I actually read these, so prepare for some lengthy criticism of why I do not accept your interpretations.

Eaton & Saunders et al deliberately sent weak CVs with ambiguous "obvious drawbacks" (as stated in the paper), with a low sample size. Additionally, several other studies noted in the very same paper under "limitations" (Ceci & Williams 2015, NRC 2009), all found high preference for women in the departments studied. The difference being these other studies sent normal or promising CV's, whereas the study you linked sent deliberately sabotaged CV's. Indicating that, when women have normal credentials, they are HEAVILY preferred over men. When men and women have bad credentials, men are slightly preferred. The preference for women is far greater than the preference for male candidates comparing the two. This study does not demonstrate "pervasive sexism preferences" in hiring, it demonstrates a slight male preference on the basis of names (a dubious instrumentation as it is) if and only if the CV's are bad.

Moss-Racusin & Dovidio et al is an even funnier case, being also an extremely tiny sample (n = 127) while also finding both men and women in the test case ranked women as less desirable hires. Also, again, much larger studies of normal randomized CV's as previously mentioned have found no effect. To contradict this further, here's a literature overview: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/201906/are-scientists-biased-against-women-scientists-part-ii - The majority of studies find either no bias, or bias favoring women.

As an important break here, sample size, randomization, and other statistical considerations, are very important. Without doing it properly, you can effectively get whatever result you want. Compare with what was found in STEM tenure track, revealing a 2:1 preference: https://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360

Concerning article 3, I will simply re-emphasize this retort: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/201906/are-scientists-biased-against-women-scientists-part-ii - Most studies, with larger samples than any you cited, find no bias, or a bias favoring women.

Regarding "American Progress", women also prefer and more voluntarily take up that lion's share of care. As they do in almost every other species. I fail to see, and your link spamming does not, indicate why this is an issue, when women choose voluntarily to do so. Decisions have costs, and people weigh those costs to get what they want. You cannot, as it were, "have your cake and eat it too". Frankly this dismisses the rest of the articles on that same point, sofar as I could find. If you consider "sexism" as "Not being able to do everything all at once with no tradeoffs", we have bigger issues. Your point 2 is just... I don't even know.

Abortion issues are ethical ones that women vote differently on, as do men. Calling differences of opinion "misogyny" because it doesn't go your way is just a slur, and not in support anything related to feminism. Your point 3 is kind of irrelevant.

Pertaining to self image and relative attractiveness, everybody gauges their own attractiveness relative to those around them. The conclusions you draw from that single tiny sample study on teenage girls is, frankly, ridiculous. Teenagers in particular are most vulnerable to this due to heightened degrees of narcissism, and this declines into adulthood. Should we throw acid at all the pretty people so nobody feels bad? This does not support point 4

Regarding the Pew poll, soooo what? Men and women are not interchangeable and are different. What people would want out of men or women is obviously also going to be different. I don't get what you think this proves.

In summary - I do not think any of your points are supported reliably by evidence, nor do I think they exclusively pertain to women or in any way reinforce some central point of "feminism".