I’m not sure why you’d assume that the field people choose is not related to sexism, or why seniority is not related to sexism. Maybe they aren’t (I don’t know the data either way), but this specific article provides data that shows even when a field is dominated by women at the undergraduate level, it is still dominated by men at the tenured professor level, who make sexist decisions at various points in the pipeline.
Each of your controls could easily be explained by sexism.
Seniority: if men are given promotions when their work was the same quality as women who were passed over, that’s sexism.
Hours worked: if men are given full time employment, women part time, even when both want full time, that’s sexism.
Field and specific profession: if women are encouraged by the exact same mentors to choose different fields, despite having the same credentials as men, that’s sexism.
I’m not saying these factors are the result of sexism, but it’s a bit weird to assume it is, while having data in the original article that indicates all of the above, at least in academic professions, are significantly affected by sexism.
Each of your controls could easily be explained by sexism.
Seniority: if men are given promotions when their work was the same quality as women who were passed over, that’s sexism.
Hours worked: if men are given full time employment, women part time, even when both want full time, that’s sexism.
Field and specific profession: if women are encouraged by the exact same mentors to choose different fields, despite having the same credentials as men, that’s sexism.
I’m not saying these factors are the result of sexism, but it’s a bit weird to assume it is, while having data in the original article that indicates all of the above, at least in academic professions, are significantly affected by sexism.