For point 1, can you explain how reducing the game for women is discriminatory AGAINST women? I can make a good point as to how it's actually discriinatory against men. 

For point 3 (&amp; partially 2), the disparity between the amount of views male and female tennis gets is tiny compared to the disparity in views female cricket and football get incomparison to thier male counterparts.

I believe part of the reason that this takes place is because female tennis focuses on quality over quantity. I've never watched womens cricket and rarely watch mens so I'll ignore that, but there's a huge noticeable difference in the physical capabilities with mens and womens football. The men are fitter, taller, stronger, quicker etc. As a result, as they play on the same pitch for the same amount of time, womens football is noticeably slower in pace, and they noticeably tire sooner. The quality drop off compared to the mens game is very noticeable. 

Womens tennis is entertaining because they play at a pretty fast pace throughout. If they're matches were to get 66% longer, the quality of the standard of womens tennis would most likely be worst. So in the name of 'equality' they would deliever a worst product. 

For point 4, would you use this reasoning to say mens tennis should increase to 7 sets, so that the fitter players get to use their superioir stamina?