FWIW, it has also been shown that women are okay accepting lower salaries and are less likely to ask for raises (i.e. less aggressive at trying to get better wages and such). This is not to say that I think that sexism doesnt exist, but rather that your 'evidence' is potentially misleading/false.
It's also been shown that when they do ask for higher salaries or raises, they are perceived in a negative light whereas men who do so are perceived in a positive light.
So they don't ask because if they did it would harm them.
This is not true, women tend to do better when they do negotiate: "However, when we explicitly mention the possibility that wages are negotiable, this difference disappears, and even tends to reverse"[1].
It's also been shown that when they do ask for higher salaries or raises they are perceived in a negative light, whereas men who do so are perceived in a positive light.
So they don't ask because if they did it would harm them.
But if a group of people are constantly offered less (as this evidence shows), then it makes sense that that group will ask for less. The lower rate of asking for raises could be caused by the same sexism at play.
(You include evidence in quotes, to imply it's not real evidence. You can see the paper there, what's wrong with the evidence? If you don't want to accept the evidence just because you dislike what it tells us about the world, you are not a scientist)
Your point is that being constantly offered less and not asking for more is a chicken and egg problem. Even so, you cannot tell which created the other, hence my pointing out that the "evidence" is flawed.
> If you don't want to accept the evidence just because you dislike what it tells us about the world, you are not a scientist
Further, please avoid ad hominem attacks, it is unprofessional and does not further your point.
