That's a more complicated question than it appears. Yes, there's tons of male-gaze nudity in a lot of his earlier work in particular, but in one sense, so what? If we're just talking titillation, then we're increasingly seeing plenty of "female gaze" equivalents. Either one is offended by "objectification" or one isn't, regardless of the gender concerned. Personally, I don't get offended, as I think everyone objectifies to a degree, if they're honest. Mind you, in De Palma's early work, it can be a bit laughable at times, so unless it is intended for comedic effect, it might have been wiser for De Palma to rein it in (especially in the likes of Blow Out, Body Double, and Dressed to Kill).

The idea that De Palma is a full-blown misogynist rather falls apart with films like Carrie, which to my mind is both a brilliant horror film and profoundly compassionate of its tormented protagonist. Nor do I think The Untouchables, Carlito's Way, and other great films De Palma helmed come off as misogynistic, even if they do feature traditional roles for women in the former, and the occasional strip club in the latter.

I think there's a much stronger argument to be made that a director like Sam Peckinpah is a misogynist (see Straw Dogs, for instance). I love many of his films (especially Major Dundee, The Wild Bunch, and Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid), but I think an undercurrent of misogyny is inherent in all, and cannot be entirely ignored.