The bold is completely subjective. Asinine statement.
As for quality of play in general, the women shouldn't be penalized because they're currently in an era where the competition is not as strong. It's just the way it is.
For your third point, do you have statistics to back this up? If it's true, it's your only credible argument, albeit a small one.
1) Its not completely subjective nor is it asinine. We have verifiable evidence of the Williams sisters losing to a man set to fall to 350th in the world after AO 98, by scores of 6-1 and 6-2 at a time they were on their rise into the world's top 20 women and Venus played in the 2nd week of a women's slam (reaching the 98 AO QF) and Serena only didn't because she drew Venus earlier. Both would go on to play in many 2nd weeks of slams later that year and into the future.
Challengers events typically field players ranked between 50th - 500th, with the majority of players being in the 150-250 range. If a guy ranked on the lower side of the challengers continuum was dominating women ranked on the lower side of 2nd week slam qualification, I think its fair to estimate that an average Challengers draw would be the same level of play as the average second week women's slam (The slam champion and the challengers champion would play a close match and early losers of both would play a close match).
2) Read properly, I didn't say the quality of play was low, I said the QUANTITY of play was low. They play less sets of tennis regardless of how long a match goes. The shortest a man's match can go in slams is 3 sets and the longest a women's match can go is 3 sets.
But in terms of quality since you brought it up, it has nothing to do with the level of competition of the era, regardless of how stacked a women's era was, it would still be head and shoulders below the men's era. Even the greatest women of all time in their prime could not even qualify for the men's main draw of a slam and if you think otherwise, you just don't know the sport.
3) You can search the stats for yourself but I will give you just a couple pertinent to the topic.
This year's Men's Wimbledon Final had a peak audience of 9.8 million people in the UK and then women's had a peak audience of 3.3 million in the UK.
But you say because the match was close?
In that case last year's Men's Final (a straight set blow out) drew an audience of 17 million in the UK and women's Final had a peak audience of around the same as this year. Of course Murray winning had a lot to do with the UK peak.
But in the USA for example approx 2 million people watched both the Djoker/Murray and Djoker/Fed finals. In fact slightly more watched last year, while around 1 million watched both the 2013 and 2014 women's finals.