I say a resounding no. For the year-end finale, maybe, but other than that, no. I say the reverse; that they should reduce the men's matches to best of 3. There are almost no 5 set matches that include 5 great sets of tennis. There are few that include 5 close sets, and that is usually because the serve dominates.
And the argument that the men do more work because they play best of 5 is a complete fallacy. It's built upon the extremely faulty premise that all sets are equal, and that sets are the measure of work. "Work" in tennis isn't accurately measured by the number of sets played, or number of games, or even number of points. Nor is it measured by time spent on court. It's measured by the actually playing of the points.
I'll give an example. Player A plays 3 points. He serves 3 aces, each of which take about a second. Add in the 25 seconds between points (of which the men typically use the full allotment) , and he's on court a total of 53 seconds from the start of the first point to the conclusion of the 3rd. Player B plays one point, which involves a rally. Let's assume it takes just under 20 seconds total (about 17-18). Player A has played 3 times as many points. He's been on court 3 times as long. Has he done 3 times the work? No, because his total actual work was 3 seconds. Player B has actually worked about 6 times as much.
Granted, such an example is a bit extreme. But the general point holds. Players who have to work harder for their points are working harder than those who tend to win more points outright with the serve. And I think everyone will agree that women get very few quick points as a rule, where there tend to be many more of them on the men's side. Statistics show that the serve is becoming increasingly dominant in the men's game, including a higher incidence of tiebreaks reached without a single service break.
What this underscores is that there is a difference between the sets being played, rendering a direct comparison on the basis of # of sets (or games) played invalid. It's like comparing Joe, who spent 5 hours at his office, with Bob, who spent 3 hours at his. Who did more work? You don't know, until you actually look at what they did. If Bob is industrious, and Joe is lazy, Bob could easily do more work.
That's been the case with tennis through the years. The last time I examined a full Wimbledon field, I compared the two main draws (men's and women's singles) on the basis of actual work done. The media were using the AELTC's stats of # of sets and games played as the basis of saying that the men were doing the lion's share of the work, and that the women should consider themselves fortunate to be getting what they are. But, on closer (and more accurate) inspection, it turned out that the men, despite all of the extra sets and games they played, did only about 40% of the total work. And this was in a year with a higher than usual number of 5 set men's matches, and a lower than usual # of women's 3 set matches.
What it boils down to is the mentality of the players. Those who play best of 5 sets have developed a BO5 mentality. You see a lot of "energy conservation" in those matches. Players will do anything from tanking return games, either after securing a break, or going down 30-0 early, by just slapping at their returns, to tanking entire sets (extremely common in the old days). Players tend to not give their all on every single point, or in every single game, or in some extremes, even in every single set.
The women have the BO3 mentality. They tend to put 100% into every single point. Thus, they are putting more work into each set, each game, each point. This makes for more entertaining points, and more entertaining tennis. If they (slams) would change the men to best of 3, they would be packing the same amount of tennis they now play over 3-4 hours into less than 2 hours. Much more "bang for the buck" for viewers. This would only add to the appeal of tennis.
So, I'm opposed to BO5 matches on principle. I don't want to see the women switch to BO5, which doesn't give you more great matches, but instead, for every quality BO5 match, there are dozens of dull ones that are at least 50% longer than they need to be.