Anakin being super amazing, having tons of midi-whatever and part of a prophecy was criticized to hell and back, don't know what kind of critiques you have been reading.
Superman's whole concept from the get go is a being much more powerful than humans.
I mean, that is his fucking name. SUPER. Man. Yes, but again, as soon as a woman is shown in previews doing similar things, she's criticized as being too small and frail-looking to be believable.
James Bond is from campy spy novellas written almost 7 decades ago. And yet they're still making movies starring the same character doing the same things with the same women being treated as the same sex objects. Your hand-waving doesn't undo this fact.
Simply put, people have completely different expectations about these characters and the struggles they face. Different context, universes and legacy. Which does nothing to explain why the core concepts of these characters don't receive the same scrutiny as being "Mary Sue" characters, and Rey does. She faces the same story arc as Luke in his first movie, yet he gets a pass and she doesn't.
It has absolutely nothing to do with them being men. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I'll just take your word for it.
Shitty examples for a shitty rhetoric But not shitty enough that you could counter it without trying to just place the blame on "different time periods and expectations," as though that somehow explains why these characters still exist, are still popular as all hell, and get almost no shit for being Marty Stu characters (besides Superman, who gets shit for being too powerful, but that wasn't my point. My point was he can look thin as fuck and nobody really says anything about how he looks too weak to be doing the shit he does. Godot shows up, and suddenly she's anorexic Wonder Woman and simply not believable),