure you that they will still be sexy fun results).
Fair, but there are plenty of men who draw good-looking-not-too-exploitative women even in the ghetto that is American comics: Los Bros Hernandez, Mike Allred, and Terry Moore, off the top of my head. (Course, it's telling that all of them made their careers doing creator-owned stuff, and have only dabbled in Big Two superhero books.)