I don't believe you read any of the linked sources; I believe you skimmed until you found the first thing you could attack.

Then explain why I referenced multiple things from your own articles found at the middle and ends of them? Also, I am already familiar with many of these kinds of papers being proffered by people on your side claiming them as gospel. But that's a neat trick to avoid actually responding to criticism.

You really think that it is not indicative of misogyny that the trait most highly valued in women is attractiveness? Really?

Actually, it's the trait most valued in men and women. Women just tend to think they value other things more. Look up research on this relating to the "tyranny of attractiveness", and research by Elaine Hatfield. In actual dating simulations and interactions, the stated preferences of men and women regarding personality, wealth, etc, were entirely irrelevant. The single sole factor that best predicted how anyone was treated was their physical attractiveness. Other research in that same arena shows your own skill doesn't matter either, in terms of income in a field, but how attractive others rate you (both men and women). I can send you a whole library of papers on these kinds of topics if you are genuinely interested. Sadly, given your dismissal of my criticism, I doubt you are.

But no, I don't think valuing people for different things is sexist. Women are near equally valued for their empathy and kindness, and you focus on the thing you apparently hate most. Geeze, you really hate people finding other people attractive. Apparently.