I read both articles and did the little quiz at the bottom. I have to agree with the second article that the "Women" series seriously misses the mark. Most of the male-painted nudes shown in the main article also didn't seem to have any purpose besides to look at slim, perfect-breasted women with minimal pubic hair, whereas many of the female-painted nudes were humanizing to the subject or otherwise carried a powerful message (Judy Chicago's especially). There were a couple that looked interesting painted by men, but if you're making something like Jansson Stegner's "Undressing" then of course people are going to think you're just doing it to be a pervert and objectify women. I think it's less a question of whether men can paint a female nude, but how often they bother to paint one with any artistic value.