I'm all for her. I applaud her being up front about her biases. Yeah, I won't read her reviews, but it shouldn't invalidate her opinions as a critic.
This whole idea of critics being objective is BS. This is art not science. There are no objective answers. Every reviewer has biases. Some based on aesthetics, some based on exposure, and some based on personal history. I can't fault a woman for having issues with horror. Women live with a higher amount of daily fear, even in the US. I don't feel the need to walk my male friends to their cars, but I am surely going to make sure that my female friends get there safely. So, I really can't hold something against a woman who doesn't find fear entertaining. And it's not like she is saying all horror films are crap. She's saying that she doesn't enjoy them. There is a big difference and I don't see anything wrong with being open about that. It reminds me of the Ebert review of "Human Centipede" - which I consider to be one of the best film reviews ever - where he admitted that he couldn't "review" the film because he found it repulsive, but considering that was the filmmakers goal, Ebert had to say it succeeded.
And even a critic who strives for objectivity, can't be aware of the complete 100+ years of cinematic output. You find a critic whose tastes are similar to your own and you listen to them. And you don't listen to critics whose tastes are not similar. That shouldn't be hard. But, it shouldn't invalidate someone's opinion. And that's all that a critic is. Someone who offers an opinion.