1) I'm still trying to figure out where I said that the holes should be easier or shorter, cuz I didn't, at all. I even suggested that certain holes would play better if they were made longer.
Not holes are created equal. A hole, or course, that plays well for MPO is playing for players that are rated (by an objective PDGA rating that makes no adjustments for age or gender) about 75-150 points higher then the top of the FPO field. They are that much BETTER then the FPO field. So it shouldn't be surprising that holes play well for players who average 5-15 strokes lower per round don't make as good of holes for FPO. All I'm advocating for is for NT's in the FPO field to play courses that score better and are more fun to watch for their skill level.
It just really bothers me that the gender card is getting played on me, because what I'm saying has absolutely nothing to do with gender. I would make the same argument about any other division with players rated 920-975. Its more important for FPO then similar rated divisions because I think FPO should get as much exposure as possible. They are highly skilled players (I'm 100% positive many of them could beat my ass at disc golf pretty easily) that are great for the sport.