In general men tend to be bigger risk takers than women in life and in there careers. Riskier jobs tend to be better compensated in good times but they also tend to disappear during bad times. Women who have chosen less risky careers or positions will not get payed as much when the economy is doing well but they will keep there jobs when the economy goes south. This could partially explain why women are not compensated as highly even in the same jobs as men. It would be interesting to see if women in the same jobs as men are not being laid off in as great amounts. Women could do the same job as a man but do it in a more risk averse way. This could lead to lower pay but a better job security.

Inquisitor, there's some truth to your assessment. But, also, women hold more of the jobs that cannot be sent overseas -- nursing home worker, restaurant server, primary school teacher, etc. These tend to be lower paid (pink ghetto) work. Higher paid, blue-collar jobs are easier to outsource. Thus, the men get the pink-slip, and the women continue to have low-paying service sector jobs. Some of this may be related to the risk-averse nature of women, but some of it is also just related to the types of jobs that are disappearing and who generally works in them.

I think that your analysis is correct. It is difficult to figure out why women pursue one industry while men pursue another. There is no doubt a good chance that men are pursuing jobs that have traditionally been man jobs while women pursue traditional women jobs. I think that the risk component is one factor and it is interesting to me because it show that the lower wages that women receive are actually much more valuable on a risk adjusted basis.

I think that there are a number of interrelated reasons that women pursue service industry jobs (generally) and men pursue manufacturing/construction industry jobs (generally). Women cycle in and out of the workforce, which is easier to do with service positions. Those are industries with high expected turnover. Women often seek part-time work, which tends to be significantly lower-paid (you don't make 1/2 what you would make for full-time work, it's more like 35%). Service industry work tends to be intellectually undemanding, which means that little training is required to get an employee up to speed. This makes high-turnover acceptable.

Men have tended to gravitate to union/guild types of positions where seniority is rewarded, and which are more intellectually demanding. It is more demanding to work on a factory floor than in a nursery school. There are training costs that make worker retention more important and high turnover less acceptable. This works better with individuals pursuing a linear career path. In addition, there are certain jobs (law enforcement/fire fighting/military) that have a level of danger involved, and which also have legitimate (and, occasionally, illegitimate) physical requirements that are more easily met by men. Fortunately for the men (and some women) in these jobs, they are high paid and cannot be outsourced.

Finally, you'll notice that I have left professional positions out of the mix. That's because those positions are increasingly being held by women. I believe that, presently, higher percentage of women than men graduation from medical school and law school. These are highly paid positions that are actually quite amenable to a non-linear career path.