I hate to be the one who always seems to end up on the other side of the debate w/ SJ. However, there is quite a good case to be made that the dramatic lack of torsional (as well as longitudinal) rigidity in many "women's" skis is one of the things that holds so many women back in their skiing. Too many of these skis are just plain dumbed down boards. While this is less the case now than it was a few years ago, it is still worth being aware of. Especially at the lower and mid-ranges of women's ski lines.
There are legitimate reasons for trade offs in various flavors of stiffness, but they should be made for good design/mission reasons (eg the longitudinal softness of the Elizabeth/SFB; or the slightly decreased stiffness of the Aura relative to the Mantra) - not because you figure someone is only gonna bang out a few runs on greens or easy blues and then do cocktails. Unless of course, you acknowledge that as the mission
IMO it'd be worth your time to search for a variety of reviews on the Rossi women's skis. Here, theskidiva, TGR, etc., before jumping on them.
Also, if someone is looking for a confidence booster for tree/glade skiing in the PC area, why would you go lower than 88 or 90 (or even a bit more)? There is some hugely approachable tree/glade skiing at DV, PCMR, and the Canyons. And yeah, you can do it on skinnier skis. And yeah, some really fine skiers prefer them. But why make someone looking for a confidence boost work extra hard when you can make life easier for them - and on such nice and relatively uncrowded terrain to boot? And just to be clear - I'm not pitching a super-stiff crud buster...just don't fall into the "too little" ski trap either.