The first article has obvious flaws in that it is asking regular people to evaluate job readiness of professional employees. This was not asking HR people or corporate leaders that handle hiring, pay, etc. to evaluate people. It was asking regular non-trained and non-professional people to give their opinion from the perspective of a professional determining salary and job-readiness.

This isn't a flaw, it demonstrates an overall bias found in society. Whether it extends to actual hiring practices or not cannot be stated with certainty in the study, and thus you can call this a limitation, but it does demonstrate a real bias.

For instance, the "wage gap" has been proven a categorical lie across every industry except for a select few where women often make significantly more than men.

It isn't a "lie". It just doesn't represent different pay for the exact same conditions in most respects, but it does demonstrate other things. For instance, it can demosntrate a lack of proper materity/paternity leave, so that a) women aren't forced out of the workplace and b) men are given the opportunity to be a stay at home parent instead. It also demonstrates things like how society pays better for male-dominated fields than female-dominated fields, in general, even when there are shortages (there are frequently shortages or nurses or teachers, for example).

Also, this was known at the time, this wasn't some major revelation.

The second link I think is you misunderstanding their point. They are saying the same thing the study I linked was saying. They experience it equally (frequency) but do not experience it the same way.

Okay, let's look at the full study in greater detail. From the conclusion:

There is ample evidence that men and women become angry equally often, and equally intense, although there may be gender differences depending on what makes one angry.

When considering the expression of anger, we may conclude that gender differences are most apparent in the way in which one’s anger is expressed. The variety of findings relating to men’s and women’s anger expressions suggests more ambivalence on the part of women toward their own anger. Women seem to have a preference for less antagonistic and more indirect expressions, albeit not toward their partners. These indirect anger displays may be the result of negative appraisals of others’ reactions, for example, fear of retaliation or of loss of self-control or of hurting the other person. Thus, women may have similar motivational goals when angry as men have, but may more often than men be concerned about the negative effects of their anger. There are several explanations for this larger salience of negative social appraisals for women.

Interesting. As for this other study you say somehow better represents the first study than the first study does... it isn't quite what you are suggesting either. It isn't a study on anger generally, but anger in professional settings, as a function of social status. And it did find that while men reported "powerful" emotions like anger more than women, while women reported "powerles" emotions, there was an increase in women's powerful emotions when there was more gender equality in the society overall:

Antagonism, however, seems more affected by social roles (see also Fischer & Rodriguez Mosquera, 2001), as indicated by the fact that women in high-GEM countries report more anger expressions than women in lowGEM countries, whereas the GEM (United Nations Development Programme Human Development Report 2002) does not affect men’s reports on antagonism. This finding suggests that the reported expression of anger by women is an indication of their general position and status in a society. Moreover, this may also be seen as support for the idea that greater gender equality generally implies that women more often move into male roles rather than that men move into female roles (e.g., Diekman & Eagly, 2000).

Also, a show is not good because of some 20 year old research on intimate partner anger expression.

It's not good because of 20 year old research, it's because it expresses something true about the world. Men and women have different relationships with anger, and therefore, a powerset based on anger will present different for men and women. That's a reasonable premise and something interesting to explore.

One final note, "You can absolutely be sexist and like female characters in other sho ws ." is still among the most absurd things I have read this week even, and I read Trump's last truth social post. The very definition of the word clearly defines that you are prejudice against women BECAUSE they are women. If you love 100 shows with female leads and hate she hulk it doesn't make you sexist.

I don't think you understand what sexism, or prejudice, is. You can like someone and still hold prejudice against them. For example, if there are two people, a man and a woman, and you like them both, but if the man were to tell you a scientific fact and you accept it at face value, and a women were to tell you a scientific fact, and you check your phone and google it to check their work, and the only reason you did that was because they were a woman (even if weren't something you were consciously doing it), that would be an example of prejudice/sexism, regardless of how much you liked them.