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.
(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)