It wasn't the best match ever, but I did at least enjoy Peter Svidler's live commentary, highlighting all of the amazingly interesting lines that could have been played, but weren't. Finishing the last rapid game with a queen sac was terrific.
Karjakin's gameplan was partly to blame, as he was clearly trying to frustrate Carlsen by simplifying, although it nearly worked so I can't blame him. If he gets another chance I think he will have to be more aggressive, as Carlsen will have learned his lesson from the game he lost and the gap in the rapid games looked huge. I don't think the format of only 12 games helps, a longer match might make the players less scared of losing one if they have more time to win it back. 20 games would be perfect for me, and would have the added benefit of making rapid games less likely.
On women's chess, there are still social barriers such as a much smaller player pool, girls being told from a young age that boys are better at chess, lack of role models, and ingrained sexism in the club scene. And that's just in the more enlightened west. Most chess players come from countries with far less enlightened gender attitudes than those.
I don't think we can really claim that women are inherently worse. Even with all these barriers there was a woman in the top ten recently, and she only dropped out of the top ten when she stopped playing to have kids. One educational psychologist sets out to turn his children into chess prodigies from a young age, regardless of gender, and succeeds..... how many girls could have been great, but didn't have the same opportunity?
I think the seperate competitions contribute to lowered expectations and encourage people to subconsiously think of women as inferior, so I don't agree that this system is helpful.