This paragraph summarizes the hypocrisy to the tee. With the same female figure they will argue from both sides. Let's just take FA Storm for instance. We can't do double jointed elbows cuz it ruins the aesthetics and ideal look of the figure. Then on the other side, we tone down the chest area because it's just idealism and not all women look like that. But Storm, especially during her FA, Dave Cochrum era, does. The dream of being a superhero is idealism in itself.
It's a fact that the majority of women aren't ideally fit either, but would assume that if they were out and about doing strenuous superhero activities in superhero spandex they would do their best to be fit. My wife is a fitness trainer (yeah, that's the PC word for it these days) and nutritionist, and it's a fact that the majority of women that come to her want to be fit to look good naked or feel confident in certain clothes. A smaller percentage, such as nurses or correction officers, get fit for their jobs, but once they reach a certain level of gains, many of them adjust goals into achieving that lean healthy look too. It's just human nature and it's also empowering because it requires a certain level of determination control.
That being said, yes there are certain "assets" attributed to certain female comic characters, but it's not as all encompassing the detractors want it to seem. Nobody expects characters like Jubilee or Kitty Pryde or Mockingbird or Majik or Wasp to have large chests (though they are admittedly drawn that way by certain artists sometimes), but characters like Captain Marvel and FA do have that particular design. We're just asking to stay true to the character is all we ask. Why change it now? Why not make new characters with a different "less ideal" design and make them popular enough to get their own action figure. Oh, that's right, creativity is gone and it's easier to change existing characters to a different ideal and accuse anyone who objects to it a perv and do a mic drop and walk away from a sensible discussion.